Eldgernon
Auto-translated
So, scientists claim that we trust people significantly less than they deserve. According to their research, we underestimate this level by almost half.
Seriously, it would be interesting to see a brief description of the experiments that led to these results. Something like:
- a brief scenario of the experiments
- characteristics of the sample of participants (age, education, social status, etc.)
I'm saying this because it's quite easy to get exactly the opposite results. For example, if you try to find out the level of trust in the "Shop on the Couch" show and, at the same time, select participants from the desired segment.
And it doesn't matter what views you hold or what party you belong to – everyone plays the "guess the hidden intention" game.
This statement is incorrect. There are, at least, 2 main behavioral stereotypes. (in reality, there are many more)
1. When meeting a new person, treat them as a righteous person until they prove otherwise.
The scheme of action for this stereotype is as follows. Any "contact person" is assigned a default "threat coefficient" (TC) = 0 when entering into contact. If, for example, this contact person actually has a TC = 15, then under the pressure of facts, the subject will increase their assessment of the TC until it is brought into line.
2. This category of people sets a TC value that is not zero by default. If, in reality, the "contact person" has a TC = 0, then the TC is further adjusted downwards.
Of course, the exact percentage distribution of the population according to the indicated stereotypes is a matter of discussion.:) But to claim that stereotype No. 1 does not exist is incorrect.
P.S. Among other stereotypes that were not considered, one can mention such an exotic one as the "saint" stereotype. Here, too, a TC = 0 is set by default, but this value remains constant under any pressure from any external factors.
