View source for Trust (social science)

==Psychology==

In psychology, trust is believing that the person who is trusted will do what is expected. According to the [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalyst]] [[Erik Erikson]], development of basic trust is the [[Erikson's stages of psychosocial development|first state of psychosocial development]] occurring, or failing, during the first two years of life. Success results in feelings of security and optimism, while failure leads towards an orientation of insecurity and mistrust<ref>{{cite web|author=Child Development Institute Parenting Today |url=http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml |title=Stages of Social-Emotional Development In Children and Teenagers |publisher=Childdevelopmentinfo.com |accessdate=2013-01-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111002220833/http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml |archive-date=October 2, 2011 }}</ref> possibly resulting in [[attachment disorder]]s.<ref>Fonagy, Peter (2010). ''Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis''. Other Press Professional, {{ISBN|1590514602}}</ref> 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.<ref name="deneve&cooper">{{cite journal|last=DeNeve|first=Kristina M.|author2=Cooper, Harris |title=The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1998|volume=124|pages=197–229|url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/personality/wellbeing/1998_Deneve_cooper_psych_bull.pdf|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197|pmid=9747186|issue=2}}</ref> Trust increases subjective well-being because it enhances the quality of one's interpersonal relationships; happy people are skilled at fostering good relationships.<ref name="deneve1999">{{cite journal|last=DeNeve|first=Kristina M. |s2cid=142992658 |title=Happy as an Extraverted Clam? The Role of Personality for Subjective Well-Being |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |year=1999|volume=8|pages=141–144|issue=5|doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00033}}</ref>

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, [[Institutional trust|institution]]s (e.g. [[government agency|government agencies]]) and objects such as machines. Yet once again, perceptions of honesty, competence and value similarity<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Garcia-Retamero|first1=Rocio|last2=Müller|first2=Stephanie M.|last3=Rousseau|first3=David L.|date=2012-03-13|title=The Impact of Value Similarity and Power on the Perception of Threat|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00869.x|journal=Political Psychology|volume=33|issue=2|pages=179–193|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00869.x|issn=0162-895X}}</ref> (slightly similar to benevolence) are essential. 

There are three different forms of trust commonly studied in psychology. Trust is being vulnerable to someone even when they are trustworthy. Trustworthiness are the characteristics or behaviors of one person that inspire positive expectations in another person. Trust propensity is the ability to rely on others.<ref>{{cite web|title=PsycNET|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&format=HTML&id=2007-09571-002|accessdate=29 October 2017|website=Psycnet.apa.org}}</ref> 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. 

Increasingly in recent times, research has been conducted regarding the notion of trust and its social implications:

* In her book,<ref name="BarbaraMisztal">Barbara Misztal, ''Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order'', Polity Press, {{ISBN|0-7456-1634-8}}</ref> Barbara Misztal attempts to combine all notions of trust together. She describes 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<ref name="RikiRobbins">Riki Robbins, ''Betrayed!: How You Can Restore Sexual Trust and Rebuild Your Life'', Adams Media Corporation, {{ISBN|1-55850-848-1}}</ref> describes four stages. These consist of perfect trust, damaged trust, devastated trust and restored trust.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.innerself.com/Relationships/Four_Stages_of_Trust.htm |title=Four stages of trust |publisher=Innerself.com |accessdate=2013-01-04|date=2006-09-20 }}</ref>
* In the context of [[information theory]], Ed Gerck defines and contrasts trust with social functions such as [[Power (philosophy)|power]], surveillance, and [[accountability]].<ref name="Ed Gerck">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.</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Ed Gerck |url=http://mcwg.org/mcg-mirror/trustdef.htm |title=Definition of trust |publisher=Mcwg.org |date=1998-01-23 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref>
* From a [[social identity]] perspective, the propensity to trust strangers (see [[in-group favoritism]]) arises from the mutual knowledge of a shared group membership,<ref name="Platow2012">{{cite journal |last1=Platow |first1=M. J. |last2=Foddy |first2=M. |last3=Yamagishi |first3=T. |last4=Lim |first4=L. |last5=Chow |first5=A. |year=2012 |title=Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=42 |pages=30–35 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.852}}</ref><ref name="Foddy2009" /> [[Stereotype|stereotypes]],<ref name="Foddy2009">{{cite journal |last1=Foddy |first1=M. |last2=Platow |first2=M.J. |last3=Yamagishi |first3=T. |s2cid=29922902 |year=2009 |title=Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations |journal=Psychological Science |volume=20 |issue=4|pages=419–422 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x|pmid=19399956 }}</ref> or the need to maintain the group's positive distinctiveness.<ref name="Tanis2005" />
Despite the centrality of trust to the positive functioning of humans and relationships, very little is known about how and why trust evolves, is maintained, and is destroyed.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Simpson|first=Jeffry A.|date=2016-06-23|title=Psychological Foundations of Trust|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=16|issue=5|pages=264–268|language=en|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x|s2cid=45119866|issn=1467-8721}}</ref>

One factor that enhances trust among humans is facial resemblance. Through digital manipulation of facial resemblance in a two-person sequential trust game, supporting evidence was found that having similar [[facial feature]]s (facial resemblance) enhanced trust in a subject's respective partner.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Lisa M. DeBruine|date=7 July 2002|title=Facial resemblance enhances trust|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences|volume=269|issue=1498|pages=1307–1312|doi=10.1098/rspb.2002.2034|pmc=1691034|pmid=12079651}}</ref> Though facial resemblance was shown to increase trust, it also 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 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.<ref>{{cite journal|last=DeBruine|first=Lisa|date=3 November 2005|title=Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance|journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society B]]|volume=272|issue=1566|pages=919–22|doi=10.1098/rspb.2004.3003|jstor=30047623|pmc=1564091|pmid=16024346}}</ref> 

Interpersonal trust literature<ref name=":1" /> suggests that trust-diagnostic situations provide a means by which individuals can gauge or alter the level of trust in relationships. Trust-diagnostic situations refer to in trust or "strain-test"<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Shallcross|first1=Sandra L.|last2=Simpson|first2=Jeffry A.|date=2012|title=Trust and responsiveness in strain-test situations: A dyadic perspective.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026829|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=102|issue=5|pages=1031–1044|doi=10.1037/a0026829|pmid=22250662|issn=1939-1315}}</ref> situations which test partners' ability to act in the best interests of the other individual or the relationship, simultaneously rejecting that option which is in one's personal [[self-interest]]. Trust-diagnostic situations occur throughout the course of everyday life, though can be created by individuals wanting to test the current level of trust in a relationship.<ref name=":1" />

Low trust relationships are occur where individuals have little confidence their partner is truly concerned about them or the relationship.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Rempel|first1=John K.|last2=Ross|first2=Michael|last3=Holmes|first3=John G.|date=2001|title=Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=81|issue=1|pages=57–64|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57|pmid=11474726|issn=1939-1315}}</ref> Those in low trust relationships tend to make distress-maintaining attributions<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Collins|first=Nancy L.|date=1996|title=Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|language=en|volume=71|issue=4|pages=810–832|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810|pmid=8888604|issn=1939-1315}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Holtzworth-Munroe|first1=Amy|last2=Jacobson|first2=Neil S.|date=1985|title=Causal attributions of married couples: When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1398|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=48|issue=6|pages=1398–1412|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1398|pmid=4020604|issn=1939-1315}}</ref> whereby the consequences of partner's negative behavior become of greatest focus, and any impacts of positive actions are minimized. This feeds into the overarching notion that the individual's partner is disinterested in the relationship, and any positive acts are met with [[skepticism]], leading to further negative outcomes.<ref name=":2" /> 

Distrusting individuals may not always engage in opportunities for trusting relationships. Someone who was subject to an abusive childhood may have been deprived of any evidence that trust is warranted in future interpersonal relationships.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref>Timmons-Mitchell, Jane. ''Treating Sexual Victimization: Developing Trust-based Relating in the Mother-daughter Dyad{{ISBN?}}{{page?|date=December 2019}}''</ref> Moreover, trust can often be affected by the [[Marital breakdown|erosion of a marriage]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brinig|first=Margaret F.|date=2011|title=Belonging and Trust: Divorce and Social Capital|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1767431|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1767431|issn=1556-5068}}</ref> 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.<ref name="King2002">{{cite journal|author=King, Valarie|title=Parental Divorce and Interpersonal Trust in Adult Offspring|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=64|issue=3|date=August 2002|pages=642–656|doi=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00642.x|jstor=3599931}}</ref>

===Social identity approach===
The [[social identity approach]] explains trust in strangers as a function of group-based stereotypes or [[ingroup favoritism|in-group favoring]] behaviors based on [[self-categorization theory|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.<ref name="Platow2012" /><ref name="Tanis2005" /><ref name="Foddy2008" /> 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.<ref name="Foddy2008" />

There is considerable empirical activity related to the social identity approach. Allocator studies have frequently been employed to understand group-based trust in strangers.<ref name="Platow2012" /><ref name="Foddy2009" /><ref name="Foddy2008">{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/233971331|title=New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas|date=2008|publisher=Springer|others=Biel, Anders., Eek, Daniel., Gärling, Tommy., Gustafsson, Mathias.|isbn=978-0-387-72596-3|location=[New York, N.Y.]|oclc=233971331}}</ref><ref name="Guth2006">{{cite journal | last1 = Guth | first1 = W. | last2 = Levati | first2 = M.V. | last3 = Ploner | first3 = M. | year = 2006 | title = Social identity and trust – An experimental investigation | url = http://edoc.mpg.de/300511| journal = The Journal of Socio-Economics | volume = 37 | issue = 4| pages = 1293–1308 | doi = 10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.080 }}</ref> They may be operationalized as [[Unilateralism|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 is asked to choose between envelopes containing money that was previously allocated by an in-group or out-group member.<ref name="Foddy2008" /> They have no prior or future opportunities for interaction, simulating [[Marilynn Brewer|Brewer's]] notion that group membership was sufficient in bringing about group-based trust and hence cooperation.<ref name="Brewer1999">{{cite journal | last1 = Brewer | first1 = M.B. | year = 1999 | title = The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? | journal = Journal of Social Issues | volume = 55 | issue = 3| pages = 429–444 | doi=10.1111/0022-4537.00126}}</ref> Participants could expect an amount ranging from nothing to the maximum value an allocator could give out. Bilateral studies of trust have employed an investment game devised by Berg and colleagues where individuals choose to give a portion or none of their money to another.<ref name="Berg1995">Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). "Trust, reciprocity, and social history". ''Games and Economic Behaviour'', 10, 122–142</ref> Any amount given would be tripled and the receiver would then decide whether they would return the favor by giving money back to the sender. Trusting behavior on the part of the sender and the eventual trustworthiness of the receiver was exemplified through the giving of money.<ref name="Tanis2005">{{cite journal |last1=Tanis |first1=M. |last2=Postmes |first2=T. |year=2005 |title=A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour |url=https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/2077094/178795.pdf|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=35 |issue=3|pages=413–424 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.256}}</ref><ref name="Foddy2008" />

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.<ref name="Foddy2009" /><ref name="Foddy2008" /><ref name="Guth2006" /> This occurred even when the in-group stereotype was comparatively less positive than an out-group's (e.g. psychology versus nursing majors),<ref name="Foddy2009" /> in the absence of personal identity cues,<ref name="Tanis2005" /> 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).<ref name="Platow2012" /> In contrast, when only the recipient was made aware of group membership, trust becomes reliant upon group stereotypes.<ref name="Foddy2009" /><ref name="Tanis2005" /> The group with the more positive stereotype was trusted (e.g. one's university affiliation over another)<ref name="Tanis2005" /> even over that of the in-group (e.g. nursing over psychology majors).<ref name="Foddy2009" /> Another reason for in-groups favoring behaviors in trust could be attributed to the need to maintain in-group [[Social identity theory#Positive distinctiveness|positive distinctiveness]], particularly in the presence of social identity threat.<ref name="Guth2006" /> Trust in out-group strangers increased when personal cues to identity were revealed.<ref name="Tanis2005" />