Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:23:07.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aversions to Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Anne Corcos ,
François Pannequin  and
Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde
Anne Corcos
Affiliation:
Université de Picardie & LEM-Université de Paris 2
François Pannequin
Affiliation:
École Normale Supérieure de Cachan & Centre d'Économie de la Sorbonne
Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde
Affiliation:
LEM-Université Paris-2 (Panthéon-Assas)
Get access

Summary

In this article, we focus on two types of “aversion” which we deem essential aspects of the notion of trust: betrayal aversion (social) and ambiguity aversion (a special case of aversion to uncertainty). Based on trust-games studies in experimental economics and neuroeconomics, our main goal is to assess the conceptual, behavioral and neurobiological connections between betrayal and ambiguity aversions.

From a social and individual psychological point of view the bottom line of our trusting behavior could be our general aversion to ambiguous signals. We approach social trust in the terms of a phenomenon based on uncertainty aversion. Specifically, a reduction of the perceived uncertainty of a social interaction tends to build up a trusting climate conducive to trade by decreasing betrayal aversion. We hypothesize that betrayal aversion and ambiguity aversion bear such a negative correlation.

Focusing on this potential negative correlation our approach clearly differs from more positive accounts of trust centred on altruism.

Cet article met l'accent sur deux types d'aversion qui nous paraissent fondamentales dans la compréhension de la notion de confiance: l'aversion à la trahison (sociale) et l'aversion à l'ambiguïté (une catégorie particulière d'aversion à l'incertitude). À partir des études d'économie expérimentales et de neuroéconomie fondées sur le jeu de confiance, notre objectif vise principalement à évaluer les liens - d'ordres conceptuel, comportemental et neurobiologique - entre l'aversion à la trahison et l'aversion à l'ambiguïté.

D'un point de vue psychologique individuel ou social, il semble bien que l'aversion générale vis-à-vis des signaux ambigus pourrait constituer le principal déterminant du comportement de confiance. Il s'agit de voir en quoi la confiance sociale apparaît comme un phénomène fondé sur l'aversion à l'incertitude. Plus précisément, selon notre approche, une réduction de l'incertitude ressentie pour l'interaction sociale favoriserait un climat de confiance propice à l'échange, en réduisant l'aversion à la trahison. Ainsi, tant l'aversion à la trahison que l'aversion à l'ambiguïté s'avèrent négativement corrélées avec la confiance.

En se focalisant sur cette corrélation négative potentielle, notre approche se démarque nettement des approches de la confiance axées sur la notion d'altruisme

Keywords

trust gamebetrayal aversionambiguity aversionneuroeconomicsC72C91D03D87jeu de la confianceaversion à la trahison, aversion à l'ambigüiténeuroéconomieC72C91D03D87
Type
II) Behaviorial Economics under the Scanner
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 78 , Issue 3-4 , December 2012 , pp. 115 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adolphs, R., and Spezio, M.L., (2006). Role of the amygdale in processing visual social stimuli. Progress in Brain Research, 156, 363–378.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A. Fischbacher, U., and Fehr, E. (2010). Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron, 58, 639–650.Google Scholar
Becker, G., Degroot, M., and Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioural Science, 9, 226–232.Google Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 122–142.Google Scholar
Bohnet, I. and Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 55, 467–484.Google Scholar
Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2012). Ellsberg and Allais in the brain – what's next in the neurobiology of decision-theoretical paradoxes? in Watanabe, S. (ed) Logic and Sensibility, Keio University Press.Google Scholar
Bourgeois-Gironde, S. and Coreos, A. (2011). Discriminating strategic reciprocity and acquired trust in repeated trust-game, Economics Bulletin. 31, 177–188.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. and Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.Google Scholar
Camille, N., Coricelli, G., Saliet, J., Pradat-Diehl, P., Duhamel, J.R., and Sirigu, A. (2004). The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science. 304, 1167–1170.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, S. and Roy, J. (2009). Recursive Expected Utility and the Separation of Attitudes towards Risk and Ambiguity: An Experimental Study. Theory and Decision, 66, 1999–228.Google Scholar
Critchley, H., Mathias, C., and Dolan, R. (2001). Neural Activity in the Human Brain Relating to Uncertainty and Arousal During Anticipation, Neuron, 29, 537–545.Google Scholar
Coreos, A., Pannequin, F., Bourgeois-Gironde, S., (2012). Is trust an ambiguous rather than a risky decision? Economics Bulletin, 32(3), 2255–2266.Google Scholar
Cox, J. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260–281.Google Scholar
Decety, J. and Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: Imagining one's own and other's behavior. Brain Research. 1070, 4–14.Google Scholar
De Dreu, K. (2012). Oxytocin modulates the link between adult attachment and cooperation through reduced betrayal aversion. Psychoneuroendocrinology, in press.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. and Wilson, R. (2004). Is Trust a Risky Decision? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 447–465.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.Google Scholar
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., and Zingales, L. (2008). Trusting the Stock Market. Journal of Finance, 63, 2557–2600.Google Scholar
Holt, C. and Laury, S. (2002). Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.Google Scholar
Houser, D., Shunk, D. and Winter, J. (2010). “Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(1-2), 72–81.Google Scholar
Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. and Camerer, C. (2005). Neural Systems Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in the Human Brain. Science, 310, 1680–1683.Google Scholar
Huettel, S., Stowe, C.J., Gordon, E.M., Warner, B.T. and Platt, M.L., (2006). Neural Signatures of Economic Preferences for Risk and Ambiguity. Neuron, 49, 765–772.Google Scholar
Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, K., and Shehata, M. (2009). The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 368–380.Google Scholar
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York, Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P., Fischbacher, U., and Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.Google Scholar
Levy, I, Snell, J., Nelson, A.J., Rustichini, A., and Glimcher, P. (2010). Neural Representations of Subjective Value Under Risk and Ambiguity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 1036–1047.Google Scholar
Olsen, R.A. (2008). Trust as risk and foundation of investment value. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2189–2200.Google Scholar
Phelp, E., O'Connor, K., Cunningham, W., Funayama, E., Gatenby, J.C, Gore, J., Banaji, M. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729–738.Google Scholar
Schechter, L. (2007). Traditional trust measurement and the risk confound: an experiment in rural Paraguay. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 62, 272–292.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, W., Van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S., and Crone, E. (2009). What Motivates Repayment ? Neural correlates of reciprocity in the trust game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4, 294–304.Google Scholar
Wahlen, P.J. (1998). Fear, vigilance and ambiguity: initial neuroimaging studies of the human amygdale. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 7, 177–188.Google Scholar