信賴

能夠信得過對方或者目標會攞到自己所期望嘅結果。
  提示:呢篇文講嘅唔係信託

信賴粵音:Seon3 laai6),又或者叫信任Seon3 jam6),係可以喺人際關係嗰道出現嘅一樣嘢,大致上可以想像成一個個體有幾認為對方唔會傷害佢,同埋幾認為對方會做出預期嘅正面行為。响廿一世紀初嘅心理學當中,信賴亦可以當係情緒嘅一種:一個人見到信得過嘅人(屋企人同朋友等)就會感受到信賴[1]

一隻露出咗佢個:原則上,一隻動物嘅肚係佢全身最脆弱嘅地方之一,而一隻動物肯畀人睇佢個肚,好多時都係反映佢好信賴佢面前嘅人。

社會科學好有興趣研究信賴呢樣嘢:除咗心理學同社會學出於好奇而做理論研究之外[2],偏向重視應用嘅商學都對信賴呢個概念有興趣;例如經濟學研究發現,一個經濟體裡便嘅信賴會左右啲生意人有幾肯做交易[3],而呢樣嘢會對經濟增長有深遠嘅影響;另一方面管理學上又會諗點樣先可以令啲員工彼此信賴,噉成班人一齊做嘢就會順利啲[4]

有啲學者甚至仲會用數學化嘅方法嚟思考信賴嘅概念。當中博弈論講到嘅監犯困境同埋信賴博弈,都可以做到用數學模型噉嘅方法分析人與人之間嘅信賴[5]

基本概念

編輯
 
一隻企定定喺道,畀獸醫同佢做檢查——睇得出佢好信賴佢周圍嘅,信周圍嘅人唔會害佢。
内文:脆弱點風險
睇埋:社會行為利他

信賴呢樣嘢,源自社會性[e 1]:包括人類在內嘅好多動物都有社會性,同類個體之間會彼此合作嚟達成一啲對生存嚟講必要嘅目標;而喺廿一世紀初嘅心理學社會學領域上,信賴嘅一個常用定義如下[6]:p 4 [7]

信賴可以界定為信賴者有幾願意曝露自己脆弱點[e 2] ——容許對方有機會傷害自己。佢噉做係因為佢預期對方會做出一啲正面嘅行為,而佢可能根本冇能力監察或者控制對方。(翻譯,而且稍為重述咗)

依家有一個個體 A(信賴者),A 可能係一個人或者一隻非人動物都得,佢信賴另一個個體 B(信賴嘅對象),即係話 A 相信 B 係[8][9]

  1. 唔會(趁住自己曝露咗脆弱點)害自己,
  2. 會做出預期嘅正面行為,

信賴嘅舉動[註 1]必然會涉及信賴者承受一定嘅風險,即係所謂嘅關係裡便嘅冒險[e 3][10]。舉個例子說明,想像有位病人受咗傷,如果話個病人信賴照顧緊佢嘅醫護人員(信賴嘅對象),即係話呢位病人覺得醫護人員唔會害佢,而且係會盡力噉想醫好佢(會做出預期嘅正面行為)嘅;於是個病人就會例如肯安心噉瞓喺張病床上面(唔會想反抗或者走佬)畀醫生護士睇佢個傷口——「畀對方睇自己傷口」係一個會曝露自己脆弱點嘅動作[11][12]。又例如想像依家有位經理,佢好信賴佢手下嘅一位員工阿明,所以就將一個好重要嘅 project 交畀阿明處理。呢位經理喺道冒緊風險——如果阿明搞禍咗個 project,位經理好有機會要孭起部份嘅責任。信賴嘅程度越高,信賴者就越會肯冒高嘅風險嚟作出信賴之舉[13]

概念上,信賴有異於合作或者可預測度[6]:p 6:信賴傾向會引致合作呢種行為,但信賴並非合作嘅必要條件,例如合作嘅行為可以係實際上唔信賴對方,但冇得揀焗住要合作嘅;而可預測度就更加唔可以當係等同於信賴——例如一個人之所以覺得對方可預測,可能係因為佢不溜都唔信賴對方,次次都預對方會做出自私嘅行為。

心理層面

編輯
 
一個女人湊住佢個細路:嬰幼兒期可以話係人生最脆弱嗰一個階段,乜都要靠周圍嘅大人照顧。

心理學腦神經學(即係剖析個體)嘅角度睇,信賴涉及咗最少三樣嘢,呢三樣嘢關聯緊密,但係並唔一樣[14]

  1. 心理狀態:信賴可以當係一種心理狀態[15][16],一個個體面對佢認為係信得過嘅個體嗰陣,佢嘅腦活動(以至身體其他部份嘅生理活動)會產生一啲特定嘅變化。
  2. 有幾信得過[e 4]:一個個體能夠對面前嗰個個體「係咪可以信賴」作出判斷,可信度高嘅個體先會引起其他人信賴佢。
  3. 有幾信任人[e 5]:唔同個體喺「有幾傾向信賴其他人」呢一點上有個體差異,而呢一種差異可以算係一種性格特質[17]

當中第 3 點吸引咗唔少性格心理學方面嘅學者研究[17][18]

一個人有幾信賴人嘅傾向,可以一路追溯到佢生命早期嘅經歷。依附理論[e 6]係一套有關發育嘅理論,呢套理論個核心諗頭係噉嘅[19]:人類喺生命早期會係噉同自己嘅照顧者互動——當中照顧者最常係父母,但可以包埋(例如)會幫手湊孫嘅阿爺阿嫲;响呢段時期,照顧者嘅行為會深遠噉影響個細路對佢產生點嘅情感依附,當中零舍重要嘅係照顧者有冇反應同埋有幾易預測——

  • 如果照顧者成日都忽略個細路嘅情感需要(冇乜反應),個細路傾向會形成逃避型依附[e 7],噉嘅細路無論照顧者離開定係返嚟都唔會有咩情緒反應,彷彿好似佢哋根本唔在意照顧者係咪存在噉;
  • 如果照顧者會理個細路嘅情感需要但難預測(例如有時會無啦啦冇晒反應),個細路傾向會形成焦慮型依附[e 8],呢種細路傾向一見到照顧者離開就出現強烈嘅負面反應,會大聲嗌大聲喊,而且對生保人以及其他未知嘅事物非常抗拒。
  • 相比之下,會理個細路嘅情感需要,兼且反應恆常嘅照顧者,就傾向會產生出具有安全型依附[e 9]嘅細路,呢啲細路肯同生保人接觸(尤其係如果照顧者就喺左近),照顧者離開嗰陣呢啲細路會或多或少有負面反應,而佢哋見到照顧者返嚟嗰時會有正面反應。

依附類型可以大致噉想像成一個細路「有幾信賴佢嘅照顧者」[20]。呢種情感依附上嘅差異,可以一路影響到一個人大個咗有幾傾向信賴其他人,例如細個嗰陣傾向焦慮型依附嘅人,被指慣咗身邊嘅人可能會無端端忽視佢哋,因而難以對人產生信賴[21],而呢點往往會損害佢哋建立健康人際關係嘅能力[17][22]

信賴亦有可能受制於相似度。事實表明,包括人類在內嘅動物喺社交情況當中做決定嗰陣,傾向會受到「對方同自己遺傳上有幾相似」影響,傾向對同自己相似嘅個體(例如親生嘅屋企人)好啲[註 2]。而亦有實驗發現,人類比較傾向會信賴(例如)個樣生得似自己嘅人[23]

社會層面

編輯
睇埋:組織

社會學(即係整體噉分析群體)亦時不時會討論總體信賴對社會會產生咩影響,當中總體信賴學術化啲嘅可以想像成(例如)睇勻晒社會每一個個體對身邊嘅個體嘅信賴程度,再計一個信賴嘅平均值出嚟[註 3]

信賴可以視為社會現實[e 10]嘅根基之一[24][25]。社會現實呢個概念最基本上可以噉嚟思考:一個社會有一大拃個體與個體間嘅互動,呢啲互動好多時都需要某啲「大家都同意咗嘅現實」先至能夠正常噉運作。

舉例說明,好似係噉,銀紙查實只不過係一啲紙張,實際上近乎冇價值咁滯;而家想像有個人去買嘢,正想要幫襯一位賣生果小販,買家由自己個銀包嗰道攞一張銀紙出嚟遞畀小販;純由物質嘅角度睇,位小販係將一啲有實際價值嘅嘢(生果)送咗出去,換嚟一啲冇乜實際價值嘅嘢(銀紙),不過基於「銀紙普遍被當係有價值嘅,得到銀紙可以攞去買第啲嘢」呢一樣大家同意咗嘅現實,位小販就願意做呢一場交易[26]。喺呢個過程當中,位小販要暴露脆弱點,承受一定嘅風險——佢將自己手上有價值嘅物品送咗出去,如果其他人唔同意佢心目中「銀紙有價值」嘅呢個現實,佢就會蒙受損失,因此,位小販實係對社會有一定嘅信賴,先會肯噉樣嚟暴露脆弱點。

根據呢種睇法,冇咗信賴,好多對社會運作嚟講不可或缺嘅過程(例如用錢做交易)就會喪失效力,導致社會崩潰。

高信賴同低信賴社會[e 11]顧名思義就係指緊信賴程度高(社會成員之間傾向彼此信賴)同埋係信賴程度低(社會成員之間傾向唔彼此信賴)嘅社會。至於高信賴社會具體嚟講係咩樣,有經濟學者就噉樣嚟描述(以下係由翻譯)[27]

喺多數社區同多數時間,冇鎖嘅門唔會有人走去打開佢,唔見咗有現金嘅銀包會搵得返,絕大多數嘅合約(幸運地)冇完成到。噉嘅情況係好好彩嘅,因為呢一切嘅信賴同值得信賴度對個經濟體有好嘅影響。

响廿一世紀初,高信賴同低信賴社會嘅概念吸引咗唔少社會學家研究,社會學研究發現,一個社會嘅信賴程度會明顯影響啲人點樣建立人際關係,例如有研究就指出,低信賴社會入便嘅人際來往傾向以親緣關係為本,好多人都淨係肯信賴同自己有血緣關係嘅人[28]

博弈分析

編輯

要思考信賴呢種現象,又可以採取一種數學化啲嘅觀點,由博弈論[e 12]嘅角度出發。喺博弈論當中,啲研究者比較常當信賴係一種決策嘅方式[註 4] ——包含咗決策者對「對方會做啲乜」嘅預期(呢點似心理學同社會學),不過就少提及「肯暴露脆弱點」呢一樣嘢或者情緒上嘅變化(呢點唔似心理學同社會學)。博弈論嘅研究者,被指有陣時好似當正信賴係一種賭博或者「因為某啲原因而肯搏」嘅決策傾向噉[29][30]

首先,監犯困境[e 13]可以一定程度上反映信賴[註 5][5]。簡單噉講,最基本嗰隻監犯困境有兩位博弈者,用報償矩陣表達嘅話,紅字表示紅色方嘅報償,而藍字表示藍色方嘅報償:

紅色揀合作 紅色揀背叛
藍色揀合作
R, R
S, T
藍色揀背叛
T, S
P, P

定義上,响監犯困境裡便,以下呢條不等式會成立(假設報償值係愈正愈理想嘅):

 (例如  ),而且  

用日常用語講即係:大家合作就齊齊最著數;自己揀背叛對方揀合作,自己就搵咗對方老襯;大家都揀背叛就齊齊大輸。响廿世紀嘅實驗當中,研究者成日都會搵受試者返嚟,畀佢哋玩重複嘅監犯困境[註 6],發覺博弈者好多時都會(例如)因為對方之前選擇過合作,而預對方將會繼續選擇合作——好似彼此間產生咗信賴噉[5]

信賴博弈[e 14]亦都成日畀人用嚟研究信賴嘅問題。喺最古典嗰隻信賴博弈當中,有兩位博弈者參與,佢哋一位扮送錢方[e 15]另一位扮收錢方[e 16],玩法係噉嘅[31]

  1. 首先,佢哋兩人收到一筆錢,例如係 100 文美元咁多。
  2. 送錢方做決策先,佢可以揀「要將幾多嘅錢送去畀收錢方」。
  3. 送錢方傳咗嗰筆錢(T),跟住會變成三倍,例如送錢方傳咗 50 文(T = 50),嗰筆錢跟住會變成 150 文。
  4. 收錢方收到筆錢,知道送錢方做咗咩決策,就輪到佢做決策,佢要決定將筆錢入面幾多嘅(Y)傳返去畀送錢方,佢有權選擇自己擸晒筆錢(Y = 0)。

一種常見嘅睇法係,T 反映緊送錢方幾信賴對方,而 Y 就反映收錢方幾值得信賴—— T 數值越大就越反映送錢方肯冒險信賴對方(對方有權擸晒筆錢),而 Y 數值越大就越反映收錢方唔會利用送錢方對佢嘅信賴。假如送錢方係完全「理性」冇任何信賴可言(會假定對方只在意私利,會假定 Y 會係 0)嘅,佢會選擇唔傳任何錢(T = 0),但事實完全唔係噉[32]。唔少學者認為同監犯困境比起嚟,信賴博弈更加能夠反映信賴[33]

應用

編輯
 
一隻畀人睇佢肚[34];一隻肯信任人嘅動物,會比較容易 handle。
内文:信賴量度

信賴相關嘅研究,好多領域都會用得著。

動物行為相關嘅工作,成日都會考慮「呢隻動物係咪信任人類」嘅問題[34]。例如打理動物園或者做獸醫都實要接近動物,一隻唔信任人類嘅動物見到有人行埋佢道可能會攻擊,而人受到大型嘅動物(例如或者大笨象呀噉)攻擊可以受重傷甚至搞出人命。因此,動物園職員同獸醫等嘅人員有必要學識「睇動物嘅眉頭眼額」,判斷佢哋眼前嘅動物係咪信任人[35]

市場學方面嘅工作,亦都時不時會討論信賴嘅問題。一般認為,一個品牌如果得到顧客嘅信賴(顧客認為佢哋有能力有誠信提供優質嘅產品)就能夠建立強烈嘅品牌忠誠[e 17] ——啲客唔單只會持續噉買佢哋嘅產品,仲冇咁易一見到第間公司提供更優質嘅產品就「跳槽」[36]。所以有好多市場學工作者都成日喺道諗要點樣贏取消費者嘅信賴[37]

人機互動[e 18]嘅工作者,亦都有對信賴嘅問題著墨。例如 AI 研究,就成日出現信賴問題[38] ——例如一個 AI 程式明明表現優良,但係啲人就係唔肯信賴佢,最後阻礙咗間公司採用 AI。唔少人機互動研究者都會由心理學腦神經學嗰道借諗頭嚟用,思考 AI 程式或者機械人要點設計先至可以引人信賴,例如恐怖谷理論[e 19]就幾出名,講到設計機械人嘅外觀嗰陣要小心,因為整到似人非人噉嘅機械人會引起強烈反感,難以引人信賴[39]

睇埋

編輯

引述

編輯

註解:

  1. 舉動:指緊實際舉動,而唔淨只係「信賴對方」嘅意圖。
  2. 可以睇睇進化論上講嘅親屬選擇
  3. 可以睇埋結合數據嘅概念。
  4. 事實係,廿世紀嘅經濟學以及博弈論分析,好興當啲決策者係完全以私利為本嘅。可以睇睇理性經濟人受限理性方面嘅嘢。
  5. 有研究者批評,監犯困境並冇分清楚信賴(一種決策者嘅內部狀態)同埋合作(決策者實際做出嘅行為)呢兩樣嘢。
  6. 重複:即係話博弈者可以記住對方之前做過乜,畀對方背叛過嘅有得下次揀背叛嚟「報仇」。

篇文用咗嘅行話詞彙,英文版如下:

  1. sociality
  2. vulnerability
  3. risk-taking in relationship,RTR
  4. trustworthiness
  5. trust propensity,TP
  6. attachment theory
  7. avoidant attachment
  8. anxious-ambivalent attachment
  9. secure attachment
  10. social reality
  11. high-trust and low-trust society
  12. game theory
  13. prisoner's dilemma
  14. trust game
  15. sender
  16. receiver
  17. brand loyalty
  18. HCI
  19. uncanny valley theory

篇文引述咗嘅學術文獻同埋網頁

  1. Why Emotional Trust is Harder to Gain (and More Important) than Physical Trust. Medium.
  2. Timming, A. R., & Perrett, D. (2016). Trust and mixed signals: A study of religion, tattoos and cognitive dissonance (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 234-238.
  3. Bunduchi, R. (2008). Trust, power and transaction costs in B2B exchanges - A socio-economic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), 610-622.
  4. Paliszkiewicz, J., Koohang, A., Gołuchowski, J., & Horn Nord, J. (2014). Management trust, organizational trust, and organizational performance: advancing and measuring a theoretical model. Management and Production Engineering Review, 5.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Yamagishi, Toshio, et al. "Separating trust from cooperation in a dynamic relationship: prisoner's dilemma with variable dependence." Rationality and society 17.3 (2005): 275-308,講到背叛行為可能只係反映位決策者驚,而合作行為可以係一種「訊號」用嚟話畀對方知「我肯合作」。
  6. 6.0 6.1 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust (PDF). Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734,定義嗰部份:"The definition of trust proposed in this research is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. This definition of trust is applicable to a relationship with another identifiable party who is perceived to act and react with volition toward the trustor.",佢哋個 Figure 1 講到信賴嘅三大成份:信對方夠能力、夠良善(信對方就算冇利益都會肯幫手)同埋夠誠信(信對方會跟從某啲可接受嘅原則)。呢三個成份嘅重要度可能會隨時間而變化。
  7. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. 1953. Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  8. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust (PDF). Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
  9. Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, 6(1), 94-107.
  10. Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(6), 1306,講到「信賴者要肯承受風險」係信賴情境實有嘅特點。
  11. Dunning, D. A. V. I. D., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Understanding the psychology of trust. Psychology Press.
  12. Evans, A. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2009). The psychology (and economics) of trust (PDF). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1003-1017.
  13. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust (PDF). Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734,佢講咗呢句:"Proposition 5. RTR is a function of trust and the perceived risk of the trusting behavior (e.g., empowerment of a subordinate)." "Proposition 6. Outcomes of trusting behaviors (i.e., RTR) will lead to updating of prior perceptions of the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee."
  14. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927,呢篇文係一份元分析,佢哋第一段就有提到呢三個信賴概念。亦有提到信賴嘅三部份(能力、良善同誠信)各自同信賴有關係。
  15. Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard business review, 95(1), 84-90.
  16. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Van der Werff, L., Freeney, Y., Lance, C. E., & Buckley, F. (2019). A trait-state model of trust propensity: Evidence from two career transitions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2490.
  18. Müller, J., & Schwieren, C. (2020). Big five personality factors in the trust game (PDF). Journal of Business Economics, 90(1), 37-55,呢篇文講五大性格特質信賴博弈之間嘅關係。
  19. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664.
  20. M. Mikulincer, P.R. Shaver. The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes, Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 35 (2003), pp. 53-152.
  21. Hazan C, Shaver P (1987). "Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (3): 511-524.
  22. Campbell, L., & Stanton, S. C. (2019). Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 25, 148-151.
  23. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1498), 1307-1312,佢哋講咗:"Resemblance to the subject's own face raised the incidence of trusting a partner, but had no effect on the incidence of selfish betrayals of the partner's trust. Control subjects playing with identical pictures failed to show such an effect."
  24. Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press.
  25. Social Institutions. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  26. Lawson, Tony (March 2012). "Ontology and the study of social reality: emergence, organisation, community, power, social relations, corporations, artefacts and money". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 36 (2): 345-385.
  27. Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of economic psychology, 32(5), 865-889,引咗嗰段嘢:"In most neighborhoods, most of the time, unlocked doors remain unopened, lost wallets containing cash are returned, and the vast majority of contracts, thankfully, remain incomplete. This is fortunate, since all of this trust and trustworthiness is good for the economy."
  28. Natale, S.M.; Hoffman, R.P.; Hayward, G. (1998). Business Education and Training: Corporate Structures, Business, and the Management of Values. Business education and training : a value-laden process. University Press of America.
  29. Deutsch, M. 1958. Trust and suspicion. J. Conflict Resol. 2: 265-279.
  30. Acedo, Cristina, and Antoni Gomila. "Trust and cooperation: a new experimental approach." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1299.1 (2013): 77-83.
  31. Berg, J.; Dickhaut, J.; McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10, 122-142,一篇好多人引用嘅文,有講到信賴博弈嘅實驗程序。
  32. Banerjee, Sanchayan, Matteo M. Galizzi, and Rafael Hortala-Vallve. "Trusting the trust game: An external validity analysis with a UK representative sample." Games 12.3 (2021): 66,依篇文話搵到啲證據,發現信賴博弈當中嘅 T 值,真係同其他量度信賴嘅架生度到嘅嘢有統計相關
  33. Dasgupta, P. 1988. 'Trust as a Commodity.' In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, ed. D. Gambetta, pp. 49-72. Oxford: Blackwell.
  34. 34.0 34.1 Rault, J. L., Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., & Hemsworth, P. (2020). The power of a positive human–animal relationship for animal welfare. Frontiers in veterinary science, 7, 590867. p. 4 "These types of behavioral responses, exposing often vulnerable body region, may be interpreted as involving a level of trust reflecting a positive HAR, although some behaviors such as lying with the belly exposed may also indicate submission in dogs, for instance, and therefore do not necessarily indicate a positive HAR."
  35. (香港繁體) 【幕後直擊】海洋公園護理員 真誠獲動物信任,HKET
  36. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
  37. (香港繁體) 赢取客戶信任,打造全方位客戶服務策略,imBee
  38. Glikson E, Woolley AW. Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals. 2020 Jul;14(2):627-60,呢篇文屬於綜述文,有提及「人唔肯信賴 AI」同「人太過信賴 AI」嘅問題,亦有討論邊啲因素會影響人對 AI 嘅信任程度——可以睇佢嗰啲 table 同 figure。
  39. Mori, M. 1970. Bukimi no tani [The uncanny valley]. Energy, 7(4): 33-35.
  40. Social Deduction Game Design Fundamentals - BKGameDesign. Medium,佢噉講:"Keep in mind that most social deduction games build tension as long as the traitor’s identity remains obfuscated. Not knowing who to trust is the critical element that makes this genre exciting."
  41. From Mafia to Among Us: Can social deduction evolve as online multiplayer?. Game Developer,佢噉講:"As socially evolved creatures, finding a traitor among our in-group does not exactly feed on our sense of unity and trust. The fun of social deduction is based on social conflict and inducing paranoia."

文獻

編輯

以下係一啲進階嘅學術文獻,講信賴相關研究嘅:

  • (英文) Cho, J. H., Chan, K., & Adali, S. (2015). A survey on trust modeling. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 48(2), 1-40.
  • (英文) Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. Mis Quarterly, 373-396,呢篇文用 fMRI 以及量度信賴嘅心理測量工具,想探知信賴會由咩腦活動反映。
  • (英文) Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of research in Personality, 42(6), 1585-1593,性格測驗信賴博弈,都被指可以用嚟量度一個人幾傾向信賴其他人。
  • (英文) Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(6), 1306.
  • (英文) Van Den Akker, Olmo R., et al. "Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game." Journal of Economic Psychology 81 (2020): 102329.
  • (英文) Yamagishi, Toshio, et al. "Separating trust from cooperation in a dynamic relationship: prisoner's dilemma with variable dependence." Rationality and society 17.3 (2005): 275-308,佢哋响呢篇文入便主張,打前用博弈論研究信賴嘅做法,冇考慮到信賴同合作行為係兩樣唔同嘅嘢,因而當咗肯合作等同信賴。可以睇睇第 279 頁嗰道。

亦有一啲文獻專講維基百科相關嘅信任研究:

  • (英文) Adler, B. T., Chatterjee, K., De Alfaro, L., Faella, M., Pye, I., & Raman, V. (2008, September). Assigning trust to Wikipedia content. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (pp. 1-12).
  • (英文) Kittur, A., Suh, B., & Chi, E. H. (2008, November). Can you ever trust a Wiki? Impacting perceived trustworthiness in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 477-480).