Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

Trust (emotion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a social context, trust has several connotations.[1]

Definitions of trust[2][3] typically refer to a situation
characterized by the following aspects: One party (trustor) is
willing to rely on the actions of another party (trustee); the
situation is directed to the future. In addition, the trustor
(voluntarily or forcedly) abandons control over the actions
performed by the trustee. As a consequence, the trustor is
uncertain about the outcome of the other's actions; they can only
develop and evaluate expectations. The uncertainty involves the
risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee will not
behave as desired. Vladimir Ilych Lenin expressed this idea
with the sentence "Trust is good, control is better".[4]

Trust can be attributed to relationships between people. It can

be demonstrated that humans have a natural disposition to trust Trust: The Artist's Daughters on
and to judge trustworthiness that can be traced to the the Way to School, 1851 Gustav
neurobiological structure and activity of a human brain. Some Adolph Hennig painting.
studies indicate that trust can be altered e.g. by the application
of oxytocin.[5]

Conceptually, trust is also attributable to relationships within and between social groups (history,
families, friends, communities, organisations, companies, nations, etc.). It is a popular approach to
frame the dynamics of inter-group and intra-group interactions in terms of trust.[6]

When it comes to the relationship between people and technology, the attribution of trust is a matter
of dispute. The intentional stance[7] demonstrates that trust can be validly attributed to human
relationships with complex technologies. However, rational reflection leads to the rejection of an
ability to trust technological artefacts.[8]

One of the key current challenges in the social sciences is to re-think how the rapid progress of
technology has impacted constructs such as trust. This is specifically true for information
technology that dramatically alters causation in social systems.[9]

In the social sciences, the subtleties of trust are a subject of ongoing research. In sociology and
psychology the degree to which one party trusts another is a measure of belief in the honesty,
fairness, or benevolence of another party. The term "confidence" is more appropriate for a belief in
the competence of the other party. Based on the most recent research, a failure in trust may be
forgiven more easily if it is interpreted as a failure of competence rather than a lack of benevolence
or honesty. In economics, trust is often conceptualized as reliability in transactions. In all cases trust
is a heuristic decision rule, allowing the human to deal with complexities that would require

1 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

unrealistic effort in rational reasoning.

Contents
1 Sociology
2 Psychology
2.1 The social identity approach
3 Philosophy
4 Economics
5 Systems
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

Sociology
When it comes to trust, sociology is concerned with the position and role of trust in social systems.
Interest in trust has grown significantly since the early eighties, from the early works of
Luhmann,[10] Barber [11] and Giddens[12] (see [13] for a more detailed overview). This growth of
interest in trust has been stimulated by on-going changes in society, characterised as late modernity
and post-modernity.

Trust is one of several social constructs, an element of the social reality.[14] It does not exist outside
of our vision of the other. This image can be real or imaginary, but it is this one which permits the
creation of the Trust.[15] Other constructs, frequently discussed together with trust, are: control,
confidence, risk, meaning and power. Trust is naturally attributable to relationships between social
actors, both individuals and groups (social systems). Because trust is a social construct, it is valid to
discuss whether trust can be trusted (e.g.[16]), i.e. whether social trust operates as expected.

Society needs trust because it increasingly finds itself operating at the edge between confidence in
what is known from everyday experience, and contingency of new possibilities. Without trust, all
contingent possibilities should be always considered, leading to a paralysis of inaction.[17] Trust
can be seen as a bet on one of contingent futures, the one that may deliver benefits. Once the bet is
decided (i.e. trust is granted), the trustor suspends his or her disbelief, and the possibility of a
negative course of action is not considered at all. Because of it, trust acts as a reductor of social
complexity, allowing for actions that are otherwise too complex to be considered (or even
impossible to consider at all); specifically for cooperation.[18] Sociology tends to focus on two
distinct views: the macro view of social systems, and a micro view of individual social actors
(where it borders with social psychology). Similarly, views on trust follow this dichotomy.

2 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

Therefore, on one side the systemic role of trust can be discussed, with a certain disregard to the
psychological complexity underpinning individual trust. The behavioural approach to trust is
usually assumed [19] while actions of social actors are measurable, leading to statistical modelling
of trust. This systemic approach can be contrasted [20] with studies on social actors and their
decision-making process, in anticipation that understanding of such a process will explain (and
allow to model) the emergence of trust.

Sociology acknowledges that the contingency of the future creates dependency between social
actors, and specifically that the trustor becomes dependent on the trustee. Trust is seen as one of the
possible methods to resolve such a dependency, being an attractive alternative to control.[21] Trust
is specifically valuable if the trustee is much more powerful than the trustor, yet the trustor is under
social obligation to support the trustee.[22]

Modern information technologies not only facilitated the transition towards post-modern society,
but they also challenged traditional views on trust. Empirical studies [23] confirms the new
approach to the traditional question regarding whether technology artefacts can be attributed with
trust. Trust is not attributable to artefacts, but it is a representation of trust in social actors such as
designers, creators and operators of technology. Properties of technological artefacts form a
message [24] to determine trustworthiness of those agents.

The discussion about the impact of information technologies is still in progress. However, it is
worth noting a conceptual re-thinking of technology-mediated social groups,[25] or the proposition
of a unifying socio-technical view on trust,[26] from the perspective of social actors.

Psychology
In psychology, trust is believing that the person who is trusted will do what is expected. It starts at
the family and grows to others. According to the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson development of basic
trust is the first state psychosocial development occurring, or failing, during the first two years of
life. Success results in feelings of security, trust, and optimism, while failure leads towards an
orientation of insecurity and mistrust[27] possibly resulting in attachment disorders.[28]

A person's dispositional tendency to trust others can be considered a personality trait and as such is
one of the strongest predictors of subjective well-being.[29] It has been argued that trust increases
subjective well-being because it enhances the quality of one's interpersonal relationships, and
happy people are skilled at fostering good relationships.[30]

Trust is integral to the idea of social influence: it is easier to influence or persuade someone who is
trusting. The notion of trust is increasingly adopted to predict acceptance of behaviors by others,
institutions (e.g. government agencies) and objects such as machines. However, once again
perception of honesty, competence and value similarity (slightly similar to benevolence) are
essential. There are three different forms of trust. Trust is being vulnerable to someone even when
they are trustworthy; trustworthiness are the characteristics or behaviors of one person that inspire

3 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

positive expectations in another person, and trust propensity being able to rely on people.[31] Once
trust is lost, by obvious violation of one of these three determinants, it is very hard to regain. Thus
there is clear asymmetry in the building versus destruction of trust. Hence being and acting
trustworthy should be considered the only sure way to maintain a trust level.

Increasingly much research has been done on the notion of trust and its social implications:

Barbara Misztal, in her book,[32] attempts to combine all notions of trust together. She points
out three basic things that trust does in the lives of people: It makes social life predictable, it
creates a sense of community, and it makes it easier for people to work together.
In the context of sexual trust Riki Robbins[33] describes four stages of trust.[34]
In the context of Information theory Ed Gerck defines and contrasts trust with social functions
such as power, surveillance, and accountability.[35][36]
From a social identity perspective, the propensity to trust in strangers (see in-group
favoritism) arises from the mutual knowledge of a shared group membership, [37][38]
stereotypes,[38] or the need to maintain the group's positive distinctiveness.[39]

In addition to the social influence, in organizational settings, trust may have a positive influence on
the behaviors, perceptions, and performances of a person. Trust has a circular relationship with
organizational justice perceptions such that perceived justice leads to trust which, in turn, promotes
future perceptions of justice.[40] One factor that enhances trust in a human being is facial
resemblance. Through digital manipulation of facial resemblance in a two-person sequential trust
game, supporting evidence was found that having similar facial features (facial resemblance)
enhanced trust in a subjects respective partner.[41] Though facial resemblance was shown to
increase trust, facial resemblance had the effect of decreased sexual desire in a particular partner. In
a series of tests, digitally manipulated faces were presented to subjects to be evaluated for
attractiveness within the context of a long term or short term relationship. The results showed that
within the context of a short term relationship, which is dependent on sexual desire, similar facial
features caused a decrease in said desire. Within the context of a long term relationship, which is
dependent on trust, similar facial features increased the attractiveness of an individual, leading one
to believe that facial resemblance and trust have great effects on relationships.[42] Structure often
creates trust in a person that encourages them to feel comfortable and excel in the workplace.
Working anywhere may be stressful and takes effort. By having a conveniently organized area to
work on, concentration will increase as well as effort. Structure is not just a method of order. It
increases trust and therefore makes a workplace manageable. A structured, ordered environment
produces trust as one may contain increased cooperation and perform on a higher level.

People may work together and achieve success through trust while working on projects that rely on
each individuals contribution.[43]

Conversely, where trust is absent, projects can fail, especially if this lack of trust has not been
identified and addressed. This is one facet of VPEC-T analysis: This thinking framework is used
when studying information systems. Identifying and dealing with cases where information

4 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

providers, information users, and those responsible for processing information do not trust one
another can result in the removal of a risk factor for a project.

One's social relationship characterized by low trust and norms that discourage academic
engagement are expected to be associated with low academic achievement. Individuals that are in
relationships characterized by high levels of social trust are more apt to openly exchange
information and to act with caring benevolence toward one another than those in relationships
lacking trust.[44]

An important key to treating sexual victimization of a child is the rebuilding of trust between parent
and child. Failure for the adults to validate the sexual abuse contributes to the child's difficulty
towards trusting self and others.[45] Trust is often affected by the erosion of a marriage. Children of
divorce do not exhibit less trust in mothers, partners, spouses, friends, and associates than their
peers of intact families. The impact of parental divorce is limited to trust in the father.[46]

The social identity approach

The social identity approach explains trust in strangers as a function of group-based stereotypes or
in-group favouring behaviours based on salient group memberships. With regard to ingroup
favoritism, people generally think well of strangers but expect better treatment from in-group
members in comparison to out-group members. This greater expectation then translates into a
higher propensity to trust an in-group rather than out-group member.[37][39][47] It has been pointed
out that it is only advantageous to form such expectations of an in-group stranger if they too know
the group membership of the recipient.[47]

There is considerable empirical activity related to the social identity approach. Allocator studies
have frequently been employed to understand group-based trust in strangers.[37][38][47][48] They
may be operationalised as unilateral or bilateral relationships of exchange. General social
categories such as university affiliation, course majors, and even ad-hoc groups have been used to
distinguish between in-group and out-group members. In unilateral studies of trust, the participant
would be asked to choose between envelopes containing money that was previously allocated by an
in-group or out-group member.[47] They would have had no prior or future opportunities for
interaction, simulating Brewers notion that group membership was sufficient in bringing about
group-based trust and hence cooperation.[49] Participants could expect an amount ranging from
nothing to the maximum value an allocator could give out. In bilateral studies of trust have
employed an investment game devised by Berg and colleagues where individuals could choose to
give a portion or none of their money to another.[50] Any amount given would be tripled and the
receiver would then decide on whether they would return the favour by giving money back to the
sender. Trusting behaviour on the part of the sender and the eventual trustworthiness of the receiver
was exemplified through the giving of money.[39][47]

The above empirical research has demonstrated that when group membership is made salient and
known to both parties, trust is granted more readily to in-group members than out-group members.

5 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

[38][47][48]This occurred even when the in-group stereotype was comparatively less positive than an
out-groups (e.g. psychology versus nursing majors),[38] in the absence of personal identity cues,[39]
and when participants had the option of a sure sum of money (i.e. in essence opting out of the need
to trust a stranger).[37] In contrast, when only the recipient was made aware of group membership
trust becomes reliant upon group stereotypes.[38][39] The group with the more positive stereotype
was trusted (e.g. ones university affiliation over another),[39] even over that of the in-group (e.g.
nursing over psychology majors).[38] Another reason for in-group favouring behaviours in trust
could be attributed to the need to maintain in-group positive distinctiveness, particularly in the
presence of social identity threat.[48] It should also be noted that trust in out-group strangers
increased when personal cues to identity were revealed.[39]

Philosophy
Some philosophers argue that trust is more than a relationship of reliance. Philosophers such as
Annette Baier have made a difference between trust and reliance by saying that trust can be
betrayed, whilst reliance can only be disappointed (Baier 1986, 235).[51] Carolyn McLeod explains
Baier's argument by giving the following examples: we can rely on our clock to give the time, but
we do not feel betrayed when it breaks, thus, we cannot say that we trusted it; we are not trusting
when we are suspicious of the other person, because this is in fact an expression of distrust
(McLeod 2006).[52] Thus, trust is different from reliance in the sense that a truster accepts the risk
of being betrayed.

The definition of trust as a belief in something or a confident expectation about something[53] leads
to eliminate the notion of risk from the definition, because it does not include whether the
expectation or belief is favorable or unfavorable. For example, to have an expectation of a friend
arriving to dinner late because she has habitually arrived late for the last fifteen years, is a confident
expectation (whether or not we agree with her annoying late arrivals.) The trust is not about what
we wish for, rather it is in the consistency of the data of our habits. As a result, there is no risk or
betrayal because the data now exists as collective knowledge.

Economics
Trust in economics is treated as an explanation for a difference between actual human behaviour
and the one that can be explained by the individual desire to maximize one's utility. In economic
terms, trust can provide an explanation of a difference between Nash equilibrium and the observed
equilibrium. Such an approach can be applied to individuals and well as societies.

Trust is also seen as an economic lubricant, reducing the cost of transactions between parties,
enabling new forms of cooperation and generally furthering business activities;[54][55] employment
and prosperity. This observation [56] created a significant interest in considering trust as a form of
social capital and has led research into closer understanding of the process of creation and
distribution of such capital. It has been claimed that higher level of social trust is positively

6 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

correlated with economic development. Even though the original concept of 'high trust' and 'low
trust' societies may not necessarily hold, it has been widely accepted and demonstrated that social
trust benefits the economy [57] and that a low level of trust inhibits economic growth.

Theoretical economical modelling [58] demonstrated that the optimum level of trust that a rational
economic agent should exhibit in transactions is equal to trustworthiness of the other party. Such a
level of trust leads to efficient market. Trusting less lead to the loss of economic opportunities,
trusting more leads to unnecessary vulnerabilities and potential exploitation.

Economics is also interested in quantifying trust, usually in monetary terms. The level of
correlation between increase in profit margin [59] or decrease in transactional cost can be used as
indicators of economic value of trust.

Economic 'trust games' are popularly used to empirically quantify trust in relationships under
laboratory conditions. There are several games and game-like scenarios related to trust that have
been tried, with certain preferences to those that allow to estimate confidence in monetary
terms.[60] Games of trust are designed in a way that their Nash equilibrium differ from Pareto
optimum so that no player alone can maximise his own utility by altering his selfish strategy
without cooperation while cooperating partners can benefit.

The classical version of the game of trust has been described in [61] as an abstracted investment
game, using the scenario of an investor and a broker. Investor can invest a fraction of his money,
and broker can return only part of his gains. If both players follow their economical best interest,
the investor should never invest and the broker will never be able to re-pay anything. Thus the flow
of money flow, its volume and character is attributable entirely to the existence of trust.

The game can be played as one-off, or as a repetitive one, between the same or different sets of
players, to distinguish between a general propensity to trust and trust within particular
relationships. Several other variants of this game exist. Reversing rules lead to the game of distrust,
pre-declarations can be used to establish intentions of players,[62] while alterations to the
distribution of gains can be used to manipulate perception of both players. The game can be also
played by several players on the closed market,[63] with or without information about reputation.

Other interesting games are e.g. binary-choice trust games,[64] the gift-exchange game [65] and
various other forms of social games. Specifically games based on the Prisoner's Dilemma [66] are
popularly used to link trust with economic utility and demonstrate the rationality behind reciprocity.

The work of Rachel Botsman is also very important about collaboration economy.

The popularisation of e-commerce opened the discussion of trust in economy to new challenges
while at the same time elevating the importance of trust, and desire to understand customer decision
to trust.[67] For example, inter-personal relationship between the buyer and the seller has been
dis-intermediated by the technology,[68] and had to be improved upon.[69] Alternatively, web sites
could be made to convince the buyer to trust the seller, regardless of seller's actual trustworthiness

7 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

(e.g.[70]) . Reputation-based systems improved on trust assessment by allowing to capture the

collective perception of trustworthiness, generating significant interest in various models of
reputation.[71]

Systems
In systems, a trusted component has a set of properties which another component can rely on. If A
trusts B, this means that a violation in those properties of B might compromise the correct
operation of A. Observe that those properties of B trusted by A might not correspond quantitatively
or qualitatively to Bs actual properties. This happens when the designer of the overall system does
not take the relation into account. In consequence, trust should be placed to the extent of the
components trustworthiness. The trustworthiness of a component is thus, not surprisingly, defined
by how well it secures a set of functional and non-functional properties, deriving from its
architecture, construction, and environment, and evaluated as appropriate.[72]

See also
Attachment theory Misplaced trust Swift trust theory
Credulity Personal boundaries Trust metric
Gullibility Position of trust Trusted system
Intimacy Source criticism

References
1. McKnight, D. H., and Chervany, N. L. (1996). The Meanings of Trust. Scientific report, University of
Minnesota. (http://www.misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/wp96-04.htm)
2. Mayer, R.C., Davis J.H., Schoorman F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy
of Management Review. 20 (3), 709-734.
3. Bamberger, Walter (2010). "Interpersonal Trust Attempt of a Definition" (http://www.ldv.ei.tum.de
/en/research/fidens/interpersonal-trust/). Scientific report, Technische Universitt Mnchen. Retrieved
2011-08-16.
4. Seligman, Adam B. (1998). "On the limits of Confidence and Role Expectations". American Journal of
Economics and Sociology.
5. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., and Fehr, E. (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in
humans" Nature 435, 2005, 673-676.
6. Hardin, R. (eds.) (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
7. Dennett, D.C. (1989) The Intentional Stance. Bradford Books.
8. Shneiderman, B. (2000) Designing trust into online experiences. Communications of the ACM Volume
43, Number 12, Pages 57-59
9. Luhmann, N. (2005) Risk: a sociological theory. AldineTransaction.
10. Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power. John Wiley & Sons.
11. Barber, B. (1983) The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgerts University Press.

8 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

12. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration; Polity Press,
Cambridge 1984
13. Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge University Press.
14. Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press
15. Allison I. Carter, Linda R. Weber (2003). The Social Construction of Trust. New York: Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
16. Gambetta, D. (2000) Can We Trust Trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 13,
pp. 213-237.
17. Braynov, Sviatoslav (2002). "Contracting with uncertain level of Trust". Computational Intelligence.
18. Bachmann R., (2001) Trust, Power and Control in Transorganizational Relations. Organization Studies
22(2), 337-365.
19. Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
20. Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. (2000) Trust Is Much More than Subjective Probability: Mental
Components and Sources of Trust. Proc. of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences-Volume 6.
21. Mollering, G. (2005) The Trust/Control Duality: An Integrative Perspective on Positive Expectations of
Others. In: Int. Sociology, September 2005, Vol. 20(3): 283305. 2005.
22. Baier, A. (1986) Trust and antitrust. Ethics, vol. 96, pp. 231-260. Reprinted in: Moral Prejudices.
Cambridge University Press.
23. Lacohe, H., Cofta, P., Phippen, A., and Furnell, S. (2008) Understanding Public Perceptions: Trust and
Engagement in ICT Mediated Services. International Engineering Consortium.
24. Bohmann, K. (1989). About the Sense of Social Compatibility. AI & Society. 3 (4), 323-331.
25. Willson, M. A. (2006) Technically Together: Rethinking Community within Techno-society. Peter Lang
Publishing Inc.
26. Cofta, P. (2007). Trust, Complexity and Control: Confidence in a Convergent World. John Wiley and
Sons.
27. Child Development Institute Parenting Today. "Stages of Social-Emotional Development In Children
and Teenagers". Childdevelopmentinfo.com. Archived from the original on October 2, 2011. Retrieved
2013-01-04.
28. Fonagy, Peter. Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis. Other Press Professional, 2010. Print. ISBN
1590514602
29. DeNeve, Kristina M.; Cooper, Harris (1998). "The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137
Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 124 (2): 197229.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197. PMID 9747186.
30. DeNeve, Kristina M. (1999). "Happy as an Extraverted Clam? The Role of Personality for Subjective
Well-Being". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (5): 141144.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00033.
31. Relationship and Risk taking (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&
format=HTML&id=2007-09571-002)
32. Barbara Misztal, Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order, Polity Press,
ISBN 0-7456-1634-8
33. Riki Robbins, Betrayed!: How You Can Restore Sexual Trust and Rebuild Your Life, Adams Media
Corporation, ISBN 1-55850-848-1
34. "Four stages of trust". Innerself.com. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
35. Ed Gerck, Trust Points, Digital Certificates: Applied Internet Security by J. Feghhi, J. Feghhi and P.
Williams, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-30980-7, 1998.
36. Ed Gerck (1998-01-23). "Definition of trust". Mcwg.org. Retrieved 2013-01-04.

9 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

37. Platow, M. J.; Foddy, M.; Yamagishi, T.; Lim, L.; Chow, A. (2012). "Two experimental tests of trust in
in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership". European
Journal of Social Psychology. 42: 3035. doi:10.1002/ejsp.852.
38. Foddy, M.; Platow, M.J.; Yamagishi, T. (2009). "Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes
and expectations". Psychological Science. 20: 419422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x.
39. Tanis, M.; Postmes, T. (2005). "A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group
membership and trusting behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology. 35: 413424.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.256.
40. DeConick, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and
perceived supervisor support on marketing employees level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63,
1349-1355.
41. DeBruine, Lisa (2002). Facial Resemblance Enhances Trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B, 269(1498): 1307-1312. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2034 (https://dx.doi.org
/10.1098%2Frspb.2002.2034)
42. DeBruine, Lisa (3 November 2005). "Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial
resemblance". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272 (1566): 91922. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3003.
JSTOR 30047623. PMC 1564091 . PMID 16024346.
43. The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings, Kurt T. Dirks, Donald L. Ferrin, 2001
44. Goddard, Roger. Relation Network, Social Trust, and Norms: A Social Capitol Perspective on Students'
Chances of Academic Success
45. TIMMONS-MITCHELL, JANE. TREATING SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION: DEVELOPING
TRUST-BASED RELATING IN THE MOTHER-DAUGHTER DYAD
46. King, Valarie. Parental Divorce and Interpersonal Trust in Adult Offspring. Journal of Marriage and
Family, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 642-656. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable
/3599931
47. Foddy, M., & Dawes, R. (2008). Group-based trust in social dilemmas. In A. Biel, D. Eek, T. Garling, &
M. Gustafsson (Eds.), New Issues and Paradigms in Research on Social Dilemmas (pp. 57-85). New
York, USA: Springer Science and Business Media.
48. Guth, W., Levati, M.V., Ploner, M. (2006). Social identity and trust An experimental investigation. The
Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1293-1308.
49. Brewer, M.B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social
Issues, 55, 429-444.
50. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic
Behaviour, 10, 122-142
51. Baier, Annette (1986). Trust and Antitrust. Ethics 96(2): 231-260. Available at http://www.jstor.org
/stable/2381376
52. McLeod, Carolyn (2006). Trust. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust
53. "trust." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 25 May. 2013.
54. Morgan, Robert; Hunt, S. (July 1994). "The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing". The
Journal of Marketing. 58 (3): 2038. doi:10.2307/1252308.
55. Zheng, J. Roehrich, J.K. and Lewis, M.A. (2008). The dynamics of contractual and relational
governance: Evidence from long-term public-private procurement arrangements. Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management. 14(1): 43-54. http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-
s2.0-41049112855&origin=inward&txGid=yXIvJQ7AsPq0YyDQfJmJLCa%3a2
56. Fukuyama, F. (1996) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Touchstone Books.
57. Zak, P. J., and Knack, S. (2001) Trust and growth. Economic Journal,111: 295 (http://www.jstor.org
/pss/2667866)-321.

10 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

58. Braynov, S., and Sandholm, T. (2002) Contracting With Uncertain Level Of Trust. Computational
Intelligence 18(4): pp. 501-514
59. Resnick, P. (2006) The value of reputation on eBay: a controlled experiment. Experimental Economics,
volume 9, Issue 2, Jun 2006, Page 79-101.
60. Keser, C. (2003) Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. IBM Systems
J., vol. 42, no. 3.
61. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. (1995) Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History, Games and
Economic Behavior 10, 122142. Abstract. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&
_udi=B6WFW-45NJFPR-14&_user=10&_coverDate=07/31/1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&
_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&
_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&
md5=49474c64b2d97b84891f6009445ffd76&searchtype=a)
62. Airiau, S., and Sen, S. (2006) Learning to Commit in Repeated Games. In: Proc. of the Fifth Int. Joint
Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS06).
63. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., and Ockenfels, A. (2003) How Effective are Electronic Reputation
Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation.
64. Camerer, C., and Weigelt, K. (1988) Experimental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Model.
Econometrica 56(1), pp. 1-36.
65. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., and Riedl, A. (1993) Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An
Experimental Investigation. Quarterly J. of Economics 108(May), pp. 437-60.
66. Poundstone, W. (1992) Prisoner's Dilemma. Doubleday, NY.
67. McKnight, D., H., Chervany, N. L. (2001) Conceptualizing Trust: A Typology and E-Commerce
Customer Relationships Model. Proc. of the 34th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences.
68. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press.
1991.
69. Golbeck, J. (2008). Computing with Social Trust. Springer.
70. Egger, F. N. From Interactions to Transactions: Designing the Trust Experience for Business-
to-Consumer Electronic Commerce. PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (The
Netherlands).
71. Chang, E., Dillion, T., Hussain, F. K. (2006) Trust and Reputation for Service-Oriented Environments:
Technologies for Building Business Intelligence and Consumer Confidence. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
72. Paulo Verissimo, Miguel Correia, Nuno F. Neves, Paulo Sousa. Intrusion-Resilient Middleware Design
and Validation. In Annals of Emerging Research in Information Assurance, Security and Privacy
Services, H. Raghav Rao and Shambhu Upadhyaya (eds.), Elsevier, to appear. 2008.

Further reading
Bachmann, Reinhard and Zaheer, Akbar (eds.)(2006). Handbook of Trust Research.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bicchieri, Cristina, Duffy, John and Tolle, Gil (2004.) "Trust among strangers", Philosophy of
Science 71: 1-34.
Markov, I., Linell, P & Gillespie, A. (2007). Trust and distrust in society
(http://lse.academia.edu/AlexGillespie/Papers/1347711/Trust_and_distrust_in_society). In
Markov, I. and Gillespie, A. (Eds.) Trust and distrust: Socio-cultural perspectives.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Kelton, Kari; Fleischmann, Kenneth R. & Wallace, William A. (2008). Trust in Digital

11 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM
Trust (emotion) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(emotion)

Information. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY, 59(3):363374.
Kini, A., & Choobineh, J. (1998, January). Trust in electronic commerce: Definition and
theoretical considerations. Paper presented at the Thirty-First Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Kohala Coast, HI.
Gillespie, A. (2007). The intersubjective dynamics of trust, distrust and manipulation
(http://lse.academia.edu/AlexGillespie/Papers/1347655
/The_intersubjective_dynamics_of_trust_distrust_and_manipulation). In Markova and
Gillespie (Eds), Trust & distrust: socio-cultural perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Info Age.
Maister, David H., Green, Charles H. & Galford, Robert M. (2000) The Trusted Advisor. Free
Press, New York

External links
Trust (http://philpapers.org/browse/trust) at PhilPapers Look up trustworthy
Trust (https://inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/idea/1592) at the in Wiktionary, the free
Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project dictionary.
"Trust". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Trust Building Activities (http://www.wilderdom.com Wikimedia Commons
/games/TrustActivities.html) has media related to
Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations Trust.
(http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/trustbook.html),
edited by Diego Gambetta
Am I Trustworthy? (1950) Educational video clip (https://archive.org/details/AmITrust1950)
Stony Brook University weekly seminars on the issue of trust in the personal, religious,
social, and scientific realms (http://www.stonybrook.edu/trust/)
World Database of Trust (http://web.missouri.edu/~jamesha/trust/index.htm) Harvey S.
James, Jr., Ph.D (Updated August 2007) A variety of definitions of trust are collected and
listed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trust_(emotion)&oldid=776041857"

Categories: Interpersonal relationships Reputation management Concepts in ethics

Accountability Social epistemology Sociological terminology Emotions

This page was last modified on 18 April 2017, at 16:43.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional
terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

12 of 12 4/20/2017 7:06 PM