Such seems pretty likely to me, as most of the societies that spring most to mind when I think 'low trust' are also associated with all kinds of haggling and negotiation, and not just on rare big-ticket purchases. George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, also seemed to think so, believing that negotiation inherently disadvantaged the meek and who introduced fixed pricing in England as the implementation of his belief. Just from a pure productivity standpoint, were this a technology in a game like Civilization, it'd almost certainly be considered radically overpowered. Think of how many hours are expended haggling over prices---guessing that fixed pricing practices resulted in a 5-10% improvement in overall productivity is probably an underestimate, to say nothing of the reduction in stress levels, particularly among the more introverted segments of the population.
Can a case be made that the introduction of fixed pricing and the marginalization of negotiation in daily life increased the trust levels in the Anglosphere (George Fox pushed the idea pretty charismatically on Quaker merchants, and the success of it lead to increasing adoption over the years by other merchants---the reputation of Quaker businessmen for honest dealing, relative to the standards of that era, was commercially valuable)? Is it an accident that people that negotiate prices in general are thought poorly of in our society (e.g., car salesmen and furniture salesmen)?
Writing about Literature Revisited (Coleridge)
15 hours ago