Does Competition Increases Trust?

The origins of human prosociality: Cultural group selection in the workplace and the laboratory by Patrick Francois, Thomas Fujiwara and Tanguy van Ypersele. Excerpts:

"Abstract

Human prosociality toward nonkin is ubiquitous and almost unique in the animal kingdom. It remains poorly understood, although a proliferation of theories has arisen to explain it. We present evidence from survey data and laboratory treatment of experimental subjects that is consistent with a set of theories based on group-level selection of cultural norms favoring prosociality. In particular, increases in competition increase trust levels of individuals who (i) work in firms facing more competition, (ii) live in states where competition increases, (iii) move to more competitive industries, and (iv) are placed into groups facing higher competition in a laboratory experiment. The findings provide support for cultural group selection as a contributor to human prosociality."

"CONCLUSION

Increased competition across firms exposes subjects to increased group beneficial behavior on the part of their co-workers and increases their own such behavior. In competitive markets, firms unable to elicit this cooperative behavior are likely to be outcompeted by firms that are more successful in doing so, leading to the proliferation of firms exhibiting cooperation. Workers in these settings experience, and themselves internalize, more cooperative norms. They then report more positive answers to the generalized trust question, which explains the cross-sectional and panel correlations we have reported here.

 

Competition across groups in an otherwise standard PGG conducted in the laboratory induces more group beneficial contributions from individuals within the groups. This happens immediately upon being put in this environment. In addition, for a subset of individuals who, by chance, are matched with more generous partners (and competitors), there is a progressively induced increase in their own group beneficial contributions. Subjects experiencing these cooperative contributions (either via their anonymous partners or competitors) are more likely to affirmatively answer the generalized trust question, which imagines a setting beyond the laboratory context.

 

Our competitively treated subjects in the laboratory do seem to have raised their beliefs regarding the possibility of a cooperative interaction, at least in the laboratory (relative to the noncompetitive treatment). Perhaps beliefs beyond that, as indicated by their responses to the generalized trust question, have also been similarly altered. However, we acknowledge that permanent effects flowing from this limited laboratory exposure seem implausible. Nonetheless, the laboratory does demonstrate that cross-group competition can alter actions and seemingly beliefs of subjects, in a manner that is consistent with CGS. If exposure to this competition is repeated, for example, as would occur in longer-term interactions arising from the workplace, then this evidence suggests that workplaces could be important conduits for these cooperative prosocial behaviors in general."