Are rules meant to be broken? When and why consistent rule-following undermines versus enhances trust

Abstract

Although consistency has long been positioned as a cornerstone of trust, the present paper examines when and why consistent rule-following undermines versus enhances trust. Across six preregistered experiments (total N = 2649), we study trust in decision-makers (e.g., police officers, managers) who either consistently punish offenders according to codified rules (e.g., laws, policies) or who exercise discretion by occasionally deviating from rules. We find that people are more likely to trust decision-makers that exercise discretion rather than consistently follow rules, to the extent that discretion signals benevolence. The degree to which discretion is perceived as benevolent, and therefore trustworthy, depends on what type of discretion is exercised, how the decision is reached, to whom discretion is applied, and the nature of the transgressions being punished. Specifically, people reward decision-makers who use discretion leniently (rather than punitively) and apply it thoughtfully (rather than arbitrarily). Moreover, only certain cases of punishment are deemed appropriate for discretion. When discretion is perceived to be motivated by favoritism because it is applied to close others, or when the basis for discretion is unclear because there is little variance in cases of the crime being punished, discretion fails to signal benevolence and elicit trust. This research has important implications for understanding trust, discretion, and the reputational consequences of punishment.