In one experiment involving a game widely used to study decisions to trust, an experimenter made it a point, while describing the task, to ever so lightly touch the backs of individuals as they were about to play the game.
People who received a quick and unobtrusive touch were more likely to cooperate with, rather than compete against, their partner. So what does all this research add up to? In fact, in many ways, trust is our default position; we trust routinely, reflexively, and somewhat mindlessly across a broad range of social situations.
We are no more likely to ask ourselves how trusting we are at any given moment than to inquire if gravity is still keeping the planets in orbit. Much of the time this predisposition serves us well.
Indeed, a lot of research confirms it. Our exquisitely adapted, cue-driven brains may help us forge trust connections in the first place, but they also make us vulnerable to exploitation.
In particular, our tendency to judge trustworthiness on the basis of physical similarities and other surface cues can prove disastrous when combined with the way we process information. One tendency that skews our judgment is our proclivity to see what we want to see. Psychologists call this the confirmation bias. Because of it we pay more attention to, and overweight in importance, evidence supporting our hypotheses about the world, while downplaying or discounting discrepancies or evidence to the contrary.
In one laboratory game I conducted, individuals who were primed to expect a possible abuse of trust looked more carefully for signs of untrustworthy behavior from prospective partners. These stereotypes reflect often false beliefs that correlate observable cues facial characteristics, age, gender, race, and so on with underlying psychological traits honesty, reliability, likability, or trustworthiness.
Most of the time our implicit personality theories are pretty harmless; they simply help us categorize people more quickly and render social judgments more swiftly.
To make matters worse, people tend to think their own judgment is better than average—including their judgment about whom to trust. This inflated sense of our own judgment makes us vulnerable to people who can fake outward signs of trustworthiness.
We often rely on trusted third parties to verify the character or reliability of other people. In such situations, trust becomes, quite literally, transitive. Unfortunately, as the Bernie Madoff case illustrates, transitive trust can lull people into a false sense of security. The evidence suggests that Madoff was a master at cultivating and exploiting social connections. One of his hunting grounds was the Orthodox Jewish community, a tight-knit social group.
The biases described thus far contribute to errors in deciding whom to trust. Unfortunately, the wiring in our brains can also hinder our ability to make good decisions about how much risk to assume in our relationships. In particular, researchers have identified two cognitive illusions that increase our propensity to trust too readily, too much, and for too long. The first illusion causes us to underestimate the likelihood that bad things will happen to us. Thus, although we know intellectually that street crime is a major problem in most cities, we underestimate the chances that we will become victims of it.
The second and closely related illusion is unrealistic optimism. Numerous studies have shown that people often overestimate the likelihood that good things will happen to them—that they will marry well, have a successful career, live a long life, and so on. Even when people are given accurate information regarding the true odds of such outcomes, they still tend to think they will do better than average.
Unfortunately for us, virtually any indicator of trustworthiness can be manipulated or faked. A number of studies indicate that detecting the cheaters among us is not as easy as one might think. I have been studying deceptive behavior in my lab experiments—and teach about it in my business school courses on power and negotiation.
I tell them to draw freely on all their intuitive theories regarding behaviors that signal trustworthiness. So what do these short-term sociopaths say and do?
Women mention touching as a strategy more than men do and, in their post-exercise debriefs, also report using it more than men do. Their efforts turn out to be pretty successful. If we are to harvest its genuine benefits, we need to trust more prudently. The shadow of doubt lingers over every decision to trust.
That said, there is much that you can do to reduce the doubt—in particular, by adjusting your mind-set and behavioral habits. Here are some preliminary rules for tempering trust. But you can do a lot to reduce that doubt.
People generally fall into one of two buckets when it comes to their disposition toward trust. Some trust too much and too readily. They tend to take an overly rosy view, assuming that most people are decent and would never harm them. Thus they disclose personal secrets too early in relationships or share sensitive information in the workplace too indiscriminately, before prudent, incremental foundations of trust have been laid.
Their overly trusting behavior sets them up for potential grief. In the other bucket are people who are too mistrustful when venturing into relationships. They may make fewer mistakes than their more trusting counterparts do, but they have fewer positive experiences because they keep others at a distance.
The first rule, therefore, is to figure out which of the buckets you fall into , because that will determine what you need to work on. Trust entails risk. But you can keep the risks sensible—and sensible means small , especially in the early phases of a relationship.
Social psychologist David Messick and I coined the term shallow trust to describe the kinds of small but productive behaviors through which we can communicate our own willingness to trust. A good example of this is a gesture made by Hewlett-Packard in the s.
That sent a strong message that the employees taking it off-site could be trusted. The fact that the equipment was subsequently returned validated that trust and, over time, cemented it.
Imaginative acts of trust of this sort breed trustworthiness in return. Salting your world with lots of small trusting acts sends a signal to others who are themselves interested in building good relationships, and decades of research by social psychologist Svenn Lindskold and others have proved that it leads to more positive interactions.
By taking turns with gradually increasing risks, you build a strong and tempered trust with the other person. In our study of trust dynamics in high-stakes situations, Debra Meyerson, Karl Weick, and I found that if people have a clearly articulated plan for disengagement, they can engage more fully and with more commitment. Yet, paradoxically, hedges allow everyone in an organization to trust more easily and comfortably—and even to take larger risks.
Because I know your dependence on me is hedged a bit you have a good backup plan , I have more breathing room as well. All of us know the system will survive the occasional, unavoidable mistakes that permeate any complex organization or social system. A study I did of novice screenwriters trying to break into the entertainment industry, a domain where betrayals of trust are commonplace, provides a good example of how this works. To get a chance to develop their original ideas for movies or television shows, screenwriters first have to pitch them to agents, independent producers, and studio executives.
In , Buchwald sued Paramount, claiming the idea was his, and won. One way to hedge the risk is to write up the treatment and register it first with the Writers Guild of America , which prevents others from claiming it as their own.
A second important hedge in Hollywood is to have an agent who can pitch the idea so widely that its authorship becomes well known. Some people naturally excel at building trust. The opposite is also true. A low-trust work environment can be stressful for everyone involved. Building trust in teams from the beginning and maintaining it is crucial.
Once your credibility starts to slip, people may see you as less reliable. Since people are unlikely to befriend untrustworthy people, your perception at work may continue to fall. Especially now, with more people working from home as part of a virtual team, trust is more important than ever. A remote team must have a high level of trust. When we talk about building trust, there are actually two distinct types of trust that you should know about.
These types of trust are developed in different ways. Both are important and work together synergistically. This is the more traditional type of trust, and the one that usually first comes to mind when thinking about how to trust someone. You earn this kind of trust by being a hard-working employee. You show up on time. You get your work done and meet deadlines. Without this kind of trust, people will micromanage you. Communication can break down, and productivity will decrease.
Keep in mind: employers building trust with their staff is just as important as the other way around. People are less likely to be aware of this type of trust.
It requires a level of emotional intelligence. Successful leaders tend to have higher levels of emotional intelligence, so this is definitely a good skill to start developing. You treated each other with respect. And you felt comfortable sharing ideas, thoughts, and feelings that you may not have expressed with other coworkers.
Take Netflix, for example. We would argue this is because Netflix hires with inclusivity and integrity in mind. Their employees work in a high-trust environment. They are also given more decision-making and information-sharing freedom. Learning how to build trust in the workplace and anywhere else is necessary if you want to create lasting relationships. In romantic relationships, a lack of trust is one of the primary reasons for divorce. Learning how to trust someone again can be difficult after such a situation.
In the workplace, Millennials are 22x more likely to work for a company with a high trust culture. You want to create an environment where people feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and helping each other out.
To have a sense of well-being and good mental health, we need to know that other people understand us and have our best interests at heart. This comes with having high levels of trust. Being trustworthy also makes you more likable. It makes you more likely to get promoted or be positively recommended by colleagues.
It unlocks potential for new or faster growth within your company. Companies with high-trust workplace cultures perform nearly 2x better than the general market in terms of earnings.
They avoid rumors because they know that rumors usually include negativity that tears people down instead of building them up. When they do talk, their language is empowering and respectful.
Individuals who are worth your trust know they don't have all the answers. They look for ways to learn and improve themselves constantly, and through that process, they're willing to share the resources and facts they find.
Both these elements show that the other person sees you as important. They want you to be part of their regular social group and meet the people you need to succeed. Others can affirm or contradict what you know about the individual, too.
Subsequently, the more people the individual introduces you to, the more likely it is that they're not hiding who they are. Trustworthy people will listen to and support you even when they don't need something from you.
They do their best to be available to help, whatever you might be going through. Top Stories. Top Videos. Getty Images. These 15 signs are dead giveaways that you're dealing with a keeper:. You know who they're connected to, and they try to connect you. Sponsored Business Content.
0コメント