Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Quality & Quantity 1/2016

16-12-2014

Understanding trustworthiness: using response latencies from CATI surveys to learn about the “crucial” variable in trust research

Author: Robert Neumann

Published in: Quality & Quantity | Issue 1/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Research on trustworthiness and trust behavior so far has followed different methodological approaches and has generated conflicting evidence regarding their interrelationships. While several authors follow the definition of trustworthiness as a belief or a formed expectancy by Person A about Person B to do X (usually to reward trust), different hypotheses can be derived regarding its formation, depending on whether one treats trustworthiness as incentive-based or as a propensity or disposition. Additionally, distinct measurement approaches for trustworthiness exist, depending on the mode of data collection. With theoretical claims that trustworthiness represents “the crucial variable” (Hardin in Trust, 2006) for understanding and explaining successful cooperation based on trust, the article proposes the use of para-data in the form of response latency measurement to enhance the understanding of the thought processes behind forming an assessment of trustworthiness. The study uses pooled data from two CATI surveys conducted in Germany in 2012 to test hypotheses on the underlying cognitive process of forming an expectation of trustworthiness by applying the techniques of both response latency measurement and Cox regression models. We find that the applied survey measures of trustworthiness generate inconsistent results regarding the underlying process of forming expectations. Consequences for future research are discussed.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
This conceptualization of trustworthiness has led to an agreement within research on trust and trustworthiness that equates the expectation of trustworthiness with trust (Glaeser et al. 2000; although this may not be entirely warranted, see Hardin 2006, p. 32).
 
2
Freitag and Traunmüller (2009, p. 9) distinguish dispositions from experiences to understand the logic of trust, but they differentiate with regards to the two facets of particularized and generalized trust. We will limit our study to the investigation of trustworthiness as we will not be able to account for trusting behavior during telephone interviews. We return to this point later.
 
3
It appears obvious that the assumption that expected trustworthiness can be equated with trust is misguided, as it ignores the conditions of an action based on trust that is shaped by G and L as well p. Expectancies can be formed without trusting. We cannot elaborate on that further, see Hardin (2006) on these issues.
 
4
We put the player in quotation marks as we did not perform any real experiments or trust games. The respondents in the survey were merely put in two situations resembling their role in games, although there did not exist any dyadic interactions. Respondents answered question from the perspective of “Player A” and “Player B”, or the trustor and the trustee of the traditional trust game, respectively. Details follow in the section on methods and data.
 
5
Obviously, this relates well to the ideas of rational choice theory, where actions are explained by variation of conditions given a set of preferences, levels of information and assumptions about the rationality of actors (Opp 1999).
 
6
Prior experiences are considered a crucial predictor to explain action based on trust (Fehr et al. 2002, p. 540).
 
7
Scholars that appear to have replicated this finding do not speak about trustworthiness but rather about reciprocity, risk aversion or unconditional kindness (Altmann et al. 2008; Ashraf et al. 2006).
 
8
Usually the amount sent is doubled or tripled and the trustee decides about the amount to be sent back. Ashraf, Bohnet, and Piankov (2006, p. 197) go so far to define trustworthiness by this measurement.
 
9
To clarify, we do not accept the proposal “that trust is the expectation about other people’s behavior” and that “both the answers to the WVS-question and the sender’s expectation in a traditional trust game can be used as a measure” for trust (Sapienza et al. 2013, p. 1330). Trust represents an action based on an expectation.
 
10
These efforts go beyond the usual practice of using response time measurement for pretests of questionnaires to detect mode effects or undesired response tendencies (for an overview see Yan and Tourangeau 2008; Dillman et al. 2009).
 
11
See Neumann (2014) for additional validity checks of latency measures.
 
12
We will document results for both valid and invalid measurements as an additional feature to our study.
 
13
As RLD or RDD procedures are not feasible in Germany, the Gabler–Haeder design draws household numbers randomly from pre-generated blocks of entries. For more details, see Gabler and Häder (2002) for Germany and Häder (2012) for Europe.
 
14
This has to be considered rather low with regards to average response rates for telephone interviews in Germany (Häder 2012, pp. 124–125), but Wang et al. (2014) report equally low response rates for the US.
 
15
Three cases were dropped from the sample because of ineligibility due to age.
 
16
Descriptive statistics for the Cox models are generated by applying the stset-command in Stata. These summary statistics can be provided upon request. Note that for all these models, the proportionality assumption holds.
 
17
Cronbach’s \(\alpha \) for the trust index comes in at only 0.63, which has to be considered rather low. To circumvent the low reliability of the trust index, analyses were performed with single answers to the generalized trust item, but results did not change at all. Result can be provided upon request from the authors.
 
18
These findings are not in line with the results in Mulligan et al. (2003, p. 297), who generate similar results for measurements with and without validity coding.
 
19
With respect to the skewed distribution of the dependent variable, we also estimated two-tier regression models via the craggit-command in Stata (Cragg 1971; Burke 2009). Results do not differ in the sense that, for the first stage, answers with the highest level of behavioral trustworthiness were given fast and prior experience mattered, whereas generalized trust could not be considered as a relevant predictor. The coefficients for socio-demographic variables showed consistent results within the first stage model. Same holds for the part of the truncated regression model, although the latency scores lose their predictive power for the remaining levels or reported behavioral trustworthiness (measurements were validated, \(n=239\)). Results are not shown, but can be obtained upon request.
 
20
The results could be criticized regarding the potential confounding effect of generalized trust on the dependent variable of expected trustworthiness. Both variables correlate at 0.22 \((p<0.05, n=569)\), which can be considered rather low. Dropping the generalized trust variable from the model yields the same results, with both indices for the response latencies as the only variables that explain the variation of the responses to the trustworthiness item T2. Results can be provided upon request.
 
21
Notable exemptions exist: For instance, Przepiorka and Diekmann (2013, p. 3) test a model proposed by Posner (1998) by an experimental sequence where the signal of trustworthiness is sent by a trustee prior to the placement of trust by Player A, which conforms to the causal structure of a trust relationship.
 
Literature
go back to reference Altmann, S., Dohmen, T., Wibral, M.: Do the reciprocal trust less? Econ. Lett. 99(3), 454–457 (2008)CrossRef Altmann, S., Dohmen, T., Wibral, M.: Do the reciprocal trust less? Econ. Lett. 99(3), 454–457 (2008)CrossRef
go back to reference Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., Piankov, N.: Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp. Econ. 9(3), 193–208 (2006)CrossRef Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., Piankov, N.: Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp. Econ. 9(3), 193–208 (2006)CrossRef
go back to reference Bassili, J.N.: Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opin. Quart. 57(1), 54–61 (1993)CrossRef Bassili, J.N.: Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opin. Quart. 57(1), 54–61 (1993)CrossRef
go back to reference Bassili, J.N., Krosnick, J.A.: Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 107–132 (2000)CrossRef Bassili, J.N., Krosnick, J.A.: Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 107–132 (2000)CrossRef
go back to reference Becerra, M., Gupta, A.K.: Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: the moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Org. Sci. 14(1), 32–44 (2003)CrossRef Becerra, M., Gupta, A.K.: Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: the moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Org. Sci. 14(1), 32–44 (2003)CrossRef
go back to reference Ben-Ner, A., Halldorsson, F.: Trusting and trustworthiness: what are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. J. Econ. Psychol. 31(1), 64–79 (2010)CrossRef Ben-Ner, A., Halldorsson, F.: Trusting and trustworthiness: what are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. J. Econ. Psychol. 31(1), 64–79 (2010)CrossRef
go back to reference Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10(1), 122–142 (1995)CrossRef Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10(1), 122–142 (1995)CrossRef
go back to reference Beugelsdijk, S.: A note on the theory and measurement of trust in explaining differences in economic growth. Camb. J. Econ. 30, 371–387 (2006)CrossRef Beugelsdijk, S.: A note on the theory and measurement of trust in explaining differences in economic growth. Camb. J. Econ. 30, 371–387 (2006)CrossRef
go back to reference Bicchieri, C.: Norms, preferences, and conditional behavior. Polit. Philos. Econ. 9, 297–313 (2010)CrossRef Bicchieri, C.: Norms, preferences, and conditional behavior. Polit. Philos. Econ. 9, 297–313 (2010)CrossRef
go back to reference Burke, W.J.: Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s tobit alternative using Stata. Stata J. 9(4), 584–592 (2009) Burke, W.J.: Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s tobit alternative using Stata. Stata J. 9(4), 584–592 (2009)
go back to reference Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validity by the mutitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56(2), 81–105 (1959)CrossRef Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validity by the mutitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56(2), 81–105 (1959)CrossRef
go back to reference Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (eds.): Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guileford Press, New York (1999) Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (eds.): Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guileford Press, New York (1999)
go back to reference Charness, G., Haruvy, E., Sonsino, D.: Social distance and reciprocity: an Internet experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 63(1), 88–103 (2007)CrossRef Charness, G., Haruvy, E., Sonsino, D.: Social distance and reciprocity: an Internet experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 63(1), 88–103 (2007)CrossRef
go back to reference Coleman, J.L.: Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1990) Coleman, J.L.: Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1990)
go back to reference Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A.: Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(4), 909–927 (2007)CrossRef Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A.: Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(4), 909–927 (2007)CrossRef
go back to reference Cragg, J.G.: Some Statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5), 829–844 (1971)CrossRef Cragg, J.G.: Some Statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5), 829–844 (1971)CrossRef
go back to reference Delhey, J., Newton, K., Welzel, C.: How general is trust in “most peopleT? Solving the radius of trust problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76(5), 786–807 (2011)CrossRef Delhey, J., Newton, K., Welzel, C.: How general is trust in “most peopleT? Solving the radius of trust problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76(5), 786–807 (2011)CrossRef
go back to reference Dillman, D.A., et al.: Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc. Sci. Res. 38(1), 1–18 (2009)CrossRef Dillman, D.A., et al.: Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc. Sci. Res. 38(1), 1–18 (2009)CrossRef
go back to reference Dufwenberg, M., Gneezy, U.: Measuring beliefs in an experimental lost wallet game. Games Econ. Behav. 30(2), 163–182 (2000)CrossRef Dufwenberg, M., Gneezy, U.: Measuring beliefs in an experimental lost wallet game. Games Econ. Behav. 30(2), 163–182 (2000)CrossRef
go back to reference Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S.: The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth (1993) Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S.: The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth (1993)
go back to reference Engell, A.D., Haxby, J.V., Todorov, A.: Implicit trustworthiness decisions: automatic coding of face properties in the human amygdala. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 19(9), 1508–1519 (2007)CrossRef Engell, A.D., Haxby, J.V., Todorov, A.: Implicit trustworthiness decisions: automatic coding of face properties in the human amygdala. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 19(9), 1508–1519 (2007)CrossRef
go back to reference Esser, H.: The definition of the situation. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48(1), 1–34 (1996) Esser, H.: The definition of the situation. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48(1), 1–34 (1996)
go back to reference Etang, A., Fielding, D., Knowles, S.: Are survey measures of trust correlated with experimental trust? Evidence from Cameroon. J. Dev. Stud. 48(12), 1813–1827 (2012)CrossRef Etang, A., Fielding, D., Knowles, S.: Are survey measures of trust correlated with experimental trust? Evidence from Cameroon. J. Dev. Stud. 48(12), 1813–1827 (2012)CrossRef
go back to reference Faust, M., et al.: Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency. Psychol. Bull. 125(6), 777–799 (1999)CrossRef Faust, M., et al.: Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency. Psychol. Bull. 125(6), 777–799 (1999)CrossRef
go back to reference Fazio, R.H.: A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Hendrick, C., Clark, M.S. (eds.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology—Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 74–97. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990) Fazio, R.H.: A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Hendrick, C., Clark, M.S. (eds.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology—Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 74–97. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)
go back to reference Fazio, R.H., et al.: On the automatic activation of attitudes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50(2), 229–238 (1986)CrossRef Fazio, R.H., et al.: On the automatic activation of attitudes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50(2), 229–238 (1986)CrossRef
go back to reference Fazio, R.H.: Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In: Zanna, M.P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 75–109. Academic Press, San Diego (1990) Fazio, R.H.: Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In: Zanna, M.P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 75–109. Academic Press, San Diego (1990)
go back to reference Fazio, R.H.: Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: Petty, R.E., Krosnick, J.A. (eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 247–282. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995) Fazio, R.H.: Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: Petty, R.E., Krosnick, J.A. (eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 247–282. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)
go back to reference Fehr, E., et al.: A nation-wide laboratory—examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Schmollers Jahrbuch 122(4), 519–542 (2002) Fehr, E., et al.: A nation-wide laboratory—examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Schmollers Jahrbuch 122(4), 519–542 (2002)
go back to reference Freitag, M., Traunmüller, R.: Spheres of trust: an empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 48(6), 782–803 (2009)CrossRef Freitag, M., Traunmüller, R.: Spheres of trust: an empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 48(6), 782–803 (2009)CrossRef
go back to reference Gabler, S., Häder, S.: Telefonstichproben. Methodische Innovationen und Anwendungen in Deutschland, Münster. Waxman Verlag, New York (2002) Gabler, S., Häder, S.: Telefonstichproben. Methodische Innovationen und Anwendungen in Deutschland, Münster. Waxman Verlag, New York (2002)
go back to reference Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge (1988) Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge (1988)
go back to reference Glaeser, E., et al.: Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 115(3), 811–846 (2000)CrossRef Glaeser, E., et al.: Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 115(3), 811–846 (2000)CrossRef
go back to reference Glanville, J.L., Paxton, P.: How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 70(3), 230–242 (2007)CrossRef Glanville, J.L., Paxton, P.: How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 70(3), 230–242 (2007)CrossRef
go back to reference Graeff, P., Svendsen, G.T.: Trust and corruption: the influence of positive and negative social capital on the economic development in the European Union. Qual. Quant. 47(5), 2829–2846 (2013)CrossRef Graeff, P., Svendsen, G.T.: Trust and corruption: the influence of positive and negative social capital on the economic development in the European Union. Qual. Quant. 47(5), 2829–2846 (2013)CrossRef
go back to reference Grant, J.T., Mockabee, S.T., Monson, J.Q.: Campaign effects on the accessibility of party identification. Polit. Res. Quart. 63(4), 811–821 (2010)CrossRef Grant, J.T., Mockabee, S.T., Monson, J.Q.: Campaign effects on the accessibility of party identification. Polit. Res. Quart. 63(4), 811–821 (2010)CrossRef
go back to reference Hardin, R.: Trust. Polity Press, Cambridge (2006) Hardin, R.: Trust. Polity Press, Cambridge (2006)
go back to reference Häder, S.H.: Telephone Surveys in Europe/Research and Practice, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRef Häder, S.H.: Telephone Surveys in Europe/Research and Practice, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRef
go back to reference Holtgraves, T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(2), 161–172 (2004)CrossRef Holtgraves, T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(2), 161–172 (2004)CrossRef
go back to reference Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J.: Political consequences of inconsistency: the accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 57–79 (2000)CrossRef Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J.: Political consequences of inconsistency: the accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 57–79 (2000)CrossRef
go back to reference Kaminska, O., Foulsham, T.: Understanding sources of social desirability bias in different modes: evidence from eye-tracking. ISERWorking Paper Ser. 13, 1–11 (2013) Kaminska, O., Foulsham, T.: Understanding sources of social desirability bias in different modes: evidence from eye-tracking. ISERWorking Paper Ser. 13, 1–11 (2013)
go back to reference Karlan, D.S.: Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 95(5), 1688–1699 (2005)CrossRef Karlan, D.S.: Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 95(5), 1688–1699 (2005)CrossRef
go back to reference Koopmans, R., Veit, S.: Cooperation in ethnically diverse neighborhoods: a lost-letter experiment. Polit. Psychol. 35(3), 379–400 (2014)CrossRef Koopmans, R., Veit, S.: Cooperation in ethnically diverse neighborhoods: a lost-letter experiment. Polit. Psychol. 35(3), 379–400 (2014)CrossRef
go back to reference Kramer, R.M.: Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 569–598 (1999)CrossRef Kramer, R.M.: Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 569–598 (1999)CrossRef
go back to reference Krumpal, I.: Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual. Quant. 47(4), 2025–2047 (2013)CrossRef Krumpal, I.: Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual. Quant. 47(4), 2025–2047 (2013)CrossRef
go back to reference Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)CrossRef Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)CrossRef
go back to reference Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995) Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)
go back to reference Messick, D.M., Kramer, R.M.: Trust as a form of shallow morality. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 89–117. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001) Messick, D.M., Kramer, R.M.: Trust as a form of shallow morality. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 89–117. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)
go back to reference Milgram, S., Mann, L., Harter, S.: The lost-letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opin. Quart. 29(3), 437–438 (1965)CrossRef Milgram, S., Mann, L., Harter, S.: The lost-letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opin. Quart. 29(3), 437–438 (1965)CrossRef
go back to reference Mulligan, K., et al.: Response latency methodology for survey research: measurement and modeling strategies. Polit. Anal. 11(3), 289–301 (2003)CrossRef Mulligan, K., et al.: Response latency methodology for survey research: measurement and modeling strategies. Polit. Anal. 11(3), 289–301 (2003)CrossRef
go back to reference Nannestad, P.: What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11(1), 413–436 (2008)CrossRef Nannestad, P.: What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11(1), 413–436 (2008)CrossRef
go back to reference Neumann, R.: the validity of response latency measurement In CATI surveys. Prepared for XVIII. In: ISA World Congress 13–19 July 2014 Yokohama (2014) Neumann, R.: the validity of response latency measurement In CATI surveys. Prepared for XVIII. In: ISA World Congress 13–19 July 2014 Yokohama (2014)
go back to reference Opp, K.-D.: Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. J. Theo. Polit. 11(2), 171–202 (1999)CrossRef Opp, K.-D.: Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. J. Theo. Polit. 11(2), 171–202 (1999)CrossRef
go back to reference Orbell, J., Dawes, R.M.: A “cognitive miser” theory of cooperators’ advantage. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85(2), 515–528 (1991)CrossRef Orbell, J., Dawes, R.M.: A “cognitive miser” theory of cooperators’ advantage. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85(2), 515–528 (1991)CrossRef
go back to reference Posner, E.A.: Symbols, signals, and social norms in politics and law. J. Legal Stud. 27(2), 765–798 (1998)CrossRef Posner, E.A.: Symbols, signals, and social norms in politics and law. J. Legal Stud. 27(2), 765–798 (1998)CrossRef
go back to reference Przepiorka, W., Diekmann, A.: Temporal embeddedness and signals of trustworthiness: experimental tests of a game theoretic model in the United Kingdom, Russia, and Switzerland. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 29(5), 1010–1023 (2013)CrossRef Przepiorka, W., Diekmann, A.: Temporal embeddedness and signals of trustworthiness: experimental tests of a game theoretic model in the United Kingdom, Russia, and Switzerland. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 29(5), 1010–1023 (2013)CrossRef
go back to reference Rotter, J.B.: Interpersonal-trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am. Psychol. 35(1), 1–7 (1980)CrossRef Rotter, J.B.: Interpersonal-trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am. Psychol. 35(1), 1–7 (1980)CrossRef
go back to reference Sapienza, P., Toldra-Simats, A., Zingales, L.: Understanding trust. Econ. J. 123(573), 1313–1332 (2013)CrossRef Sapienza, P., Toldra-Simats, A., Zingales, L.: Understanding trust. Econ. J. 123(573), 1313–1332 (2013)CrossRef
go back to reference Schaeffer, N.C.: Asking questions about threatening topics: a selective overview. In: Stone, A.A., et al. (eds.) The Science of Self—Report: Implications for Research and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London (2000) Schaeffer, N.C.: Asking questions about threatening topics: a selective overview. In: Stone, A.A., et al. (eds.) The Science of Self—Report: Implications for Research and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London (2000)
go back to reference Sønderskov, K.M.: Explaining large-N cooperation: generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic. Ration. Soc. 23(1), 51–74 (2011) Sønderskov, K.M.: Explaining large-N cooperation: generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic. Ration. Soc. 23(1), 51–74 (2011)
go back to reference Stocké, V.: Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents ísusceptibility to nonresponse. Qual. Quant. 40(2), 259–288 (2006)CrossRef Stocké, V.: Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents ísusceptibility to nonresponse. Qual. Quant. 40(2), 259–288 (2006)CrossRef
go back to reference Strack, F., Deutsch, R.: Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8(3), 220–247 (2004)CrossRef Strack, F., Deutsch, R.: Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8(3), 220–247 (2004)CrossRef
go back to reference Sturgis, P., Smith, P.: Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring? Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22(1), 74–92 (2010)CrossRef Sturgis, P., Smith, P.: Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring? Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22(1), 74–92 (2010)CrossRef
go back to reference Urban, D., Mayerl, J.: Response latency measurement in survey-based behaviour research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59(4), 692–713 (2007)CrossRef Urban, D., Mayerl, J.: Response latency measurement in survey-based behaviour research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59(4), 692–713 (2007)CrossRef
go back to reference Uslaner, E.M.: Democracy and social capital. In: Warren, M.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999) Uslaner, E.M.: Democracy and social capital. In: Warren, M.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
go back to reference Uslaner, E.M.: The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRef Uslaner, E.M.: The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRef
go back to reference Uslaner, E.M.: The foundations of trust: macro and micro. Camb. J. Econ. 32(2), 289–294 (2008)CrossRef Uslaner, E.M.: The foundations of trust: macro and micro. Camb. J. Econ. 32(2), 289–294 (2008)CrossRef
go back to reference Uslaner, E.M.: Trust and corruption revisited: how and why trust and corruption shape each other. Qual. Quant. 47(6), 3603–3608 (2013)CrossRef Uslaner, E.M.: Trust and corruption revisited: how and why trust and corruption shape each other. Qual. Quant. 47(6), 3603–3608 (2013)CrossRef
go back to reference Williamson, O.E.: Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 34, 453–502 (1993)CrossRef Williamson, O.E.: Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 34, 453–502 (1993)CrossRef
go back to reference Winston, J.S., et al.: Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 277–283 (2002)CrossRef Winston, J.S., et al.: Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 277–283 (2002)CrossRef
go back to reference Yamagishi, T.: Trust as a form of social intelligence. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 119–149. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001) Yamagishi, T.: Trust as a form of social intelligence. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 119–149. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)
go back to reference Yamagishi, T., Yamagishi, M.: Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18, 129–166 (1994)CrossRef Yamagishi, T., Yamagishi, M.: Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18, 129–166 (1994)CrossRef
go back to reference Yan, T., Tourangeau, R.: Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 22(1), 51–68 (2008)CrossRef Yan, T., Tourangeau, R.: Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 22(1), 51–68 (2008)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding trustworthiness: using response latencies from CATI surveys to learn about the “crucial” variable in trust research
Author
Robert Neumann
Publication date
16-12-2014
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality & Quantity / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0033-5177
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7845
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0136-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Quality & Quantity 1/2016 Go to the issue

Premium Partner