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
Items 201–207 of 207
Criteria of Choice in Non-Constant-Sum Games
Tyszka, T., & Grzelak, J. L. (1976) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200277602000207 · Cited by 24
Labonne, J., & Chase, R. S. (2010) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.03.022 · Cited by 24
Ethnic-Group Differences in the Relationship of Trusting Attitudes to Cooperative Behavior
Uejio, C. K., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1967) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1967.20.2.563 · Cited by 21
Wolf, S. T., Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., & Wildschut, T. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.479 · Cited by 19
Public commitment making as a structural solution in social dilemmas
Lokhorst, A. M., van Dijk, E., & Staats, H. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.003 · Cited by 16
Pinter, B., & Wildschut, T. (2011) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496411419016 · Cited by 12
Lacy, W. B. (1978) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200277802200204 · Cited by 9
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
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.