"Do You Think This Is Some Kind Of Game? An Examination Of The Validity" by Alexander Quellhorst

Date of Award

8-1-2023

Language

English

Document Type

Master's Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

College/School/Department

Department of Philosophy

Dissertation/Thesis Chair

Jason D'Cruz

Committee Members

Ariel Zylberman

Keywords

Ecological, Game, Philosophy, Psychology, Trust, Validity

Subject Categories

Philosophy

Abstract

Although we have a familiarity with trust that begins at infancy, we still struggle to agree on what trust is. Even after decades of trusting others, trying to be trustworthy, and experiencing betrayal, we form definitions of trust that only scratch the surface. Turning to scholars in order to improve our understanding of trust has offered limited guidance; some refer to trust as an emotional state, some think of it as a belief, and others label trust as a kind of prediction or calculation. Regardless of the sheer complexity of trust and its neighboring ideas – i.e., betrayal, expectation, reliance – the manner in which trust has been simplified for the purposes of economic research has weakened our grasp on the idea. The ‘trust game’ was developed in order to study trust and reciprocity from an economic perspective (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995). Although this paradigm has garnered a great deal of attention, I suggest that it is predicated on a flawed sense of trust and ultimately lacks ecological validity. Where behavioral research is concerned, ecological validity can be understood as the generalizability or ‘real-world’ legitimacy of research findings. To say that a behavioral study is ecologically valid, or has high ecological validity, is to say that the behaviors of participants are reflective of their behaviors in reality. Likewise, to say that a behavioral study is ecologically invalid, or has low ecological validity, is to claim that there is a significant difference between behavior in the context of research and real-life behavior. The trust game is played just once between two strangers, preserving anonymity through the use of computers. Berg et al. (1995, p. 123) claim that this basic design is meant to “eliminate mechanisms which could sustain investment without trust;” Trust is inferred from a behavior performed in a synthesized and stylized context – analytically, the trust game fails to capture what trust is. Furthermore, I contend that the trust game does not allow for participants to experience trust; it lacks ecological validity because the important nuances of trust are banished. If this measure of trust is devoid of real-world application, then its utility is jeopardized. Subsequent research using the trust game manages to address a number of concerns, but the methodological design largely remains the same. In its many forms, the trust game is riddled with problematic features, making it difficult to determine whether or not it captures authentic trust, and whether it even offers real insight as to how and why trust forms in a variety of settings.

Download

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS