PERSONAL experience plays a bigger part in deciding who we trust, rather than nature, scientists have discovered.
Researchers from the universities of Aberdeen and Western Australia, in Perth, studied more than 1200 twins to ascertain whether differences in trust were based on genetic, shared or personal environments. They showed the twins images of faces and asked them to rate how trustworthy, attractive and dominant each was.
Their results, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America journal (PNAS), showed the twins’ ratings were not the same, which ruled out any overarching effect of genetics and implied a key effect of personal experience on these trait perceptions.
This meant that who we individually trust is mostly a product of our individual life experience, rather than either nature or nurture.
However, the researchers said there can be extreme consequences of our impressions of trustworthiness.
These included decisions about financial lending and partner selection, and scientists said it is important to understand how they come about and what influences our perceptions of trust.
Dr Clare Sutherland, a psychology lecturer at Aberdeen, who led the research while at the University of Western Australia, said: “We think that as we go about our lives we learn who looks trustworthy to us based on specific social interactions we have with others.
“So, for example, if I experience particularly trustworthy interactions with people with green eyes, whereas you experience particularly trustworthy interactions with people with feminine features, then I might learn to specifically trust people with green eyes and you might learn to specifically trust feminine features. This finding is new. Most research on first impressions of trust focuses on what we have in common, not why we disagree.”
Dr Jemma Collova, a postdoctoral researcher who worked on the project at Western University, added: “Our study offers a new perspective on the origins of trust and on our capacity to change whom we trust, for good or for ill.
“As the information we access online becomes increasingly individual, especially in these strange times, our findings also suggest that disagreements about whom we trust are also likely to increase.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here