Homo economicus belief inhibits trust.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xin Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3797687 | biostudies-literature | 2013
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
As a foundational concept in economics, the homo economicus assumption regards humans as rational and self-interested actors. In contrast, trust requires individuals to believe partners' benevolence and unselfishness. Thus, the homo economicus belief may inhibit trust. The present three experiments demonstrated that the direct exposure to homo economicus belief can weaken trust. And economic situations like profit calculation can also activate individuals' homo economicus belief and inhibit thei ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In one exploratory study (N = 985) and one preregistered study (N = 1100), we investigated whether trust in science influences belief change on a medico-scientific issue when laypersons are confronted with scientific evidence. Moreover, we tested whether individuals with high trust in science trust science "blindly," meaning that their trust in a scientific claim's source prevents them from adequately evaluating the claim itself. Participants read eight fictitious studies on the efficacy of acupuncture, which were experimentally manipulated regarding direction (evidence favoring acupuncture vs diverging evidence) and quality (high vs low; only Study 2). Acupuncture-related beliefs were measured before and after reading. Moderator and mediator analyses showed that the magnitude of belief change indeed depends on trust in science. Furthermore, we found that people with high trust in science are better able to evaluate the quality of scientific studies, which, in turn, protects them from being influenced by low-quality evidence.
| S-EPMC10958746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Electoral misinformation, where citizens believe false or misleading claims about the electoral process and electoral institutions-sometimes actively and strategically spread by political actors-is a challenge to public confidence in elections specifically and democracy more broadly. In this article, we analyze a combination of 42 million clicks in links and apps from behavioral tracking data of 2,200 internet users and a four-wave panel survey to investigate how different kinds of online news and media use relate to beliefs in electoral misinformation during a contentious political period-the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections. We find that, controlling for other factors, using news from legacy news media is associated with belief in fewer claims of electoral misinformation over time. We find null or inconsistent effects for using digital-born news media and various digital platforms, including Facebook and WhatsApp. Furthermore, we find that trust in news plays a significant role as a moderator. Belief in electoral misinformation, in turn, undermines trust in news. Overall, our findings document the important role of the news media as an institution in curbing electoral misinformation, even as they also underline the precarity of trust in news during contentious political periods.
| S-EPMC11300038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Not everyone perceives the communication of uncertainty about scientific evidence as equally trustworthy. We examine whether these differences in trust can be explained by people's prior beliefs-specifically, the consistency between those beliefs and the evidence presented. We hypothesize that the more consistent the evidence is with people's prior beliefs, the less people will trust both the information and its source when uncertainty is communicated compared with when it is not communicated. Conversely, the less consistent the evidence is with people's prior beliefs, the more people will trust the information and its source when uncertainty is communicated. We tested this crossover interaction in two preregistered online experiments on COVID-19 vaccines (study 1: n = 600) and changes in extreme weather events (study 2: n = 1,001). In both studies, participants rated their prior beliefs on these topics before being randomly assigned to read one of two contrasting evidence conditions, with uncertainty either communicated or not in each condition. The belief-evidence consistency was operationalized by linking people's prior belief scores to the contrasting evidence conditions. We found evidence for our hypothesis for both topics and across people with opposing beliefs. Our results show that people's trust response to the communication of uncertainty depends on how consistent people's beliefs are with the evidence communicated. Furthermore, the effects of uncertainty communication on trust appeared to be independent from its effects on people's subsequent beliefs, with no evidence of polarization in either trust or belief. Implications are discussed.
| S-EPMC11925018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMisinformation surrounding COVID-19 poses a global public health problem that adversely affects governments' abilities to mitigate the disease and causes accidental deaths and self-harm due to false beliefs about the virus, prevention measures, vaccines and cures. We aim to examine the relationship between exposure to and trust in COVID-19 news (from Television, social media, interpersonal communication) and information sources (healthcare experts, government, clerics) and belief in COVID-19 myths and false information, as well as critical verification practices before posting on social media.MethodsWe use a cross-sectional researcher-administered phone survey of adults living in Lebanon between March 27 and April 23, 2020.ResultsThe sample included 56.1% men and 43.9% women, 37.9% with a university degree, 63.0% older than 30, and 7% with media literacy training. Those who trust COVID-19 news from social media [95%CI:(1.05-1.52)] and interpersonal communication [95%CI:(1.25-1.82)], and those who trust information from clerics [95%CI:(1.25-1.82)] were more likely to believe in COVID-19 myths and false information. University graduates [95%CI:(0.25-0.51)] and those who trust information from government [95%CI:(0.65-0.89] were less likely to believe in myths and false information. Those who believe in COVID-19 myths and false information [95%CI:(0.25-0.70)] were less likely to engage in critical social media posting practices. Only those who underwent media literacy training [95%CI:(1.24-6.55)] were more likely to engage in critical social media posting practices.ConclusionHigher education and trust in information from government contributed to decreasing belief in COVID-19 myths and false information. Trust in news from social media, interpersonal communication and clerics contributed to increasing belief in COVID-19 myths and false information, which in turn contributed to less critical social media posting practices, thereby exacerbated the infodemic. Media literacy training contributed to increasing critical social media posting practices, thereby played a role in mitigating the infodemic.
| S-EPMC8177444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people's belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic.ObjectiveOur study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19.MethodsThis two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment.ResultsFrom January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the "scientific" profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed.ConclusionsBriefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so.Trial registrationNCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/24383.
| S-EPMC8519341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One's propensity to trust others and others' trustworthiness are two important aspects of interpersonal trust. Both theory and research suggest that it is possible to distinguish between an individual's propensity to trust (one's "trustingness" or the extent to which one feels able to trust others) and their other-focused trust (the extent to which one feels that others are worthy of our trust). However, there is as yet no measure that distinguishes between these two components of trust. In three studies, we examined the psychometrics of a proposed two-dimensional measure of trust that encompasses propensity to trust and other-focused trust components. To test discriminant validity, we also administered measures of personality, personal self-esteem, social capital, propensity to like people, perceived social support, as well as general and personal beliefs in a just world. Factor analyses supported the proposed two-factor model for the new trust measure. Further analyses supported the difference between these measures.
| S-EPMC8353080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper we present a new methodology which, while allowing for anonymous interaction, it also makes possible to compare decisions of cooperating or defecting when playing games within a group, according to whether or not players personally trust each other. The design thus goes beyond standard approaches to the role of trust in fostering cooperation, which is restricted to general trust. It also allows considering the role of the topology of the social network involved may play in the level of cooperation found. The results of this work support the idea that personal trust promotes cooperation beyond the level of general trust. We also found that this effect carries over to the whole group, making it more cohesive, but that higher levels of cohesion rely on a particular topology. As a conclusion, we hypothesize that personal trust is a psychological mechanism evolved to make human social life possible in the small groups our ancestors lived in, and that this mechanism persists and plays a role in sustaining cooperation and social cohesion.
| S-EPMC4140793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trust in the news media received wide scholarly attention for almost a century, which was further boosted as a result of recent developments in the media landscape and changes in how news is made and consumed. Despite that, the conceptualization of trust in the news media is still debated, and its measurement comparability has not yet been established. In this paper, I build up on earlier conceptualizations of trust in the news media, and test three theoretically derived measurement models to determine their cross-cultural equivalence in 28 EU countries. Using Eurobarometer data, I test the validity and comparability of these measurements employing multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. The findings indicate that trust is a unidimensional latent construct, equally interpreted across contexts. People's level of trust in the news media reflects their general attitude to the news stories and reporters in all sources of media they are exposed to. While bifactorial measurements of news media trust, differentiating between legacy and online sources, have some merit in single case-studies, they are non-invariant and therefore non comparable. This means that any cross-population differences found employing them are likely a function of measurement idiosyncrasies or other unknown factors.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43545-022-00534-1.
| S-EPMC9540139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individuals prone to anxiety and depression often report beliefs and make judgements about themselves that are more negative than those reported by others. We use computational modeling of a richly naturalistic task to disentangle the role of negative priors versus negatively biased belief updating and to investigate their association with different dimensions of Internalizing psychopathology. Undergraduate participants first provided profiles for a hypothetical tech internship. They then viewed pairs of other profiles and selected the individual they would prefer to work alongside out of each pair. In a subsequent phase of the experiment, participants made judgments about their relative popularity as hypothetical internship partners both before any feedback and after each of 20 items of feedback revealing whether or not they had been selected as the preferred teammate from a given pairing. Scores on latent factors of general negative affect, anxiety-specific affect and depression-specific affect were estimated using participants' self-report scores on standardized measures of anxiety and depression together with factor loadings from a bifactor analysis conducted previously. Higher scores on the depression-specific factor were linked to more negative prior beliefs but were not associated with differences in belief updating. In contrast, higher scores on the anxiety-specific factor were associated with a negative bias in belief updating but no difference in prior beliefs. These findings indicate that, to at least some extent, distinct processes may impact the formation of belief priors and in-the-moment belief updating and that these processes may be differentially disrupted in depression and anxiety. Future directions for enquiry include examination of the possibility that prior beliefs biases in depression might reflect generalization from prior experiences or global schema whereas belief updating biases in anxiety might be more situationally specific.
| S-EPMC9377597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:I present a possible worlds semantics for a hyperintensional belief revision operator, which reduces the logical idealization of cognitive agents affecting similar operators in doxastic and epistemic logics, as well as in standard AGM belief revision theory. (Revised) belief states are not closed under classical logical consequence; revising by inconsistent information does not perforce lead to trivialization; and revision can be subject to ‘framing effects’: logically or necessarily equivalent contents can lead to different revisions. Such results are obtained without resorting to non-classical logics, or to non-normal or impossible worlds semantics. The framework combines, instead, a standard semantics for propositional S5 with a simple mereology of contents.
| S-EPMC7328294 | biostudies-literature