Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37337115›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Distrust as a form of inequality.

Jennifer T Kubota, Samuel A Venezia, Richa Gautam, Andrea L Wilhelm, Bradley D Mattan, Jasmin Cloutier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer T KubotaDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, 105 The Green, Newark, DE, 19716, USA. jennifer.kubota@gmail.com.
Samuel A VeneziaDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, 105 The Green, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Richa GautamDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, 105 The Green, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Andrea L WilhelmDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, 105 The Green, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Bradley D MattanVivid Seats, 24 E Washington St, Suite 900, Chicago, IL, 60602, USA.
Jasmin CloutierDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, 105 The Green, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Navigating social hierarchies is a ubiquitous aspect of human life. Social status shapes our thoughts, feelings, and actions toward others in various ways. However, it remains unclear how trust is conferred within hierarchies and how status-related cues are used when resources are on the line. This research fills this knowledge gap by examining how ascribed, consensus-based status appearance, and perceived status appearance impact investment decisions for high- and low-status partners during a Trust Game. In a series of pre-registered experiments, we examined the degree to which participants trusted unfamiliar others with financial investments when the only available information about that person was their socioeconomic status (SES). In Study 1, SES was ascribed. Studies 2 and 3 conveyed SES with visual antecedents (clothing). Across all three experiments, participants trusted high SES partners more than low SES partners. In addition, subjective perceptions of status based on visual cues were a stronger predictor of trust than consensus-based status judgments. This work highlights a high status-trust bias for decisions where an individual's money is on the line. In addition, high-status trust bias may occur simply because of an individual's subjective assumptions about another's rank.

Indexed as

Social ClassTrustConsensusCuesHumansJudgment

Identifiers

PMID37337115
PMCPMC10279663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.