Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm
Published on: October 20, 2022
Who Do I (Dis)Trust and Monitor for Ethical Misconduct? Status, Power, and the Structural Paradox
Kelly Raz1, Alison R Fragale2, Liat Levontin3
1Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Abstract:
A wealth of research documents the critical role of trust for social exchange and cooperative behavior. The ability to inspire trust in others can often be elusive, and distrust can have adverse interpersonal and ethical consequences. Drawing from the literature on social hierarchy and interpersonal judgments, the current research explores the predictive role of a structural paradox between high power and low status in identifying the actors most likely to be distrusted and monitored for ethical misconduct. Across four studies and an internal meta-analysis, we found that the structural paradox was associated with distrust-related judgments and behaviors. In Study 1, high power-low status actors were judged as less trustworthy. In Studies 2 and 3, high power-low status actors were sent less money in a trust game, an effect fully mediated by feelings of dislike. Study 4 revealed that high power-low status actors were more likely to be monitored for cheating, an effect partially mediated by trust judgments. These findings contribute to business ethics research by identifying the structural paradox of high power-low status as a salient contextual influence impacting observers' distrust and monitoring dynamics. Implications for reducing observers' level of distrust of high power-low status actors are discussed.
Related Concept Videos
Obedience
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Ethical Dilemmas II
Equity Theory
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare:
Ethics and Bioethics

