Preferred Institutions: Public Views on Policy

In this dissertation, I ask why people might prefer one institution of government (courts, legislatures, executives) over another to handle certain issues. Previous research has focused on legitimacy of the courts, whether institutions can legitimate policy, and how public opinion is thus informed. This research is invaluable in understanding support for and influence of specific institutions, but this only gets us so far. We still do not know why people might feel that one institution is more legitimate than another to handle policymaking on a specific issue. Here, I begin to examine this question arguing that institutions act as source cues to individuals and that those individuals evaluate the appropriateness of institutions to handle issues by considering institutional design (majoritarianism v. countermajoritarianism), politics (political v. nonpolitical institutions and issues), trust, and regret/disappointment. In short, I suggest that numerous factors play into an individual’s preferences for one branch to handle certain issues and that these factors have to do both with beliefs about the institution(s), and perceptions of the issue(s)

Can we trust trust explanations?An experimental illustration of how outcome based accounts of trust struggle to explain a basic phenomenon of human life

In Chapter 4, I will provide an overview of the findings and insights gained in experimental trust research. I will then discuss common consequential explanations and potential methodological reasons for high trust rates. Finally, I will present an empirical study in which all these explanations were tested using a between-subjects design. In this study, my coauthors and I could not find out why people trust, but we showed which explanations fail to explain trust. First, we showed that trust rates did not decrease when participants had to hand over their own money, compared to past studies in which participants played with a show-up fee (house money effects). For the first time, we conducted a trust game in which trustors could only hand over their own money; however, similar to what occurred in past studies, 57.1% of trustors did so. Second, anticipating high rates of trustworthiness was not the reason for participants to trust. In fact, they underestimated this share by almost 20 percentage points. Third, high trust rates were not explainable by high risk tolerance. Only 25.3% of participants were willing to bet money, making a risky decision identical in gains and similar in risks to the trust game but void of trust. However, trust games entail second players who can benefit from the money trustors hand over. Therefore, trustors might hand over money because they have preferences for equality or want to enlarge the pie. Contradicting these arguments, only 28.3% of participants bet money in a risky decision, which was not only similar to the trust game regarding gains and risks but also those involving a second player. Thus, we could not find evidence that trust can be explained by one of the explanations we tested. Chapter 5 deals with the question of how people behave in trust situations in which they cannot be better off if their trust is reciprocated by the partner with whom they interact (trustee). Former studies have examined only trust decisions in which people who trust (trustors) were rewarded if the person with whom they interacted proved to be trustworthy. Thus, it is not clear to what extent the strategic motive to be better off plays a role in trust decisions in general. In Chapter 5, I present a study on that issue. Using a full between-subjects design, this study examined non-strategic trust decisions in which participants cannot be better off or even only worse off by trusting others for the first time. To do this, my coauthors and I systematically manipulated the potential gains in trust games and compared them with lotteries void of any trust but equal in risks and gains. Our results show that both trust behavior and risky behavior unrelated to trust were dependent on potential gains and losses. However, whereas the number of risky decisions decreased to almost zero in lotteries entailing no or negative gains, trust behavior was comparably stable. Chapter 5 provides evidence that people do not trust strategically and that high trust rates are sustainable in different kinds of trust situations. While I considered only explanations for trust behavior that are basically consequential in Chapters 4 and 5, I go one step further in Chapter 6. Here, I examine whether trust behavior in trust games is driven by the curiosity trustors feel in the moment they make their trust decision. Thereby, I illuminate the question whether the paradigm of the trust game itself causes the phenomenon of high trust rates. In addition, I examine the influence of regret aversion (the tendency of people to avoid future regret) on trust. In order to give an answer to this question, I present a study in Chapter 6 in which my coauthors and I compared a trust game with conditional feedback to a trust game with unconditional feedback (between-subjects). Trustors in ordinary trust games receive conditional feedback only. That means they learn the trustworthiness of their trustee on the condition that they hand over their money to him or her. Thus, trustors might hand over money in trust games because they want to know whether their trustee is reliable. To find out, we compared an ordinary trust game with conditional feedback to a trust game with unconditional feedback in which trustors always learned the trustworthiness of their interaction partner. In this trust game, trustors were always informed about the decision of their assigned trustee, no matter whether they kept or handed over their money. Whereas the curiosity hypothesis predicts that more trustors hand over money when they receive conditional feedback, regret aversion would predict that fewer people will do so. In the trust game with unconditional feedback, trustors cannot avoid potential regret triggered by their decision to keep or to hand over money. Trustors, who keep the money, run the risk of learning that their trustee was reliable and that they would have doubled their money had they handed it over. Trustors, who hand over their money, run the risk of learning that their trustee was untrustworthy and that they would not have lost their money had they kept it. Thus, regret aversion should not influence trustors to make a particular decision in the trust game with unconditional feedback. However, in the trust game with conditional feedback, trustors can avoid potential regret by keeping the money because then they will never learn whether their assigned trustee was reliable and that they would have doubled their money, if they had handed it over. Therefore, regret aversion should influence trustors in the trust game with conditional feedback to keep their money. However, we did not find any difference between the trust rates in the trust game with conditional feedback and the trust game with unconditional feedback. Hence, neither the curiosity nor the regret hypothesis could be supported. At the end of Chapter 6, I discuss which implications these findings could have for further research

An online survey of adults with cystic fibrosis: accessing and using life expectancy information

A spreadsheet containing a subset of the original data from all respondents (n=85) from an online questionnaire entitled "Online survey to gain understanding of what people with cystic fibrosis aged 16+ would like to learn about their life expectancy and other outcomes". The survey was conducted in July 2016. Responses to all multiple choice questions are included. Free text responses have been removed in accordance with information provided to the respondents. Ages have been categorised. The data do not contain any identifying information

Trust and Privacy Permissions for an Ambient World

Ambient intelligence (AmI) and ubiquitous computing allow us to consider a future where computation is embedded into our daily social lives. This vision raises its own important questions and augments the need to understand how people will trust such systems and at the same time achieve and maintain privacy. As a result, we have recently conducted a wide reaching study of people’s attitudes to potential AmI scenarios with a view to eliciting their privacy concerns. This chapter describes recent research related to privacy and trust with regard to ambient technology. The method used in the study is described and findings discussed

E-Voting in an ubicomp world: trust, privacy, and social implications

The advances made in technology have unchained the user from the desktop into interactions where access is anywhere, anytime. In addition, the introduction of ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) will see further changes in how we interact with technology and also socially. Ubicomp evokes a near future in which humans will be surrounded by “always-on,” unobtrusive, interconnected intelligent objects where information is exchanged seamlessly. This seamless exchange of information has vast social implications, in particular the protection and management of personal information. This research project investigates the concepts of trust and privacy issues specifically related to the exchange of e-voting information when using a ubicomp type system

The ethics of uncertainty for data subjects

Modern health data practices come with many practical uncertainties. In this paper, I argue that data subjects’ trust in the institutions and organizations that control their data, and their ability to know their own moral obligations in relation to their data, are undermined by significant uncertainties regarding the what, how, and who of mass data collection and analysis. I conclude by considering how proposals for managing situations of high uncertainty might be applied to this problem. These emphasize increasing organizational flexibility, knowledge, and capacity, and reducing hazard

Multi-Country Study on Trusted Partners among Youth: Eritrea, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

ObjectivesExplore youth's definitions of "trust"Establish criteria youth use to determine the trustworthiness of partnersIdentify types of individuals youth believe they can and cannot "trust"Examine trust's influence on sexual decision-making and STI/HIV risk perceptionIdentify how sexual partners violate trust and the effects on sexual decision-makingStudy designData were collected in October 2001 as part of a regional Behavior Change Communication (BCC) strategy in East and Southern Africa. Country programs chose to participate in research based on project priorities and levels of interest in participating in a regional BCC strategy. Four county programs agreed to collect and share data, Eritrea, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.A total of 33 focus groups were conducted. Research teams in each country used the same discussion guide and pretested the guide prior to data collection. Discussion groups lasted between an hour and an hour and a half, were audiotaped, and transcribed into English. Each research team conducted two discussion groups in the major urban area composed of the following strata: males 15-19 years, females 15-19 years, males 20-24 years, and females 20-24 years. The Zambia program conducted one additional focus group with males aged 15-19.FindingsExplore youth's definition of "trust" and criteria used to determine trustworthinessThe major components of trust did not vary greatly across countries. Youth in all countries placed a high value on sexual fidelity and its role in trusted partnerships. Youth believed that partners met through family or friends are more trustworthy than those met in bars or nightclubs. In addition, youth in all countries expressed that trusted partners must pass informal assessments, dress appropriately, demonstrate appropriate social conduct, talk sweetly to each other, come from the right neighborhood, meet one another's family, be punctual for appointments/dates, and remain emotionally committed to one another. Eritrean youth appeared to place greater importance on the roles that religion, virginity, and marriage (or intent to marry) play in establishing trust than youth from other countries.Differences in criteria for trust were more apparent by gender. In terms of testing partners' trustworthiness, females discussed passive ways of questioning partners, while males discussed elaborate methods for entrapping females in lies. Males were concerned with partners' sexual reputation and appearance. Females were primarily concerned with partners' emotional commitment, willingness to accept responsibility for pregnancies, and ability to display affection in public in order to demonstrate intimacy and trust.Identify types of individuals youth believe they can and cannot "trust"Across countries, youth place prospective partners into groups that can and cannot be trusted according to key attributes and behaviors. Similar to the findings above, most participants said that youth that come from good families, are well respected in the community, are religious, do not drink, avoid bars and nightclubs, and are faithful can be trusted. Youth believe that they cannot trust anyone outside of committed, monogamous relationships. Male participants added that virgins can be trusted.Examine trust's influence on sexual decision-making and STI/HIV risk perceptionYouth do not appear to take effective preventive measures with trusted partners. Trust can blind them to their risk for STIs/HIV and render them unwilling to explore partners' sexual histories. Sex usually occurs early in relationships and condom use remains low. When youth use condoms, they are more likely to incorporate them into casual than trusted relationships, or use them for pregnancy prevention rather than protection from STIs/HIV. Condoms are usually abandoned once relationships appear to be serious and partners fail to show signs or symptoms of STIs or HIV infection. There were few differences in risk perception and risk behavior across countries; however, male participants in Zambia reported that they discuss their sexual histories, while participants from other countries said that couples rarely discuss their sexual histories.Identify how sexual partners violate trust and the effects on sexual decision-makingInfidelity represents the most serious violation of trust and usually results in the end of relationships. A common theme across all countries was youth's refusal to learn from past experiences and apply them to future sexual decision-making. Even when trust is broken, youth fail to apply lessons learned to new relationships, repeating the same scenarios of trust, infidelity and exposure to STIs/HIV.Programmatic implicationsYouth must understand that partners' trustworthiness and character are independent of their risk for STIs/HIV. Although a checklist may help youth select a good partner, unprotected sex with this or any other person must be perceived as risky. Youth must also personalize their risk for STIs/HIV and avoid thinking that only people outside of their community are at risk for infection. It is likely that interpersonal communication campaigns or other community-level activities will help achieve an improved risk perception. Finally, in order to communicate new and appropriate levels of personal risk assessment, programs should strive to achieve broad social support, if not pressure for, consistent condom use, knowledge of one's own HIV status as well as that of all partners, and delay of sexual activity where possible

Race, Class, and Access to Civil Justice

After many years of inattention, policymakers are now focused on troubling statistics indicating that members of poor and minority groups are less likely than their higher-income counterparts to seek help when they experience a civil justice problem. Indeed, roughly three-quarters of the poor do not seek legal help when they experience a civil justice problem, and inaction is even more pronounced among poor blacks. Past work on access to civil justice largely relies on unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior patterns and needs of those experiencing civil justice problems. At a time when increased attention and resources are being devoted to questions of racial and socioeconomic access to civil justice, it is critical to understand the underlying causes of the disparities in justice utilization. This Article uses original, empirical data to provide novel explanations for these puzzling inaction statistics. The data reveal previously undetected connections that are crucial for creating effective access to justice policy. The Article shows how negative past experiences with, and perceptions of, the criminal justice system play a crucial role in decision-making about seeking help for civil justice problems. Further, this Article is the first to explore racial differences in civil justice utilization among the poor, and to explain how degree of trust is a key explanation for these racial differences. Based on the findings, the Article proposes a paradigm shift in how to shape access to justice policy