Cynicism May Cost You

Having a distrustful attitude might limit your earning power

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Most of the world's population now lives in cities, which means fewer of us know our neighbors. Should we adapt to modern society by raising our guards and looking over our shoulder? Research says no—we are actually not trusting enough, and it could be costing us money.

A growing body of work has established that in laboratory studies, subjects who are less trusting of their peers make less money in investment and economic scenarios. For instance, participants in one 2009 study underestimated how many partners would return their money in an economics game, so they underinvested and wound up with lower earnings than they could have. A paper, published online in May in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, now finds some real-world evidence of the financial harm of cynicism.

Analyzing data from national surveys in the U.S. and Germany, psychologists Olga Stavrova and Daniel Ehlebracht of the University of Cologne found that people who reported cynical views of human nature had smaller incomes (by thousands of dollars) two and nine years later, compared with their more optimistic peers. The researchers ruled out several proposed explanations for the link between cynicism and income, including personality, health, education, age, gender and employment status.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Instead they propose that cynicism increases suspicion, which prevents cooperation. If that is true, cynicism should not be harmful in places where a high degree of suspicion is justified. Looking at 41 European countries, the researchers found that in nations with the highest murder rates and least volunteerism, cynicism did not correlate with lower income.

Giving others the benefit of the doubt, then, may not invite deception; it instead seems to pay off—literally, Stavrova says: “So in most places in the U.S. and western Europe, being less cynical might be a better way to go.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe