View source for Trust (social science)

{{short description|Assumption of and reliance on the honesty of another party}}
{{For|other types of trust|Trust (disambiguation)}}{{emotion}}
[[File:Trust in others in Europe, OWID.svg|thumb|Trust in others in Europe]]
[[File:Country-level estimates of trust, OWID.svg|thumb|Country-level estimates of trust]]
[[File:Share of people agreeing with the statement &quot;most people can be trusted&quot;, OWID.svg|thumb|Share of people agreeing with the statement "most people can be trusted"]]
Trust exists in [[Interpersonal relationship|interpersonal relationships]]. Humans have a natural [[disposition]] to trust and to judge trustworthiness. This can be traced to the [[Neuroscience|neurobiological]] structure and activity of a human brain. Some studies indicate that trust can be altered e.g. by the application of [[oxytocin]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kosfeld|first1=M.|last2=Heinrichs|first2=M.|last3=Zak|first3=P. J.|last4=Fischbacher|first4=U.|last5=Fehr|first5=E.|year=2005|title=Oxytocin increases trust in humans|url=https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:101739|journal=Nature|volume=435|issue=7042|pages=673–676|bibcode=2005Natur.435..673K|doi=10.1038/nature03701|pmid=15931222|s2cid=1234727}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Zak|first1=Paul|last2=Knack|first2=Stephen|date=2001|title=Trust and Growth|journal=Economic Journal|volume=111|issue=470|pages=295–321|doi=10.1111/1468-0297.00609}}</ref>

In a social context, '''''trust''''' has several connotations.<ref>McKnight, D. H., and Chervany, N. L. (1996). [http://www.misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/wp96-04.htm The Meanings of Trust. Scientific report, University of Minnesota.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930083112/http://www.misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/wp96-04.htm |date=2011-09-30 }}</ref> Definitions of trust<ref name="Mayer">{{cite journal | last1 = Mayer | first1 = R.C. | last2 = Davis | first2 = J.H. | last3 = Schoorman | first3 = F.D. | year = 1995 | title = An integrative model of organizational trust | journal = Academy of Management Review | volume = 20 | issue = 3| pages = 709–734 | doi=10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335| citeseerx = 10.1.1.457.8429 }}</ref><ref>Bamberger, Walter (2010). [http://www.ldv.ei.tum.de/en/research/fidens/interpersonal-trust/ "Interpersonal Trust – Attempt of a Definition"]. Scientific report, Technische Universität München. Retrieved 2011-08-16.</ref> typically refer to situations characterized by the following aspects: one [[social entity|party]] ('''trustor''') is willing to rely on the [[social action|actions]] of another party ('''trustee'''), and the situation is typically 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 [[uncertainty|uncertain]] about the outcome of the other's actions; the trustor can only develop and evaluate [[expectation]]s. Such expectations are formed with a view to the [[Motivation|motivations]] of the trustee, dependent on their characteristics, the situation, and their interaction.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Hardin|first=Russell|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=juqFAwAAQBAJ&q=trust&pg=PR9|title=Trust and Trustworthiness|date=2002-03-21|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|isbn=978-1-61044-271-8|language=en}}</ref> The uncertainty stems from the risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee does not behave as desired.

When it comes to the relationship between people and technology, the attribution of trust is a matter of dispute. The [[intentional stance]]<ref>Dennett, D.C. (1989) The Intentional Stance. Bradford Books.</ref> demonstrates that trust can be validly attributed to human relationships with complex technologies. One of the key current challenges in the social sciences is to rethink how the rapid progress of technology has impacted constructs such as trust. This is especially true for [[information technology]] that dramatically alters [[causation (sociology)|causation]] in social systems.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Luhmann, Niklas, 1927-1998.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57422783|title=Risk : a sociological theory|date=2005|publisher=Aldine Transaction|isbn=0-202-30764-6|edition=1st paperback|location=New Brunswick, N.J.|oclc=57422783}}</ref>

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 [[Skill|competence]] of the other party. A failure in trust may be [[forgive]]n more easily if it is interpreted as a failure of competence rather than a lack of benevolence or honesty.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MNkr0r5QZIYC&q=failure+in+trust+lack+of+competence&pg=PA54|title=Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures|first=B.|last=Nooteboom|year=2017|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing|accessdate=29 October 2017|via=Google Books|isbn=9781781950883}}</ref> 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 unrealistic effort in rational reasoning.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lewicki|first1=Roy|last2=Brinsfield|first2=Chad|date=2011|title=Trust as a heuristic|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309107248|journal=Framing Matters: Perspectives on Negotiation Research and Practice in Communication|publisher=Peter Lang Publishing}}</ref>

==Sociology{{multiple image
| align = left
| direction = horizontal
| image1 = 
| image2 = 
| image3 = 
| width = 300px
| caption1 = Trust combined with other primary emotions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adliterate.com/archives/Plutchik.emotion.theorie.POSTER.pdf |title=Robert Plutchik's Psychoevolutionary Theory of Basic Emotions |website=Adliterate.com |accessdate=2017-06-05}}</ref><ref name="Turner2000">{{cite book|author=Jonathan Turner|title=On the Origins of Human Emotions: A Sociological Inquiry Into the Evolution of Human Affect|url=https://archive.org/details/onoriginsofhuman0000turn|url-access=registration|year=2000|publisher=Stanford University Press|isbn=978-0-8047-6436-0|page=[https://archive.org/details/onoriginsofhuman0000turn/page/76 76]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=A Fuzzy Inference System for Synergy Estimation of Simultaneous Emotion Dynamics in Agents|journal=International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research|volume=2|issue=6|date=June 2011|url=http://www.ijser.org/paper/A_Fuzzy_Inference_System_for_Synergy_Estimation_of_Simultaneous_Emotion_Dynamics_in_Agents.html|author1=Atifa Athar|author2=M. Saleem Khan|author3=Khalil Ahmed|author4=Aiesha Ahmed|author5=Nida Anwar}}
</ref>
}}==
Sociology claims trust is one of several [[social constructs]]; an element of the social reality.<ref>Searle, J.R. (1995). ''The Construction of Social Reality''. The Free Press</ref> Other constructs frequently discussed together with trust include control, confidence, risk, meaning and power. Trust is naturally attributable to relationships between social actors, both individuals and groups (social systems). 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,<ref>Luhmann, N. (1979). ''Trust and Power''. John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Barber<ref>Barber, B. (1983) ''The Logic and Limits of Trust''. Rutgerts University Press.</ref> and Giddens<ref>Giddens, A. (1984). ''The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration''; Polity Press, Cambridge</ref> (see<ref>Sztompka, P. (1999). ''Trust: A Sociological Theory''. Cambridge University Press.</ref> for a more detailed overview). This growth of interest in trust has been stimulated by ongoing changes in society, specifically known as [[late modernity]] and [[post-modernity]].

[[Sviatoslav I|Sviatoslav]] contended that 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, one should always consider all contingent possibilities, leading to [[Analysis paralysis|paralysis by analysis]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Braynov|first=Sviatoslav|date=2002|title=Contracting with uncertain level of Trust|journal=Computational Intelligence|volume=18|issue=4|pages=501–514|doi=10.1111/1467-8640.00200|s2cid=33473191}}</ref> In this sense, trust acts as a decisional heuristic, allowing the decision maker to overcome [[bounded rationality]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Simon|first=Herbert Alexander|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9CiwU28z6WQC&q=herbert+simon+bounded+rationality&pg=PA1|title=Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason|date=1997|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-19372-6|language=en}}</ref> and process what would otherwise be an excessively complex situation. Trust can be seen as a bet on one of many contingent futures, specifically, the one that appears to deliver the greatest 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. Hence trust acts as a reducing agent of [[social complexity]], allowing for [[cooperation]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bachmann | first1 = R. | s2cid = 5657206 | year = 2001 | title = Trust, Power and Control in Transorganizational Relations | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/4a4dca9e8c68a1c2c836e052eb8ca2df27c67a15| journal = Organization Studies | volume = 22 | issue = 2| pages = 337–365 | doi=10.1177/0170840601222007}}</ref> 

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. On one side, the systemic role of trust can be discussed with a certain disregard to the psychological complexity underpinning individual trust. The behavioral approach to trust is usually assumed<ref>Coleman, J. (1990). ''Foundations of Social Theory''. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.</ref> while actions of social actors are measurable, leading to statistical modelling of trust. This systemic approach can be contrasted<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>Mollering, G.. "The Trust/Control Duality: An Integrative Perspective on Positive Expectations of Others". In: ''Int. Sociology'', September 2005, Vol. 20(3): 283–305.</ref> 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.<ref>Baier, A. (1986). "Trust and antitrust". ''Ethics'', vol. 96, pp. 231–260. Reprinted in: ''Moral Prejudices''. Cambridge University Press.</ref>

Modern information technologies have not only facilitated the transition towards a post-modern society, but have also challenged traditional views on trust. [[Information system|Information systems]] research has identified that individuals have evolved to trust in technology, demonstrated by two primary constructs. The first consists of human-like constructs including benevolence, honesty and competence, whilst the second employs system-like constructs such as usefulness, reliability and functionality.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lankton|first1=Nancy|last2=McKnight|first2=Harrison|last3=Tripp|first3=John|date=2015|title=Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00411|journal=Journal of the Association for Information Systems|volume=16|issue=10|pages=880–918|doi=10.17705/1jais.00411|issn=1536-9323}}</ref> The discussion surrounding the relationship between information technologies and trust is still in progress as research remains in its infant stages.

== Types of social trust ==
Four types of social trust are recognized:<ref name="Dinesen">{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708|title=Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review|year=2020|last1=Dinesen|first1=Peter Thisted|last2=Schaeffer|first2=Merlin|last3=Sønderskov|first3=Kim Mannemar|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=23|pages=441–465|doi-access=free}}</ref>
*[[Generalized trust]], or trust in strangers, is an important form of trust in modern society, involving a large amount of social interactions among strangers.
*[[In-group and out-group|Out-group]] trust is the trust an individual has in members of a different group. This could be members of a different ethnic group, or citizens of a different country, for example.
*[[In-group and out-group|In-group]] trust is that which is placed in members of one's own group.
*Trust in [[Neighbourhood|neighbors]] considers the relationships between individuals who share a common residential environment.

=== Influence of ethnic diversity ===
Several dozen studies have examined the impact of [[ethnic diversity]] on social trust. Research published in the [[Annual Review of Political Science]]<ref name="Dinesen" /> concluded that there were three key debates on the subject: 

# Why does ethnic diversity modestly reduce social trust? 
# Can [[Contact hypothesis|contact]] reduce the negative association between ethnic diversity and social trust? 
# Is ethnic diversity a stand-in for social disadvantage?

The review's [[meta-analysis]] of 87 studies showed a consistent, though modest, negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Ethnic diversity has the strongest negative impact on neighbor trust, in-group trust, and generalized trust. It did not appear to have a significant impact on out-group trust. The limited size of the impact means apocalyptic claims about it are exaggerated.<ref name="Dinesen" />

==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" />

==Philosophy==
Whilst many philosophers have written about different forms of trust, most would agree interpersonal trust is the foundation on which these forms can be modeled.<ref name=":3" /> For an act to be classed as an expression of trust, it must not betray the expectations of the trustee. In this sense, some philosophers such as Lagerspetz argue that trust is a kind of reliance, though not merely reliance.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lagerspetz|first=Olli|date=1998|title=Trust: The Tacit Demand|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4|journal=Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy|volume=1|doi=10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4|isbn=978-90-481-4963-6|issn=1387-6678}}</ref> [[Diego Gambetta|Gambetta]] argued it is the inherent belief that others generally have good intentions which is the foundation for our reliance on them.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gambetta|first=Diego|date=2000|title=Can We Trust Trust?|journal=Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations|publisher=Department of Sociology, University of Oxford|pages=213–237}}</ref> Philosophers such as [[Annette Baier]] have contended this view, establishing a difference between trust and reliance by saying that trust can be betrayed, whilst reliance can only be disappointed (Baier 1986, 235).<ref>{{cite journal|author=Baier, Annette|date=1986|title=Trust and Antitrust|journal=Ethics|volume=96 | issue = 2 |pages=231–260|jstor=2381376|doi=10.1086/292745|s2cid=159454549}}</ref> 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).<ref name=":3">{{cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/trust/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Carolyn|last=McLeod|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|year=2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|accessdate=29 October 2017|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> The violation of trust warrants this sense of betrayal.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hawley|first=Katherine|date=2012-10-25|title=Trust, Distrust and Commitment|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nous.12000|journal=Noûs|volume=48|issue=1|pages=1–20|doi=10.1111/nous.12000|hdl=10023/3430|issn=0029-4624}}</ref> Thus, trust is different from reliance in the sense that a trustor accepts the risk of being betrayed.

Karen Jones proposed that there is an emotional aspect to trust, an element of [[optimism]]<ref>{{Citation|last=Jones|first=Karen|title=Trust as an Affective Attitude|date=2005|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-20409-6_11|work=Personal Virtues|pages=253–279|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1007/978-0-230-20409-6_11|isbn=978-1-4039-9455-4|access-date=2020-11-01}}</ref> that the trustee will do the right thing by the trustor, also described as affective trust.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|last=Faulkner|first=Paul|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589784.001.0001|title=Knowledge on Trust|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-958978-4|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589784.001.0001}}</ref> Though, in some circumstances, we trust others even without the optimistic expectation, instead hoping the mere recognition that the person is being trusted in itself will prompt the favorable action. This is known as therapeutic trust<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Horsburgh|first=H. J. N.|date=1960-10-01|title=The Ethics of Trust|url=https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/10/41/343/1505699|journal=The Philosophical Quarterly|language=en|volume=10|issue=41|pages=343–354|doi=10.2307/2216409|jstor=2216409|issn=0031-8094}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pettit|first=Philip|date=1995|title=The Cunning of Trust|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2961900|journal=Philosophy & Public Affairs|volume=24|issue=3|pages=202–225|doi=10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00029.x|jstor=2961900|issn=0048-3915}}</ref> and gives both the trustee a reason to be trustworthy, and the trustor a reason to believe they are trustworthy. In these situations, the sense of betrayal upon violation of trust is commonly warranted.

The definition of trust as a belief in something or a confident expectation about something<ref>"trust." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 25 May. 2013.</ref> eliminates the notion of risk, 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, but rather it is in the consistency of the data of our habits. As a result, there is no risk or sense of betrayal because the data now exists as collective knowledge. Faulkner<ref name=":4" /> contrasts such predictive trust with aforementioned affective trust, proposing predictive trust may only warrant disappointment as a consequence of an inaccurate prediction, not betrayal. 

==Economics==
{{see also|Consumer confidence}}
Trust in economics is treated as an explanation for a difference between actual human behavior 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 as well as societies.

{{multiple image
| width = 200
| image1 = Levels of trust are higher in more equal rich countries.jpg
| alt1 = 
| image2 = Levels of trust are higher in more equal US states.jpg
| alt2 = 
| footer = Levels of trust are higher in more [[economic inequality|equal]] rich countries and in more equal US states<ref>The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane (2009). {{ISBN|978-1-84614-039-6}} UK Paperback edition {{ISBN|978-0-14-103236-8}} (2010)</ref>
}}

Trust is important to economists for many reasons. Taking the "[[The Market for Lemons|Market for Lemons]]" transaction popularized by [[George Akerlof]] as an example,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Akerlof|first=George A.|date=1970|title=The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism|url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1879431|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=84|issue=3|pages=488–500|doi=10.2307/1879431|jstor=1879431}}</ref> if a buyer of a car doesn't trust the seller to not sell a lemon, the transaction won't be entered into. The buyer won't enter into the transaction in the absence of trust, even if the product is of great value to the buyer. Trust can act as an economic lubricant, reducing the cost of transactions between parties, enabling new forms of cooperation and generally furthering business activities;<ref name="Morgan 20–38">{{cite journal|last=Morgan|first=Robert|author2=Hunt, S. |author-link2=Shelby D. Hunt |title=The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing|journal=The Journal of Marketing|date=July 1994|volume=58|issue=3|pages=20–38|doi=10.2307/1252308|jstor=1252308}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author1=Zheng, J.|author2=Roehrich, J.K.|author3=Lewis, M.A.|s2cid=207472262|date=2008|title=The dynamics of contractual and relational governance: Evidence from long-term public-private procurement arrangements|journal=Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management|volume=14 | issue = 1 |pages=43–54|url=https://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-41049112855&origin=inward&txGid=yXIvJQ7AsPq0YyDQfJmJLCa%3a2|doi=10.1016/j.pursup.2008.01.004}}</ref> employment and prosperity. This observation <ref>Fukuyama, F. (1996) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Touchstone Books.</ref> 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 a higher level of social trust is positively 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 <ref>Zak, P. J., and Knack, S. (2001) "Trust and growth". ''Economic Journal'', 111: [https://www.jstor.org/pss/2667866 295]–321.</ref> and that a low level of trust inhibits [[economic growth]]. The absence of trust restricts growth in employment, wages and profits, thus reducing the overall welfare of society.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pollitt|first=Michael|date=2002|title=The economics of trust, norms and networks|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8608.00266|journal=Business Ethics: A European Review|language=en|volume=11|issue=2|pages=119–128|doi=10.1111/1467-8608.00266|s2cid=153788522|issn=1467-8608}}</ref>

Theoretical economical modelling<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Braynov | first1 = S. | last2 = Sandholm | first2 = T. | year = 2002 | title = Contracting With Uncertain Level Of Trust | journal = Computational Intelligence | volume = 18 | issue = 4| pages = 501–514 | doi=10.1111/1467-8640.00200| citeseerx = 10.1.1.70.8413 | s2cid = 33473191 }}</ref> demonstrates that the optimum level of trust that a rational economic agent should exhibit in transactions is equal to the trustworthiness of the other party. Such a level of trust leads to an efficient market. Trusting less leads to the loss of economic opportunities, while 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 an increase in [[profit margin]]<ref>Resnick, P.  "The value of reputation on eBay: a controlled experiment". ''Experimental Economics'', volume 9, Issue 2, Jun 2006, pp. 79–101.</ref> or a decrease in transactional costs can be used as indicators of the 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 the estimation of confidence in monetary terms.<ref>Keser, C. (2003) "Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems". ''IBM Systems J.'', vol. 42, no. 3.</ref> Games of trust are designed in a way such that the Nash equilibrium differs from [[Pareto efficiency|Pareto optimum]] so that no player alone can maximize his own utility by altering his selfish strategy without cooperation. Cooperating partners can also benefit. The classical version of the game of trust has been described<ref>Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. (1995) "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History", ''Games and Economic Behavior'' 10, 122–142. [https://archive.today/20120910063904/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 Abstract.]</ref> as an abstracted investment game, using the scenario of an investor and a broker. The 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 repay 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 a once-off, or repeatedly, with 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,<ref>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).</ref> 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,<ref>Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., and Ockenfels, A. (2003) "How Effective are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation".</ref> with or without information about reputation.

Other interesting games are e.g. binary-choice trust games,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Camerer | first1 = C. | last2 = Weigelt | first2 = K. | year = 1988 | title = Experimental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Model | journal = Econometrica | volume = 56 | issue = 1| pages = 1–36 | doi=10.2307/1911840| citeseerx = 10.1.1.458.4383 | jstor = 1911840 }}</ref> the gift-exchange game<ref>Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., and Riedl, A.. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation". ''Quarterly Journal of Economics'' 108 (May 1993), pp. 437–460.</ref> and various other forms of social games. Specifically games based on the [[Prisoner's Dilemma]]<ref>Poundstone, W. (1992). ''Prisoner's Dilemma''. Doubleday, NY.</ref> are popularly used to link trust with economic utility and demonstrate the rationality behind reciprocity.

The popularization 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.<ref>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''.</ref> For example, interpersonal relationships between buyers and sellers have been disintermediated by the technology,<ref>Giddens, A. (1991) ''Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age''. Polity Press.</ref> and consequentially required improvement.<ref>Golbeck, J. (2008). ''Computing with Social Trust''. Springer.</ref> Websites can influence the buyer to trust the seller, regardless of the seller's actual trustworthiness (e.g.<ref>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).</ref>). Reputation-based systems improved on trust assessment by allowing to capture the collective perception of trustworthiness, generating significant interest in various models of reputation.<ref>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.</ref>

== Management and organization science ==
In management and organization science, trust is studied as a factor that can be managed and influenced by organizational actors. Scholars have paid particular attention to how trust develops across individual and organizational levels of analysis.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Fulmer|first1=C. Ashley|last2=Gelfand|first2=Michele J.|s2cid=5506486|date=2012-07-01|title=At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels|journal=Journal of Management|language=en|volume=38|issue=4|pages=1167–1230|doi=10.1177/0149206312439327|issn=0149-2063}}</ref> They suggest a reciprocal process where organizational structures influence individuals’ trust and, at the same time, individuals’ trust manifests in organizational structures. Trust is also one of the conditions of an [[organizational culture]] that supports [[knowledge sharing]].<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|last=Dalkir|first=Kimiz|title=Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice|publisher=MIT Press|year=2017|isbn=9780262036870|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts}}</ref> An organizational culture that supports knowledge sharing allows employees to feel secure and comfortable to share their knowledge, their work and their expertise.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Vanhala|first=Mika|last2=Puumalainen|first2=Kaisu|last3=Blomqvist|first3=Kirsimarja|date=2011|title=Impersonal trust: The development of the construct and the scale|journal=Personnel Review|volume=40|pages=485-513}}</ref> Structure often creates trust in a person that encourages them to feel comfortable and excel in the workplace; it makes an otherwise stressful environment manageable. By having a conveniently organized area to work on, concentration will increase as well as effort. 

Management and organization science scholars have also paid attention to how trust is influenced by contracts and how trust interacts with formal mechanisms.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Poppo|first1=Laura|last2=Zenger|first2=Todd|date=2002|title=Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=23|issue=8|pages=707–725|doi=10.1002/smj.249|issn=0143-2095}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cao|first1=Zhi|last2=Lumineau|first2=Fabrice|s2cid=12536364|date=2015|title=Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation|journal=Journal of Operations Management|language=en|volume=33-34|issue=1|pages=15–42|doi=10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009|issn=1873-1317}}</ref> Parallel to the very large interest in trust, scholars in management and related disciplines have made the case for the importance of distrust as a related but distinct construct.

Since the mid-1990s, a substantial body of organizational research has fallen into one of two distinct but nonexclusive paradigms of trust research.<ref name="Tomlinson">{{Cite journal|last1=Tomlinson|first1=Edward|last2=Schnackenberg|first2=Andrew|last3=Dawley|first3=David|last4=Ash|first4=Steven|date=2020|title=Revisiting the trustworthiness-trust relationship: Exploring the differential predictors of cognition- and affect-based trust|journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior|language=en|volume=41|issue=6|pages=535–550|doi=10.1002/job.2448}}</ref> The first paradigm distinguishes between two major dimensions of trust. Trust in another can be characterized as cognition-based trust (i.e., based on rational calculation) and affect-based trust (i.e., based on emotional attachment).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McAllister|first1=Daniel|date=1995|title= Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations|journal=Academy of Management Journal|language=en|volume=38|issue=1|pages=24–59|doi= 10.5465/256727}}</ref> For example, trust in an auto repair shop could come in the form of an assessment of the capabilities of the shop to do a good job repairing one's car (cognition-based trust) or having a longstanding relationship with the shop's owner (affect-based trust). The second paradigm distinguishes between the trustworthiness factors that give rise to trust (i.e., one’s perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity) and trust itself.<ref name="Mayer"/> Together, these paradigms are useful for predicting how different dimensions of trust form in organizations via the demonstration of various trustworthiness attributes.<ref name="Tomlinson"/> 

==Systems==
In [[systems]], a trusted component has a set of properties which another component can rely on. If A trusts B, 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 B's actual properties. This occurs 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 component's 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.<ref>
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.</ref>

==See also==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|

* [[Attachment theory]]
* [[Credulity]]
* [[Gullibility]]
* [[Intimacy]]
* [[Misplaced trust]]
* [[Personal boundaries]]
* [[Position of trust]]
* [[Source criticism]]
* [[Swift trust theory]]
* [[Trust metric]]
* [[Trusted system]]
* [[:Category:Computational trust|Trust in computing]]
}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* [[Reinhard Bachmann|Bachmann, Reinhard]] and Zaheer, Akbar (eds) (2006). ''Handbook of Trust Research''. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.{{ISBN?}}
* [[Cristina Bicchieri|Bicchieri, Cristina]], Duffy, John and Tolle, Gil (2004). "Trust among strangers", ''Philosophy of Science'' 71: 1–34.
* Marková, I., Linell, P & Gillespie, A. (2007). [https://lse.academia.edu/AlexGillespie/Papers/1347711/Trust_and_distrust_in_society "Trust and distrust in society"]. In Marková, 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 Information". ''Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology'', 59(3):363–374.
* Kini, A., & Choobineh, J. (January 1998). "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). [https://lse.academia.edu/AlexGillespie/Papers/1347655/The_intersubjective_dynamics_of_trust_distrust_and_manipulation "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{{ISBN?}}

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|trustworthy}}
{{Wikiversity|Earning Trust}}
{{Commons category|Trust}}
* {{PhilPapers|category|trust|Trust}}
* {{InPho|idea|1592|Trust}}
* {{cite SEP |url-id=trust |title=Trust}}
* [http://www.wilderdom.com/games/TrustActivities.html Trust Building Activities]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20051125014252/http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/trustbook.html Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations], edited by Diego Gambetta
* [https://archive.org/details/AmITrust1950 ''Am I Trustworthy?'' (1950) Educational video clip]
*[http://www.stonybrook.edu/trust/ Stony Brook University weekly seminars on the issue of trust in the personal, religious, social, and scientific realms]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20081031132531/http://web.missouri.edu/~jamesha/trust/index.htm World Database of Trust] Harvey S. James, Jr., Ph.D (Updated August 2007) A variety of definitions of trust are collected and listed.

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trust (Social Sciences)}}
[[Category:Interpersonal relationships]]
[[Category:Reputation management]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Accountability]]
[[Category:Social constructionism]]
[[Category:Social epistemology]]
[[Category:Sociological terminology]]
[[Category:Emotions]]
[[Category:Moral psychology]]