| This study was a response to Rotter's 1980 query concerning the generalizability of Interpersonal Trust Scale (ITPS) research. Rotter was concerned whether previous findings would hold true in disadvantaged populations. Rotter felt research with such populations would clarify the relationship of trust and gullibility.;The loglinear-based Likelihood Ratio Chi-square was used in the statistical analyses. High trusters proved both more trustworthy and more likely to believe promises when encountering an unknown or honest player. The evidence for superior high trust cooperativeness was mixed, leaving the possibility of a trustworthy, but anti-social behavior pattern with some delinquents.;The evidence on gullibility was difficult to interpret. The subjects were slow to react to betrayal. Only in terms of belief was there clearly a pattern of no high trust gullibility. With the Apology With Status conditions, the evidence against high trust gullibility was strong, but in the Dishonest and Apology No Status conditions there was evidence of high trust gullibility.;This study points up the difficulty in attempting to use research paradigms developed in academic settings with deviant subgroups. Besides problems with literacy, many delinquents may have found the PDG too abstract. The concept of accepting the lesser of two losses may have been foreign to them.;The subjects were 150 delinquent residents of the Cook County Temporary Detention Center. After being given the IPTS, the subjects played a modified Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG) in the Plato Computer Learning Center. They were able to exchange promises with a fictional other player. Thirty subjects played in each condition. In the first condition, the other player kept promises and played cooperatively. In the second condition, the other player broke promises and played uncooperatively after the first of ten trials. In the third condition, the other player behaved similarly, but sent apologies. In condition four, the other player sent apologies and was given "high status" characteristics. In condition five, the apologizing other player was given "low status" characteristics. The dependent variables were trustworthiness, belief and cooperativeness. |
