CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 432Social and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status DynamicsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

A social identity approach to trust: interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour

Open access
Tanis, Martin, Postmes, Tom·2005·European Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1002/ejsp.256
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Trusting behaviour involves relinquishing control over outcomes valuable to the self. Previous research suggests that interpersonal perceptions of trustworthiness are closely related to this behaviour. The present research suggests that the more proximal determinant of trusting behaviour is the expectation that the other will reciprocate. Based on the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) model, reciprocity expectations may be created by interpersonal perceptions of trustworthiness or a shared group membership. To investigate this, group membership and individual identifiability were experimentally manipulated (N = 139): When individuals were not identifiable, trusting behaviour was based on expectations of reciprocity inferred from group membership, not on perceived trustworthiness. In contrast, personal identifiability fostered perceptions of trustworthiness for both in- and out-group members. In this case interpersonal trustworthiness enhanced expectations of reciprocity, which in turn increased trusting behaviour. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.256

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • We judge ingroup members as more likable, knowledgeable, and trustworthy than outgroup members.

    “we judge ingroup members as more likable, knowledgeable, and trustworthy than outgroup members (Tanis and Postmes, 2005; Foddy et al., 2009).”

    From A Social Identity Analysis of Climate Change and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Insights and Opportunities (2016) · cites this paper as Tanis and Postmes, 2005

    The Perceived Trustworthiness results report that the partner’s group membership had no statistically significant effect on perceived trustworthiness. The Discussion likewise says participants showed more trusting behaviour toward ingroup members in the no-cues conditions, but did not perceive them as more trustworthy. The cited passages do not establish the claimed comparisons for likability or knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Martin Tanis and Tom Postmes Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 413-424 (2005)
  2. Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer, & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences (pp. 214-231). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Cook, K. S. (Ed.). (2001). Trust in society. New York: Russel Sage foundation.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tanis, M., & Postmes, T.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Tanis, Martin
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
413-424
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
DOI
10.1002/ejsp.256
OpenAlex
W2152443650
Cited by
431
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
26.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3895 d)
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
trust, social identity, perceived trustworthiness, group membership, in-group and out-group, interpersonal perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review