1. Trust: Not a Key but The Key to Prosocial Behavior
Paul A.M. Van Lange
VU University Amsterdam
Van der Gaag Symposium (June 24, 2014)
For updated information, see

2. The KEY task for authorities (and peers) is to Manage Conflicts between Self-Interest and Collective Interest - Promoting a sustainable society - Promoting a healthy society - Promoting a prosperous society - Promoting a safe society - And in a sense, promoting a fair society (and trusting society)
Bla Bla Bla

3. Across various social dilemmas, key variables are: 1
Across various social dilemmas, key variables are: 1. Social value orientation (motives/goals) 2. Reward and punishment (tools for peers and authorities) 3. Trust (state of mind)
Bla Bla Bla
Van Lange, P. A. M. Balliet, D., Parks, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Social dilemmas: The psychology of human cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Decomposed Game (for measuring SVO)
____________________________________________ A B C You get Other gets ____________________________________________
Note: “Other” is hypothetical.
Points are valuable to both self and other.

5. Social Value Orientations: (1) prosocial orientation (50-60%)
Social Value Orientations: (1) prosocial orientation (50-60%) joint outcomes and equality in outcomes (MaxJoint and Mindiff) (2) individualistic orientation (20-30%) Own outcomes (MaxOwn) (3) competitive orientation (10-15%) Relative advantage (MaxRel)

6. Social interactions prosocials develop cooperative interaction, but rapidly assimilate to noncooperative others; individualists cooperate if they can benefit by doing so; competitors hardly ever cooperate. Prosocials = Conditional cooperators Individualists = Instrumental cooperators Competitors = Consistent noncooperators

7. - Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships - Smiling when we talk, not when we pose for a picture to be taken - Donations to noble causes Neuroscientific evidence regarding responses to violations of justice - Volunteering, including participating in experiments!

8. Where do differences in social value orientation come from
Where do differences in social value orientation come from?: Social value orientations are partially rooted in different patterns of social interaction spanning from early childhood to young adulthood.

9. SVO and Siblings
Van Lange, P.A.M.,Otten,W., De Bruin, E.N.M., & Joireman , J.A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientation: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

10. Age Category Age and SVO
(Van Lange, P.A.M.,Otten,W., De Bruin, E.N.M., & Joireman , J.A. (1997). Development of
prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientation: Theory and preliminary evidence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

11. But personality – including svo - is not only shaped by circumstances, it is also revealed in the selection (or avoiding) of situations…

12. Percentages among first-year students
Van Lange, P. A. M., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,  

13. Psychology Economics (n= 158) (n = 150) Prosocials 57% 36%
Individualists 37% 47%
Competitors 6% 17%
Van Lange, P. A. M., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,  

14. Two studies
Study 2: Italy (497 participants, 250 women, mean age 32 years)
svo was measured 1-4 weeks before the 2004 European Election
actual voting was assessed one week after Election
Study 3: Netherlands (1,472 participants, 751 women, mean age 46 years, sample representative of Dutch Adult population, TNS/NIPO)
svo assessed in May 2002, eight months before general elections in January 2003, after which we assessed voting.

15. Percentages of svo across four categories (Study 2, Italy, 2004)
Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012).  Are
conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals?  From games to ideology,
political preferences and voting.  European Journal of Personality, 26,

16. Percentages of svo across four categories (Study 3, Netherlands, 2002)
Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012).  Are
conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals?  From games to ideology,
political preferences and voting.  European Journal of Personality, 26,

17. Social value orientation
= motivation
if you want to act prosocially, you do
Cooperation in social dilemmas
if you want to act cooperatively, you can
But often, we may not act prosocially simply because we did not consider, or even “see” that prosocial or “cooperative” option...

18. Social mindfulness One morning on a vacation trip in Italy, my son Dion (then about 11 years old) asked me which marmalade I was going to get for breakfast. There were three left, one blackberry and two strawberry marmalade.

19. I said: blackberry (while I read the newspaper) He said: But that is not very nice, dad. You do not leave my any choice, if you choose blackberry.

20. This was an excellent idea … theoretically and methodologically
This was an excellent idea … theoretically and methodologically. It combines “to see it” (perception and skill) with “acting upon it” (motivation) to produce “socially mindful” behavior. (Literature always focused on either perception or motivation) To see that one blocks another’s route with a shopping cart !

21. We constructed a measure (based on earlier work of Hazel Markus and Toshio Yamagishi) which we call “social mindfulness. It asks people to make a choice among 3 options (2 identical, 1 unique) concerning cups of marmalade, pens, hats, soccer balls, and so on.
Or we used four pictures with one unique attribute, or sometimes no unique attributes (as filler)

22. Filler

23. Recent findings (to start a new line of research) [a] Instructing Concern for Others enhances social mindfulness [b] People are more socially mindful to friends than to strangers [c] People are more socially mindful to those with trustworthy faces than to those with untrustworthy faces [d] Associated with honesty/humility (r = .32), agreeableness (r = .24), social value orientation (r = .40), and empathic concern (r = .28) and perspective taking (r = .21) (but not disstress, r = .07, ns, or other Big Five variables) Van Doesum, N., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105,

24. Social value orientation and social mindfulness
Basic orientations, relevant to many situations, and people might automatically rely on these “natural” tendencies. The focus is on the self – as motivator, perceiver, or both.
- For trust, this is different. There is a lot of contextual information that feeds or undermines trust (other’s face, race, age …). The focus is on the other that we perceive (even if through our own lens).

25. Social dilemmas: Reward and Punishment Paradigm (Fehr & Gächter, 2002): people are able to punish another person in a four-person group; they pay one MU so that another person loses 3 MU. Fehr, E., Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415,
Bla Bla Bla

26. Bla Bla Bla

27. Reward and Punishment - Both incentives work – about equally well - Works better if the punishment is more costly - Strong cultural influences Balliet, D., Mulder, L. B., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
Bla Bla Bla

28. Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions
Balliet, D. P., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013).  Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8,

29. Generalized Trust is also strongly shaped by culture Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?” (1 = most people can be trusted and 2 = you can never be too careful when dealing with people).

30. Levels of Trust in Various Nations (World Values Survey)
Balliet, D. P., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013).  Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8,

31. Generalized Trust

32. If everybody cooperates, AND If nobody punishes
What is most efficient?
If everybody cooperates, AND
If nobody punishes
 For both beliefs, prosociality AND trust are crucial!
But can one influence prosociality and trust?
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

33. What have I learned about trust?
We trust strangers too little – most likely because we rely on a theory of self-interest (myth of self-interest)
One can indeed influence trust – it is biologically based, but is it genetically based?
It is a powerful correlate and determinant of cooperation in social dilemmas
For review see, Balliet D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

34. Genetics of Trust
1. I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people
2. I completely trust most other people
3. When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people ®
1,012 twins participants, with good representation of all five twin groups (identical twins, men, women; non-identical, men, women, mixed)
Test-retest reliability over two months: r = .76 (and .54, for trust-in-self)
Average heritability for traits other than trust (49%, and this includes measurements with lower test-retest reliability.
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

35. Classic personality variables (h2 ~ 40%)
Intelligence (h2 ~ 80%)
Depression (h2 ~ 50%)
Classic personality variables (h2 ~ 40%)
Divorce, satisfaction with work, AND political orientation (h2 > 30%)
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

36. So, what is the heritability of (Generalized) Trust? Guesses? 0 – 25%
25-50%
50-75%
75-100%
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

37. Trust in Others: h2 = 5% Trust in Self: h2 = 13%
Van Lange, P.A.M., Vinkhuyzen, A., & Posthuma, D. (2014). Genetic influences are virtually absent for trust. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93880.
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

38. Trust is the key to prosocial behavior:
- because cooperation without trust is largely a utopia unlikely
to be materialized
- because trust promotes the effectiveness of various variables
or interventations, such as reward and punishment
- because trust is a malleable state of mind (orientation)
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

39. Reciprocity-based trust Reputation-based trust Identity-based trust
Trust is a “state of mind”, largely nongenetic, and the sources of promoting trust are “tremendous”
Reciprocity-based trust
Reputation-based trust
Identity-based trust
Face-based trust
“Association”-based trust (perhaps embodiment)
THM #1: USE THESE SOURCES!
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

40. So, with the World Cup all around, my THM # 2 is simple….
Trust may even help you to go for that risky action that one only does if there is enough (perceived) support from others.
So, with the World Cup all around, my THM # 2 is simple….
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

41. Without trust in one another
one never wins
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions

42. Trust is a challenge – for both actors and “observers“
- leaders invite distrust because of unilateral
dependence – “better safe than sorry”
- and leaders do become a littlle less trustworthy over
time.
Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004): reciprocal motivation depends on beliefs about intentions
Van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2014, Eds). Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders. Cambridge University Press.