The DOI matches its Crossref record; 207 of the 207 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis.
Abstract
Many theories of trust emphasize that trust is most relevant to behavior in situations involving a conflict of interests. However, it is not clear how trust relates to behavior across situations that differ in the degree of conflicting interest: Does trust matter more when the conflict of interest is small or large? According to an interdependence perspective, trust becomes an especially important determinant of behavior in situations involving larger, compared to smaller, degrees of conflicting interests. To examine this perspective, we conducted a meta-analysis involving 212 effect sizes on the relation between trust (both state and dispositional trust in others) and cooperation in social dilemmas-situations that involve varying degrees of conflict between self-interest and collective interest. Results revealed that the positive relation between trust and cooperation is stronger when there is a larger, compared to smaller, degree of conflict. We also examined several other possible moderators of the relation between trust and cooperation. The relation between trust and cooperation was stronger during individual, compared to intergroup, interactions but did not vary as a function of the situation being either a one-shot or repeated interaction. We also find differences across countries in the extent that people condition their own cooperation based on their trust in others. We discuss how the results support an emerging consensus about trust being limited to situations of conflict and address some theoretical and societal implications for our understanding of how and why trust is so important to social interactions and relationships.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Sufrin, S. C., & Olson, M. (1966) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.2307/2521228 · Cited by 11,518
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity
Schneider, P. A., & Fukuyama, F. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251846 · Cited by 10,501
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300555475 · Cited by 7,484
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
Cited by
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126
Self-citationVaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120903408 · Cited by 978
“Individuals are less likely to cooperate in contexts where trust is low, and this is particularly the case in highconflict situations—such as the polarized politics of our times (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013).”
BackgroundPersonality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Self-citationReading people’s minds from emotion expressions in interdependent decision making.
de Melo, C. M., Carnevale, P. J., Read, S. J., & Gratch, J. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034251 · Cited by 260
A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133193 · Cited by 255
Christoforakos, L., Gallucci, A., Surmava-Große, T., Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.640444 · Cited by 154
Current emotion research in social psychology: thinking about emotions and other people.
Parkinson, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015) · Emotion Review · doi:10.1177/1754073915590624 · Cited by 99
Social support and posttraumatic growth: A meta-analysis
Ning, J., Tang, X., Shi, H., Yao, D., Zhao, Z., & Li, J. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.114 · Cited by 91
Learning to trust: trust and attachment in early psychosis
Fett, A.-K. J., Shergill, S. S., Korver-Nieberg, N., Yakub, F., Gromann, P. M., & Krabbendam, L. (2016) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291716000015 · Cited by 69
Kulms, P., & Kopp, S. (2019) · Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019 · doi:10.1145/3340764.3340793 · Cited by 68
The power of pupil size in establishing trust and reciprocity.
Kret, M. E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000508 · Cited by 44
Placebo treatment facilitates social trust and approach behavior
Yan, X., Yong, X., Huang, W., & Ma, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1800779115 · Cited by 39
Task type's effect on attitudes towards voice assistants
Sung, B., Im, H., & Duong, V. C. (2023) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12946 · Cited by 20
Liu, W., Shah, N., Ma, I., & Rosenblau, G. (2024) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13463 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1090-1112
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2136822419
- Cited by
- 659
- References
- 207
- FWCI
- 54.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
