Analytical thinking under distrust - Better not to know that one distrusts

1730 Words4 Pages

In our social environment, we run into the danger that someone is lying to us, distorts a fact when reproducing it, or perhaps entirely omits an important detail. It is widely known that people from time to time say an untruth. The high prevalence of deception and lie telling is well documented in research (e.g. DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). Our ability to notice or recognise deception and lies and in a next step to respond appropriately is not very far-reaching. We are only marginally capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Even trained people, such as police officers, succeed only slightly better than a lay person in detecting liars. Further on they are in no greater degree sure that a person is telling the truth (Akehurst, Koehnken, Vrij, & Bull, 1996).
Function of distrust
However, due to the very high probability of being deceived and being lied to in combination with our incapacity of knowing whether we can bestow somebody's faith, a good portion of distrust can be seen as healthy and in some extreme cases even important for survival? Previous research showed that distrust leads to a deeper and more accurate elaboration of information and as one possible consequence to the formation of alternative hypotheses, so-called counter scenarios (Schul, Burnstein, & Bardi, 1996; Schul, Mayo, & Burnstein, 2008). Distrust leads to a more elaborated information processing that allows a controlling for possible alternative explanations as well as possible inconsistencies. We assume that one of the most relevant functions of distrust is not to be guided through a first impression, or an obvious plausibility (Schul et al., 2008):
“distrust is interpreted as the tendency of individuals to...

... middle of paper ...

...). Additionally we asked them how they felt at that moment (scale -50 to +50).
Memory test. Afterwards the subjects were advised that the next task would again rely on the read report at the start of the study. They were told that their memory for these reports would now be tested. The subjects were presented to twenty statements (10 per report). They had to specify in each case (on a scale from 1 to 4) whether this statement coincide as regards content with the report or not. They were asked to decide as quickly and spontaneously as possible. Per report five statements were consistent with the report and five more were not in line with the story/report and represented a so-called counter scenario. We were interested in the false alarm rate, as proxy of the formation of counter scenarios. Finally the participants had to answer some demographic questions.
Results

More about Analytical thinking under distrust - Better not to know that one distrusts

Open Document