In the intricate tapestry of human relationships, trust remains a fundamental yet complex thread that weaves connections between individuals. Recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has shed new light on how perceptions of socioeconomic background influence the willingness of individuals to place trust in others. Contrary to the common assumption that wealth and privilege engender greater trustworthiness, this study reveals a counterintuitive preference: people tend to extend greater behavioral trust to those who grew up in or currently inhabit lower-income environments, particularly when considering childhood socioeconomic status.
This finding emerges from a series of rigorous experiments conducted with over 1,900 participants, designed meticulously to parse out how both past and present social class contexts shape trust behavior and expectations. The scholars behind this research, led by Kristin Laurin, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia, sought to understand the psychological mechanisms underpinning trust decisions. By simulating trust games involving fictitious profiles representing diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, the study explores how these contextual signals impact trustors’ willingness to trust and their anticipations of trustworthiness.
One innovative aspect of the methodology involved participants acting as “trusters” who decided how many raffle tickets to assign to “trustees,” represented by fictional profiles. Each truster was initially allotted ten raffle tickets, which could be transferred in any number to one trustee. Importantly, transferred tickets were tripled, amplifying any potential gains but also introducing inherent risk, as trustees could return a variable number of tickets. The quantity of tickets sent served as a behavioral measure of trust, indicating the extent to which participants exposed themselves to potential exploitation.
Beyond behavioral trust, the study also probed trust expectations by querying participants about how many tickets they anticipated the trustee would return if given the maximum number of tickets. This quantitative approach enabled a nuanced dissociation between actual trusting behavior and cognitive beliefs about another person’s trustworthiness. What emerged was a fascinating duality: while participants acted more trustfully toward individuals associated with lower-income statuses, their expectations of returned trust diverged depending on whether the lower-income label referred to childhood or current socioeconomic status.
In multiple experimental iterations, profiles varied to explicitly signal a trustee’s childhood milieu or current financial standing. Participants consistently viewed individuals who had grown up in lower-class households as more moral and trustworthy. These individuals evoked not only behavioral trust but also higher expectations of reciprocation from trustors. In contrast, participants sometimes extended trust behaviorally to current lower socioeconomic class members but remained skeptical about their likelihood to honor that trust. This delineation underscores the psychological salience of childhood versus current status cues in shaping trust dynamics.
The implications extend beyond mere academic curiosity into real-world social negotiations. Laurin and colleagues suggest that people strategically navigate self-presentation to leverage these perceptual biases. For example, individuals hailing from affluent backgrounds might downplay their privileged upbringing in trust-dependent social interactions, whereas those with humble roots may benefit from emphasizing their modest origins to engender trust and rapport.
These outcomes also invite a reevaluation of normative assumptions surrounding social trust: wealth and status, often equated with success and reliability, do not necessarily command trust in social exchanges. Instead, perceptions tethered to lived experience and moral character may overshadow monetary or status markers. The study highlights the powerful role of perceived morality — often linked in lay understanding with modesty or adversity — as a cornerstone of trustworthiness judgments.
Nevertheless, the researchers caution against conflating perception with reality. The study did not empirically establish whether individuals from lower-income backgrounds are in fact more trustworthy; rather, it illuminated societal biases in trust allocation. This distinction opens a critical avenue for future research, especially concerning the potential misplacement of trust and the social costs of mistrust or overtrust across class lines.
Methodologically, the study’s use of controlled experimental games represents a rigorous approach to unraveling complex social cognition phenomena. Trust games imbued with economic incentives provide behavioral validity beyond self-reported measures, allowing researchers to infer authentic risk-taking behavior and expectation formation within interpersonal trust contexts. Moreover, the large sample size enhances the generalizability of findings across demographic slices.
From a theoretical perspective, these findings enrich existing models of social capital and trust economics, which emphasize the importance of both reputational and contextual cues in trust formation. The nuanced distinction between behavioral trust and trust expectations revealed by this research underscores multidimensional aspects of trust. It calls for more granular frameworks integrating socio-historical cues and their psychological reception.
The wider societal impact of such trust biases is profound, influencing interpersonal dynamics in workplaces, romantic relationships, and broader community interactions. Understanding the underpinnings of trust allocation may help design interventions or communication strategies that foster social cohesion and counteract division driven by socioeconomic stereotypes.
In summation, this landmark study by Laurin and colleagues reveals that trust is not simply allocated on the basis of wealth or status; instead, individuals’ perceived moral character, linked tightly with their early socioeconomic context, matters significantly. This paradigm-shifting insight compels a rethink of how social trust is formed and maintained in diverse societies, particularly in an era characterized by widening economic inequality and social stratification.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Trust and Trust Funds: How Others Childhood and Current Social Class Context Influence Trust Behavior and Expectations
News Publication Date: 22-May-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000497
References: Laurin, K., Engstrom, H., Schmader, T., Chua, K.Q., Klein, N., & Côté, S. (2025). Trust and Trust Funds: How Others Childhood and Current Social Class Context Influence Trust Behavior and Expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000497
Keywords: Psychological science, Socioeconomics, Behavioral economics, Game theory
