“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.â€
Albert Einstein
How trusting are you?
Here is a quick quiz to test your level of trust:
1. I usually count the number of items in another person’s cart when I stand in the 10 item or less express lane at the grocery market.
True or False
2. I usually remove my automatic garage opener from my car when I valet park.
True or False
3. I always double check my bill at restaurants when it is given to me.
True or False
4. I always cut up and discard old credit cards after they have expired.
True or False
5. When colleagues at meetings are text messaging, I often think they are writing about me.
True and False
You probably want a scoring key right? In fact, you probably trusted me to provide you with some interpretation of how trusting you really are based on these questions. OK, your scores range from gulible to paranoid (if you also heard voices while taking this trust quiz please don’t contact me).
Trust involves numerous aspects of our daily lives, from work interactions, business dealings and interpersonal interactions with family and friends. Exactly why we trust some in certain instances but not others is really not understood very well. Surveys of trustworthiness show enormous differences across countries, from 3% in Brazil to 65% in Scandanavian countries such as Norway.
We trust leaders who create a compelling vision of a better future. We also tend to trust cult leaders, sociopaths and executives who seem to ultimately lack a moral compass. Why do some leaders play better with others?
Could there be a biological basis for trust?
In some absolutely fascinating research headed by Dr. Paul Zak who is founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies and Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University these questions are being asked — and answered ((Zak,P., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. (2005). HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR. 48, 522 – 527)).
Zak has designed a series of studies to explore why some people are indeed more collaborative, cooperative and trusting of others. In his studies trust and trustworthiness are measured using a sequential anonymous “trust game” with monetary payoffs between participants. In his first set of studies Zak demonstrated that participants who were most interpersonal trusting had a significantly higher level of a pro-social peptide in their blood called oxytocin (the same hormone associated with the “tend and befriend” stress effect I wrote about in an earlier blog).
This is a wild finding but nothing compared to his second round of studies where he provided extraneous oxytocin to one group using nasal spray of the peptide (and verified through blood tests that it was indeed elevated) and a placebo to another group and had them repeat the “trust game.” In this study, the group with elevated oxytocin levels demonstrated signifcantly higher levels of collaboration compared to the placebo controls ((Zak,P., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. (2004). The Neurobiology of Trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1032: 224-227 (2004). doi: 10.1196/annals.1314.025 Copyright © 2004 by the New York Academy of Sciences 7)).
In the study, the participants were paired up, and one person in each pair was randomly assigned to play the role of an “investor” and the other to play the role of a “trustee.” Each participant received 12 tokens, valued at 32 cents each and redeemable at the end of the study.
The investor in each pair decided how many tokens to give to the trustee. Both participants, sitting face to face, knew that the experimenters would quadruple that investment. The trustee then determined whether to keep the entire, enhanced pot or give some portion of the proceeds —- whatever amount seemed fair back to the investor.
Among the investors who had inhaled oxytocin, about 50% gave all their tokens to trustees, and most of the rest contributed a majority of their tokens. In contrast, only 20% of investors who had inhaled a placebo spray gave up all their tokens. Oxytocin influenced only investors. Trustees returned comparable amounts of money after inhaling either spray.
We are collaborating with Paul in a new study exploring trust and resilience using a specific scale from our StressScan assessment called Cognitive Hardiness. This scale measures leaaders who perceive change as a challenge rather than a threat, feel a sense of control over the outcomes of their actions, have high self-esteem and are socially oriented. I will let you know in a future post what we learn.
For now, if I could find a way to create a cologne that emotionally incompetent leaders would smell, organizations might not only run with a lot less conflict but we might even enjoy working with those competent jerks a whole lot more….Be well….
[tags]pro-social peptide, trust, oxytocin, neurobiology of trust,immune system, health promotion programs, employee wellness, stress management, psychoneuroimmunology, collaboration, team work, neuroeconomics, altruism, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack[/tags]
Ken Nowack
Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY13758) and President & Chief Research Officer/Co-Founder of Envisia Learning, is a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Ken also serves as the Associate Editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. His recent book Clueless: Coaching People Who Just Don’t Get It is available for free for a limited time by signing up for free blog updates (Learn more at our website)
