The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
  Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
    • Author-Supplied Keywords:
      Applied mathematics
      Behavior
      Biology and life sciences
      Classical mechanics
      Cognition
      Cognitive psychology
      Cognitive science
      Decision making
      Emotions
      Game theory
      High pressure
      Mathematics
      Neuroscience
      Physical sciences
      Physics
      Pressure
      Psychology
      Public goods game
      Reflection
      Research Article
      Social sciences
    • NAICS/Industry Codes:
      624190 Other Individual and Family Services
    • Abstract:
      According to the social heuristics hypothesis, people intuitively cooperate or defect depending on which behavior is beneficial in their interactions. If cooperation is beneficial, people intuitively cooperate, but if defection is beneficial, they intuitively defect. However, deliberation promotes defection. Here, we tested two novel predictions regarding the role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis. First, whether trust promotes intuitive cooperation. Second, whether preferring to think intuitively or deliberatively moderates the effect of trust on cooperation. In addition, we examined whether deciding intuitively promotes cooperation, compared to deciding deliberatively. To evaluate these predictions, we conducted a lab study in Colombia and an online study in the United Kingdom (N = 1,066; one study was pre-registered). Unexpectedly, higher trust failed to promote intuitive cooperation, though higher trust promoted cooperation. In addition, preferring to think intuitively or deliberatively failed to moderate the effect of trust on cooperation, although preferring to think intuitively increased cooperation. Moreover, deciding intuitively failed to promote cooperation, and equivalence testing confirmed that this null result was explained by the absence of an effect, rather than a lack of statistical power (equivalence bounds: d = -0.26 and 0.26). An intuitive cooperation effect emerged when non-compliant participants were excluded, but this effect could be due to selection biases. Taken together, most results failed to support the social heuristics hypothesis. We conclude by discussing implications, future directions, and limitations. The materials, data, and code are available on the Open Science Framework (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of PLoS ONE is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
    • Author Affiliations:
      1Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America
      2Department of Psychology, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
    • ISSN:
      1932-6203
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0216329
    • Accession Number:
      136395782
  • Citations
    • ABNT:
      MONTEALEGRE, A.; JIMENEZ-LEAL, W. The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis. PLoS ONE, [s. l.], v. 14, n. 5, p. 1–16, 2019. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 18 set. 2019.
    • AMA:
      Montealegre A, Jimenez-Leal W. The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(5):1-16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.
    • APA:
      Montealegre, A., & Jimenez-Leal, W. (2019). The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis. PLoS ONE, 14(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216329
    • Chicago/Turabian: Author-Date:
      Montealegre, Andres, and William Jimenez-Leal. 2019. “The Role of Trust in the Social Heuristics Hypothesis.” PLoS ONE 14 (5): 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.
    • Harvard:
      Montealegre, A. and Jimenez-Leal, W. (2019) ‘The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis’, PLoS ONE, 14(5), pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.
    • Harvard: Australian:
      Montealegre, A & Jimenez-Leal, W 2019, ‘The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis’, PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1–16, viewed 18 September 2019, .
    • MLA:
      Montealegre, Andres, and William Jimenez-Leal. “The Role of Trust in the Social Heuristics Hypothesis.” PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 5, May 2019, pp. 1–16. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.
    • Chicago/Turabian: Humanities:
      Montealegre, Andres, and William Jimenez-Leal. “The Role of Trust in the Social Heuristics Hypothesis.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 5 (May 10, 2019): 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216329.
    • Vancouver/ICMJE:
      Montealegre A, Jimenez-Leal W. The role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2019 May 10 [cited 2019 Sep 18];14(5):1–16. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=asn&AN=136395782&custid=s8280428