Risk Anal. 2010 Sep;30(9):1328-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01422.x.
The "intuitive detection theorists" model of trust posits greater trust for correctly distinguishing danger from safety and an activist response under uncertainty about danger. An American sample evaluated U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) performance after two possible terrorism events in which DHS has the same activist or nonactivist response bias. Outcomes were two successes (bombing prevented or lack of threat accurately foretold), two failures (bombing or DHS action against high school prank leads to student deaths), or a mix. Hindsight empathy (a belief one would have made the same decision) differed across treatments but trust less so; contrary to a similar one-event experiment in Germany, an active but incorrect response did not raise trust relative to passive incorrect action. Political conservatives were much more trusting and empathetic than liberals, and all ideological groups (including moderates) exhibited little internal variation reflecting experimental conditions. Consistently accurate outcomes rated significantly higher in empathy than either inconsistent results or consistent inaccuracy (the lowest rated); trust exhibited no significant differences. Results in this study show actual (experimentally manipulated) performance being trumped by the interpretive screen of political ideology, but this seemed less the case in the earlier German study, despite its finding of a strong moderating effect of right-wing authoritarianism. Trust scholars need to attend more to effects of performance history (i.e., a sequence of events) and their limiting factors. More systematic testing of effects of ideology and performance history would enhance future research on trust.
信任的“直观检测理论家”模型假设，在对危险感到不确定的情况下，人们更有可能正确区分危险和安全，并采取积极的应对措施。一个美国样本评估了美国国土安全部（DHS）在两次可能的恐怖袭击事件后的表现，在这两次事件中，DHS 都有相同的积极或不积极的应对偏见。结果有两种成功（阻止了爆炸或准确预测了威胁），两种失败（爆炸或 DHS 对高中恶作剧的行动导致学生死亡），或者是混合的。事后共情（一种认为自己会做出同样决定的信念）因处理方式而异，但信任程度却不同；与德国的一项类似的单次实验相反，积极但错误的反应并没有提高信任度，而消极但错误的反应则没有。政治保守派比自由派更信任和同情，所有意识形态群体（包括温和派）都表现出很少的内部变化，反映出实验条件。在同理心方面，一致准确的结果明显高于不一致的结果或一致的不准确结果（评价最低）；信任则没有显著差异。这项研究的结果表明，实际（实验操纵）表现被政治意识形态的解释屏幕所取代，但在早期的德国研究中，这种情况似乎并不明显，尽管该研究发现右翼独裁主义有很强的调节作用。信任学者需要更多地关注绩效历史（即一系列事件）及其限制因素的影响。更系统地测试意识形态和绩效历史的影响将增强未来对信任的研究。
