4.2 Article

Trust in virtual ingroup or outgroup members relies on perceived self-other overlap

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17470218231203203

关键词

Self-other overlap; Virtual enfacement illusion; Trust Game; Implicit association task

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interpersonal trust is mainly influenced by perceived self-other overlap, as shown by the results of three experiments. In addition to group identification, appearance, and voluntary movement, synchrony is also one of the factors contributing to perceived self-other overlap.
Why do we trust each other? We carried out three experiments to test whether interpersonal trust depends on perceived self-other overlap. As previous studies suggest that enfacing (feeling ownership for, and include more into oneself of the face of) an avatar might make one trust this avatar more, we exposed participants to faces of ingroup and outgroup avatars that moved in synchrony or out of synchrony with the participant's own facial movements, and assessed the impact of synchrony on self-other overlap and trust measures. Experiment 1 used ingroup faces and successfully showed that synchrony (manipulated within-participants) increased self-other overlap and trust, which we assessed by means of the Trust Game and the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 2, which used outgroup faces and a within-participants design, synchrony still increased scores in the Trust Game but the IAT was no longer affected. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 but with synchrony varying between participants, which eliminated the synchrony effect in both trust measures. Importantly, Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) ratings were found to predict the IAT effect in synchronous conditions. Taken altogether, our findings suggest that interpersonal trust is mainly driven by perceived self-other overlap. Besides group identification, appearance, and voluntary movement, synchrony is just one of several sources contributing to perceived self-other overlap.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据