It is natural for small groups of people who undergo common hardships to bond with a sense of comraderie. They would also benefit greatly by cooperating to share things like a common fire and shelter and the division of labor, etc. And sharing each other's company would also be a powerful reinforcement to keeping a close, cooperative group. There would be very little incentive for the individuals to betray each other because presumably no one would have significantly more resources than the others. Think of that as a "Gilligan's Island" scenario. I think you could trust people implicitly under those conditions.<br><br>If the group of people is large enough, it creates the possibility for different factions to develop. The factions could be competing with each other for the same resources and may not be able to trust each other. This is more like a "Lord of the Flies" scenario. However, in the "Flies" the characters were children without a developed sense of morality. I have enough faith in human nature to think that in a similar situation with typical adults, that a much more stable and gentle social structure would develop in which people could trust each other. However, that certainly wouldn't hold true if you were unlucky enough to be stranded with people that just happened to be immoral individuals.<br><br>I think that the way you view this question is an indicator of how you view human nature.<br><br>