View source for Philosophy:Trust (social science)

{{short description|Assumption of and reliance on the honesty of another party}}
{{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 "most people can be trusted", OWID.svg|thumb|Share of people agreeing with the statement "most people can be trusted"]]
'''Trust''' means believing that another person will do what is expected. It brings with it a willingness for one party (the '''trustor''') to become vulnerable to another party (the '''trustee'''), on the presumption that the trustee will act in ways that benefit the trustor.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Schilke |first1=Oliver |last2=Reimann |first2=Martin |last3=Cook |first3=Karen S. |year=2021 |title=Trust in Social Relations |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-soc-082120-082850 |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=239–259 |doi=10.1146/annurev-soc-082120-082850 |s2cid=231685149 |issn=0360-0572}}</ref><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 |citeseerx=10.1.1.457.8429 |doi=10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335|s2cid=15027176 }}</ref><ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book |last=Lynn |first=Theo |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-54660-1 |title=Data privacy and trust in cloud computing : building trust in the cloud through assurance and accountability |publisher=Springer |year=2021 |isbn=978-3-030-54659-5 |series=Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies |publication-place=Cham |page=20 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-54660-1 |oclc=1202743216 |quote=Trust is generally defined as a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectation of another party. |s2cid=242965934}}
|2={{cite web|last=Bamberger|first= Walter |year=2010|url=http://www.ldv.ei.tum.de/en/research/fidens/interpersonal-trust/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009032652/http://www.ldv.ei.tum.de/en/research/fidens/interpersonal-trust/|archive-date=2011-10-09|title=Interpersonal Trust – Attempt of a Definition|publisher=Technische Universität München|access-date=2011-08-16}}
}}</ref> In addition, the trustor does not have control over the actions of the trustee.<ref name=":6" /> Scholars distinguish between generalized trust (also known as social trust), which is the extension of trust to a relatively large circle of unfamiliar others, and particularized trust, which is contingent on a specific situation or a specific relationship.<ref name=":6" />

As the trustor is [[Physics:Uncertainty|uncertain]] about the outcome of the trustee's actions, the trustor can only develop and evaluate expectations. Such expectations are formed with a view to the [[Philosophy:Motivation|motivation]]s of the trustee, dependent on their characteristics, the situation, and their interaction.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Hardin|first=Russell|url=https://archive.org/details/trusttrustworthi0000hard|url-access=registration|title=Trust and Trustworthiness|date=2002-03-21|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|isbn=978-1-61044-271-8|language=en}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}} The uncertainty stems from the risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee does not behave as desired.

In the social sciences, the subtleties of trust are a subject of ongoing research. In sociology and [[Social:Psychology|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 [[Philosophy:Skill|competence]] of the other party.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Leiter |first=Michael P. |last2=Day |first2=Arla |last3=Price |first3=Lisa |date=2015-03-01 |title=Attachment styles at work: Measurement, collegial relationships, and burnout |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213058614200052 |journal=Burnout Research |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=25–35 |doi=10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.003 |issn=2213-0586}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cook |first=John |last2=Wall |first2=Toby |date=1980-03-01 |title=New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non‐fulfilment |url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x |journal=Journal of Occupational Psychology |language=en |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=39–52 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x |issn=0305-8107}}</ref>{{ref needed|date=January 2024}} 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.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/trustformsfounda0000noot|url-access=registration|title=Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures|first=B.|last=Nooteboom|year=2017|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing|isbn=9781781950883}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}} In [[Finance:Economics|economics]], trust is often conceptualized as reliability in transactions. In all cases, trust is a [[Heuristic|heuristic]] decision rule, allowing a person 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>

== Types ==
Types of trust identified in academic literature include [[Finance:Contract|contract]]ual trust, competence trust and goodwill trust. American lawyer Charles Fried speaks of "contractual trust" as a "humdrum" experience based on the voluntary acceptance of contractual obligations: for example, people keep appointments and undertake commercial transactions.<ref>Fried, Charles (1981), ''Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation'', Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, quoted in Markovits, D. (2015), [https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2020/entries/contracts-theories/index.html Theories of the Common Law of Contracts], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', accessed 2 January 2024</ref> "Competence trust" can be defined as "a belief in the other's ability to do the job or complete a task"; this term is applied, for example, in relation to cultural competence in healthcare.<ref>Isaacs, S. ''et al.'', [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/primary-health-care-research-and-development/article/competence-trust-among-providers-as-fundamental-to-a-culturally-competent-primary-healthcare-system-for-immigrant-families/225AF2230502FCB7D3A5FEABB50B39CA Competence trust among providers as fundamental to a culturally competent primary healthcare system for immigrant families], ''Cambridge Core'', published 13 July 2012, accessed 2 January 2024</ref> In working relationships, "goodwill trust" has been described as "trust regarding the benevolence and integrity of [a] counterpart".<ref>Maresch, D., ''et al.'', [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2017-2865/full/html Competence trust, goodwill trust and negotiation power in auditor-client relationships], ''Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal'', 25 November 2019, accessed 2 January 2024</ref>
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>
*[[Social:Generalized trust|Generalized trust]], or a dispositional trait geared towards trusting others, is an important form of trust in modern society, which involves much social interaction with strangers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Intravia|first1=J.|last2=Stewart|first2=E.|last3=Warren|first3=P.|last4=Wolff|first4=K.|year=2016|title=Neighborhood disorder and generalized trust: A multilevel mediation examination of social mechanisms |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235216300290|url-access=subscription|journal=Journal of Criminal Justice|language=en|volume=46|issue=1|pages=148–158 |doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.05.003 }}</ref> Schilke ''et al.'' refer to generalized and particularized trust (trust exhibited in a specific situation or a specific relationship) as two significant research streams in the sociology of trust.<ref name=":6" /> 
*[[In-group and out-group|Out-group]] trust is the trust a person 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 placed in members of one's own group.
*Trust in neighbors considers the relationships between people with a common residential environment.

==Sociology==
{{multiple image
| align = left
| direction = horizontal
| image1 = 
| image2 = 
| image3 = 
| width = 300px
| caption1 = Trust combined with other primary emotions.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{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 |access-date=2017-06-05}}
|2={{cite book|first=Jonathan|last= 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]}}
|3={{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=https://www.ijser.org/paper/A_Fuzzy_Inference_System_for_Synergy_Estimation_of_Simultaneous_Emotion_Dynamics_in_Agents.html|first1=Atifa|last1= Athar|first2=M.|last2= Saleem Khan|first3=Khalil|last3= Ahmed|first4=Aiesha|last4= Ahmed|first5=Nida|last5= Anwar}} }}</ref>
}}
Sociology claims trust is one of several social constructs; an element of the social reality.<ref>{{cite book|last=Searle|first=J.R.|year=1995|title=The Construction of Social Reality|publisher=The Free Press}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}} Other constructs frequently discussed together with trust include control, confidence, risk, meaning and power. Trust is 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 1980s, from the early works of Luhmann,<ref>{{cite book|last=Luhmann|first=N.|year=1979|title=Trust and Power|publisher=John Wiley & Sons}}</ref> Barber,<ref>{{cite book|last=Barber|first=B.|year=1983|title=The Logic and Limits of Trust|publisher=Rutgerts University Press}}</ref> and Giddens<ref>{{cite book|last=Giddens|first=A.|year=1984|title=The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration|publisher=Polity Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref> (see Sztompka<ref>{{cite book|last=Sztompka|first=P.|year=1999|title=Trust: A Sociological Theory|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> for a more detailed overview). This growth of interest in trust has been stimulated by ongoing changes in society, known as late modernity and post-modernity.

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|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|s2cid=33473191}}</ref> Trust acts as a decisional heuristic, allowing the decision-maker to overcome [[Bounded rationality|bounded rationality]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Simon|first=Herbert Alexander|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9CiwU28z6WQC|url-access=subscription|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:Social complexity|social complexity]], allowing for [[Biology:Cooperation|cooperation]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bachmann | first1 = R. | s2cid = 5657206 | year = 2001 | title = Trust, Power and Control in Transorganizational Relations | 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:Social psychology|social psychology]]). 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>{{cite book|last=Coleman|first=J.|year=1990|title=Foundations of Social Theory|publisher=The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}} while actions of social actors are measurable, allowing for statistical modelling of trust. This systemic approach can be contrasted<ref>{{cite book|last1=Castelfranchi|first1=C.|last2=Falcone|first2=R.|title=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences |chapter=Trust is much more than subjective probability: Mental components and sources of trust |year=2000|volume=6|page=10 |doi=10.1109/HICSS.2000.926815 |isbn=0-7695-0493-0 |s2cid=8839856 }}</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 a 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>{{cite journal|last=Mollering|first=G.|title=The Trust/Control Duality: An Integrative Perspective on Positive Expectations of Others|journal=Int. Sociology|date=September 2005|volume=20|number=3|pages=283–305|doi=10.1177/0268580905055478 |s2cid=55140416 |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0012-4E11-4|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Trust is valuable if the trustee is much more powerful than the trustor, yet the trustor is under social obligation to support the trustee.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Baier|first=A.|year=1986|title=Trust and antitrust|journal=Ethics|volume=96|issue=2 |pages=231–260|doi=10.1086/292745 |s2cid=159454549 }} Reprinted in: {{cite book|title=Moral Prejudices|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>

Modern information technologies have not only facilitated the transition to a post-modern society but have also challenged traditional views on trust. [[Information system]]s research has identified that people have come to trust in technology via 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|journal=Journal of the Association for Information Systems|volume=16|issue=10|pages=880–918|doi=10.17705/1jais.00411|s2cid=45062514 |issn=1536-9323|doi-access=free}}</ref> The discussion surrounding the relationship between information technologies and trust is still in progress as research remains in its infant stages.{{Current event inline|date=August 2023}}

=== High- and low-trust societies ===
{{excerpt|High trust and low trust societies}}

=== 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 reduce the negative association between ethnic diversity and social trust? 
# Is ethnic diversity a stand-in for social disadvantage?

The review's [[Meta-analysis|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 trusted person will do what is expected. According to the [[Social:Psychoanalysis|psychoanalyst]] [[Biography:Erik Erikson|Erik Erikson]], development of basic trust is the [[Social: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=https://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/erickson/|title=Erik Erikson's States of Social-Emotional Development |publisher=Child Development Institute }}</ref> possibly resulting in [[Medicine:Attachment disorder|attachment disorder]]s.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fonagy|first=Peter|year=2010|title=Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis|publisher=Other Press Professional|isbn=978-1590514603}}</ref> A person's dispositional tendency to trust others can be considered a [[Social:Trait theory|personality trait]] and as such is one of the strongest predictors of subjective well-being.<ref name="deneve&cooper">{{cite journal|last1=DeNeve|first1=Kristina M.|last2=Cooper|first2=Harris |title=The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1998|volume=124|issue=2|pages=197–229|url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/personality/wellbeing/1998_Deneve_cooper_psych_bull.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425092225/http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/personality/wellbeing/1998_Deneve_cooper_psych_bull.pdf|archive-date=2012-04-25|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197|pmid=9747186}}</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:Social influence|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. 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|url-access=subscription|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.{{clarify|reason=why "yet once again"? essential to whom? perceptions of what by whom?|date=August 2023}}

There are three 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 tendency to make oneself vulnerable to others in general.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Colquitt | first1=Jason A. | last2=Scott | first2=Brent A. | last3=LePine | first3=Jeffery A. | title=Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance | journal=Journal of Applied Psychology | publisher=American Psychological Association | volume=92 | issue=4 | year=2007 | issn=1939-1854 | doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 | pages=909–927| pmid=17638454 | s2cid=7402042 }}</ref> Research suggests that this general tendency can change over time in response to key life events.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Frontiersin |year=2019 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02490 |pmid=31749749 |doi-access=free |last1=Van Der Werff |first1=L. |last2=Freeney |first2=Y. |last3=Lance |first3=C. E. |last4=Buckley |first4=F. |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=10 |page=2490 |pmc=6848461 }}</ref>
Once trust is lost by violation of one of these three determinants, it is very hard to regain. There is asymmetry in the building versus destruction of trust.

Research has been conducted into the social implications of trust, for instance:

*  Barbara Misztal attempted to combine all notions of trust.<ref name="BarbaraMisztal">{{cite book|first=Barbara|last=Misztal|title=Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order|date=11 April 1996 |publisher=Polity Press|isbn=0-7456-1634-8}}</ref> She described three functions of trust: it makes social life predictable, it creates a sense of [[Social:Community|community]], and it makes it easier for people to work together.
* In the context of sexual trust, Riki Robbins describes four stages.<ref name="RikiRobbins">{{cite book|first=Riki|last=Robbins|title=Betrayed!: How You Can Restore Sexual Trust and Rebuild Your Life|date=1998 |publisher=Adams Media Corporation|isbn=1-55850-848-1}}</ref> These consist of perfect trust, damaged trust, devastated trust, and restored trust.{{explain|reason=just giving the reader a list of these labels isn't helpful without some explanation of what they mean or why it is useful to divide trust in fourths like this|date=August 2023}}<ref>{{cite web|first=Riki|last=Robbins|url=https://innerself.com/personal/relationships/5225-the-four-stages-of-trust-by-dr-riki-robbins.html |title=The Four Stages Of Trust: Secret of Creating Trust |publisher=Innerself.com|year=1998 |access-date=2013-01-04 }}</ref>
* In the context of [[Information theory|information theory]], Ed Gerck {{clarify|reason=defines with and contrasts with? that's an interesting trick, and seems to demand further explanation|text=defines and contrasts trust with|date=August 2023}} social functions such as power, surveillance, and [[Social:Accountability|accountability]].<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|first=Ed|last=Gerck|chapter=Trust Points|title=Digital Certificates: Applied Internet Security|editor-first1=J.|editor-last1=Feghhi|editor-first2=J.|editor-last2=Feghhi|editor-first3=P.|editor-last3=Williams|publisher=Addison-Wesley|isbn=0-201-30980-7|year=1998}}
|2={{cite web|first=Ed|last= Gerck |url=http://mcwg.org/mcg-mirror/trustdef.htm |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207040206/http://mcwg.org/mcg-mirror/trustdef.htm|archive-date=2012-02-07|title=Toward Real-World Models of Trust: Reliance on Received Information |publisher=Meta-Certificate Working Group |date=1998-01-23 |access-date=2013-01-04}} }}</ref>
* From a social identity perspective, the propensity to trust strangers (see [[In-group favoritism|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" /> [[Philosophy:Stereotype|stereotype]]s,<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 people 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|url-access=subscription|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 people is facial resemblance. Experimenters who digitally manipulated facial resemblance in a two-person sequential trust game found evidence that people have more trust in a partner who has similar facial features.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Lisa M.|last=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> Facial resemblance also decreased sexual desire for a partner. In a series of tests, digitally manipulated faces were presented to subjects who evaluated them for attractiveness within a long-term or short-term relationship. The results showed that within the context of a short-term relationship 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 a person's attractiveness. This suggests 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=919–922|doi=10.1098/rspb.2004.3003|jstor=30047623|pmc=1564091|pmid=16024346}}</ref>

Interpersonal trust literature<ref name=":1" /> investigates "trust-diagnostic situations": situations that test partners' abilities to act in the best interests of the other person or the relationship while rejecting a conflicting option which is merely in their [[Philosophy:Self-interest|self-interest]].<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> Trust-diagnostic situations occur throughout everyday life, though they can also be deliberately engineered by people who want to test the current level of trust in a relationship.<ref name=":1" />

A low-trust relationship is one in which a person has 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|url-access=subscription|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> People in low trust relationships tend to make distress-maintaining attributions{{technical inline|date=August 2023}}<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{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 |url-access=subscription |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}}
|2={{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 they place their greatest focus on the consequences of their partner's negative behavior, and any impacts of positive actions are minimized. This feeds into the overarching notion that the person's partner is uninterested in the relationship, and any positive acts on their part are met with [[Skepticism|skepticism]], leading to further negative outcomes.<ref name=":2" />

[[Philosophy:Distrust|Distrust]]ing people may miss opportunities for trusting relationships. Someone subject to an abusive childhood may have been deprived of any evidence that trust is warranted in future relationships.<ref name=":0" />{{page needed|date=August 2023}} An important key to treating sexual victimization of a child is the rebuilding of trust between parent and child. Failure by adults to validate that sexual abuse occurred contributes to the child's difficulty in trusting self and others.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Timmons-Mitchell | first1=Jane | last2=Gardner | first2=Sondra | title=Treating sexual victimization: Developing trust-based relating in the mother-daughter dyad | journal=Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training | publisher=American Psychological Association | volume=28 | issue=2 | year=1991 | issn=1939-1536 | doi=10.1037/0033-3204.28.2.333 | pages=333–338}}</ref> A child's trust can also be affected by the [[Social:Marital breakdown|erosion of the marriage]] of their parents.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brinig|first=Margaret F.|date=2011|title=Belonging and Trust: Divorce and Social Capital|url=http://ssrn.com/abstract=1767431|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1767431|issn=1556-5068}}</ref> Children of [[Social:Divorce|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>

People may trust non-human agents. For instance, people may trust animals,<ref>{{citation |last1=Billings |first1=Deborah R. |last2=Schaefer |first2=Kristin E. |last3=Chen |first3=Jessie Y. |last4=Kocsis |first4=Vivien |last5=Barrera |first5=Maria |last6=Cook |first6=Jacquelyn |last7=Ferrer |first7=Michelle |last8=Hancock |first8=Peter A. |title=Human-Animal Trust as an Analog for Human-Robot Trust: A Review of Current Evidence |date=2012-03-01 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA559369 |publisher=University of Central Florida Orlando |via=Defense Technical Information Center}}</ref> the scientific process,<ref name="Wang 2017">{{cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Zuoming |title=Media, Biotechnology, and Trust: What Drives Citizens to Support Biotechnology |journal=Studies in Media and Communication |date=2017-11-30 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=157–165 |doi=10.11114/smc.v5i2.2803 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and {{clarify|reason=what's a "social machine"?|text=social machines|date=August 2023}}. Trust helps create a social contract that allows humans and domestic animals to live together.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Oma |first1=Kristin Armstrong |title=Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals |journal=World Archaeology |date=2010-06-01 |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=175–187 |doi=10.1080/00438241003672724 |s2cid=219608475 }}</ref>  Trust in the scientific process is associated with increased trust in innovations such as biotechnology.<ref name="Wang 2017"/> When it comes to trust in social machines, people are more willing to trust intelligent machines with humanoid morphologies<ref>{{cite book |last1=Natarajan |first1=Manisha |last2=Gombolay |first2=Matthew |title=Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction |chapter=Effects of Anthropomorphism and Accountability on Trust in Human Robot Interaction |date=2020-03-09 |pages=33–42 |doi=10.1145/3319502.3374839 |isbn=9781450367462 |s2cid=212549044 }}</ref> and female cues,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bernotat |first1=Jasmin |last2=Eyssel |first2=Friederike |last3=Sachse |first3=Janik |title=The (Fe)male Robot: How Robot Body Shape Impacts First Impressions and Trust Towards Robots |journal=International Journal of Social Robotics |date=2019-05-25 |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=477–489 |doi=10.1007/s12369-019-00562-7 |s2cid=182570618 }}</ref> when they are focused on tasks (versus socialization),<ref name="Banks 2021">{{cite journal |last1=Banks |first1=Jaime |last2=Koban |first2=Kevin |last3=Chauveau |first3=Philippe |title=Forms and Frames: Mind, Morality, and Trust in Robots across Prototypical Interactions |journal=Human-Machine Communication |date=2021-04-15 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=81–103 |doi=10.30658/hmc.2.4 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and when they behave morally well.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Banks |first1=Jaime |title=Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust |journal=International Journal of Social Robotics |date=2020-09-10 |volume=13 |issue=8 |pages=2021–2038 |doi=10.1007/s12369-020-00692-3 |doi-access=free |hdl=2346/89911 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Banks 2021" /> More generally, they may be trusted as a function of the "machine heuristic"—a mental shortcut with which people assume that machines are less biased, more accurate, and more reliable than people<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sundar |first1=S Shyam |title=Rise of Machine Agency: A Framework for Studying the Psychology of Human–AI Interaction (HAII) |journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication |date=January 2020 |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=74–88 |doi=10.1093/jcmc/zmz026 |doi-access=free }}</ref>—such that people may sometimes trust a robot more than a person.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Banks |first1=Jaime |title=Of like mind: The (mostly) similar mentalizing of robots and humans. |journal=Technology, Mind, and Behavior |date=2021-01-28 |volume=1 |issue=2 |doi=10.1037/tmb0000025|doi-access=free }}</ref>

People are [[Philosophy:Disposition|disposed]] to trust and to judge the trustworthiness of other people or groups—for instance, in developing relationships with potential [[Social:Mentorship|mentors]]. One example would be as part of interprofessional work in the referral pathway from an emergency department to a hospital ward.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sujan|first1=M. A.|last2=Huang|first2=H.|last3=Biggerstaff|first3=D.|year=2019|chapter=Trust and psychological safety as facilitators of resilient health care|title=Working Across Boundaries|pages=125–136|publisher=CRC Press}}</ref> Another would be building knowledge on whether new practices, people, and things introduced into our lives are indeed accountable or worthy of investing confidence and trust in. This process is captured by the empirically grounded construct of "Relational Integration" within [[Social:Normalization process theory|Normalization Process Theory]].<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |last1=McEvoy |first1=Rachel |last2=Ballini |first2=Luciana |last3=Maltoni |first3=Susanna |last4=O’Donnell |first4=Catherine A. |last5=Mair |first5=Frances S. |last6=MacFarlane |first6=Anne |date=2014-01-02 |title=A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes |journal=Implementation Science |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=2 |doi=10.1186/1748-5908-9-2 |issn=1748-5908 |pmc=3905960 |pmid=24383661 |doi-access=free }}
|2={{Cite journal |last1=May |first1=Carl R. |last2=Cummings |first2=Amanda |last3=Girling |first3=Melissa |last4=Bracher |first4=Mike |last5=Mair |first5=Frances S. |last6=May |first6=Christine M. |last7=Murray |first7=Elizabeth |last8=Myall |first8=Michelle |last9=Rapley |first9=Tim |last10=Finch |first10=Tracy |date=2018-06-07 |title=Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review |journal=Implementation Science |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=80 |doi=10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1 |issn=1748-5908 |pmc=5992634 |pmid=29879986 |doi-access=free }} }}</ref> This can be traced in [[Biology:Neuroscience|neuroscience]] terms to the [[Biology:Neuroscience|neurobiological]] structure and activity of a human brain. Some studies indicate that trust can be altered by the application of [[Chemistry:Oxytocin|oxytocin]].<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{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|url-access=registration |journal=Nature |volume=435 |issue=7042 |pages=673–676 |bibcode=2005Natur.435..673K |doi=10.1038/nature03701 |pmid=15931222 |s2cid=1234727}}
|2={{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|url=https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/80117 }}<!-- Note: the ostensible "open access" link to this article at repositorio.unal.edu.co does not actually link to the correct article. --> }}</ref>

===Social identity approach===
The social identity approach explains a person's trust in strangers as a function of their group-based stereotypes or in-group favoring behaviors which they base on [[Philosophy: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 translates into a propensity to trust a member of the in-group more than a member of the out-group.<ref name="Platow2012" /><ref name="Tanis2005" /><ref name="Foddy2008" /> It is only advantageous for one to form such expectations of an in-group stranger if the stranger also knows one's own group membership.<ref name="Foddy2008" />

The social identity approach has been empirically investigated. Researchers have employed allocator studies{{technical inline|date=August 2023}} to understand group-based trust in strangers.<ref name="Platow2012" /><ref name="Foddy2009" /><ref name="Foddy2008">{{Cite book |title=New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas |year=2008 |publisher=Springer |editor-last1=Biel|editor-first1=Anders |editor-last2=Eek|editor-first2= Daniel |editor-last3=Gärling|editor-first3=Tommy |editor-last4=Gustafsson|editor-first4= Mathias |isbn=978-0-387-72596-3|location=New York|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|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210127223148/http://edoc.mpg.de/get.epl?fid=31848&did=300511&ver=0|archive-date=2021-01-27| journal = The Journal of Socio-Economics | volume = 37 | issue = 4| pages = 1293–1308 | doi = 10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.080 | s2cid = 142810413 }}</ref> They{{ambiguous|reason=|date=August 2023}} may be operationalized{{Specify|reason=by whom?|date=August 2023}} 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 is asked to choose between envelopes containing money that an in-group or out-group member previously allocated.<ref name="Foddy2008" /> Participants have no prior or future opportunities for interaction, thereby testing Brewer's notion that group membership is sufficient to bring 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 in which people choose to give a portion or none of their money to another.<ref name="Berg1995">{{cite journal|last1=Berg|first1=J.|last2=Dickhaut|first2=J.|last3=McCabe|first3=K.|year=1995|title=Trust, reciprocity, and social history|journal=Games and Economic Behaviour|volume=10|pages=122–142|doi=10.1006/game.1995.1027 |s2cid=144827131 }}</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. This was meant to test trusting behavior on the sender's part and the receiver's eventual trustworthiness.<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|s2cid=15706516 }}</ref><ref name="Foddy2008" />

Empirical research demonstrates that when group membership is salient 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 occurs even when the in-group's stereotype was comparatively less positive than the out-group's {{clarify|reason=which stereotype of these majors was at play here?|text=(e.g. psychology versus nursing majors)|date=August 2023}},<ref name="Foddy2009" /> {{clarify|reason=does this mean "when the subject did not know anything about the specific person in the group they were dealing with"? It's kind of obscure the way it's written here (e.g. whose personal identity? who is being cued?).|text=in the absence of personal identity cues|date=August 2023}},<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 to gain some monetary reward).<ref name="Platow2012" /> When only {{clarify|reason=of what?|text=the recipient|date=August 2023}} was made aware of group membership, trust{{Specify|reason=whose?|date=August 2023}} 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's)<ref name="Tanis2005" /> even over that of the in-group (e.g. nursing over psychology majors).<ref name="Foddy2009" />

Another explanation for in-group-favoring behaviors could be the need to maintain in-group [[Philosophy:Social identity theory#Positive distinctiveness|positive distinctiveness]], particularly in the presence of [[Philosophy:Social identity threat|social identity threat]].<ref name="Guth2006" /> Trust in out-group strangers increased when personal cues to identity{{Specify|reason=whose?|date=August 2023}} were revealed{{Specify|reason=to whom?|date=August 2023}}.<ref name="Tanis2005" />

==Philosophy==
Many philosophers have written about different forms of trust. Most agree that interpersonal trust is the foundation on which these forms can be modeled.<ref name=":3" /> For an act to be an expression of trust, it must not betray the expectations of the trustee. Some philosophers, such as Lagerspetz, argue that trust is a kind of reliance, though not merely reliance.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lagerspetz|first=Olli|year=1998|title=Trust: The Tacit Demand|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8986-4|url-access=subscription|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> Gambetta argued that trust is the inherent belief that others generally have good intentions, which is the foundation for our reliance on them.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gambetta|first=Diego|year=2000|chapter=Can We Trust Trust?|title=Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations|publisher=Department of Sociology, University of Oxford|pages=213–237|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255682316}}</ref> Philosophers such as [[Biography:Annette Baier|Annette Baier]] challenged this view, asserting a difference between trust and reliance by saying that trust can be betrayed, whereas reliance can only be disappointed.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Baier, Annette|date=1986|title=Trust and Antitrust|journal=Ethics|volume=96 | issue = 2 |page=235|jstor=2381376|doi=10.1086/292745|s2cid=159454549}}</ref> Carolyn McLeod explains Baier's argument with 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 another person, because this is in fact an expression of distrust.{{clarify|reason=it's not clear how the second of these examples explains Baier's argument, at least as it's presented in the previous sentence.|date=August 2023}}<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=2015|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=29 October 2017|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> The violation of trust warrants this sense of betrayal.{{clarify|reason=Not clear which "violation of trust" is "the" one, or which "sence of betrayal" is "this" one.|date=August 2023}}<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|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Thus, trust is different from reliance in the sense that a trustor accepts the risk of being betrayed.

Karen Jones proposed an emotional aspect to trust—[[Philosophy:Optimism|optimism]]<ref>{{cite book|last=Jones|first=Karen|chapter=Trust as an Affective Attitude|year=2005|title=Personal Virtues: Introductory Readings|editor-first=C.|editor-last=Williams|pages=253–279|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1007/978-0-230-20409-6_11|isbn=978-1-4039-9455-4}}</ref> that the trustee will do the right thing by the trustor, which is 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|url-access=subscription|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> People sometimes trust others even without this optimistic expectation, instead hoping that by extending trust this will prompt trustworthy behavior in the trustee. This is known as "therapeutic trust"<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{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}}
|2={{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.

The definition of trust as a belief in something or a confident expectation about something<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=trust&utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=ds_search|title=trust|website=Online Etymology Dictionary}}</ref> eliminates the notion of risk because it does not include whether the expectation or belief is favorable or unfavorable. For example, to expect a friend to arrive to dinner late because she has habitually arrived late for the last fifteen years is a confident expectation (whether or not we find her late arrivals to be annoying). The trust is not about what we wish for, but rather it is in the consistency of the data. As a result, there is no risk or sense of betrayal because the data exists as collective knowledge. Faulkner contrasts such "predictive trust" with the aforementioned affective trust, proposing that predictive trust may only warrant disappointment as a consequence of an inaccurate prediction, not a sense of betrayal.<ref name=":4" />

==Economics==
Trust in economics explains the difference between actual human behavior and behavior that could be explained by people's desire to maximize utility. In economic terms, trust can explain a difference between [[Nash equilibrium]] and the observed equilibrium. Such an approach can be applied to individual people as well as to 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 countries, and in states of the U.S.A., that are more [[Social:Economic inequality|economically equal]].<ref>{{cite book|first1=Richard G.|last1=Wilkinson|first2=Kate|last2=Pickett|title=The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better|location=London|publisher=Allen Lane|year=2009|isbn=978-1-84614-039-6}}</ref>
}}

Trust is important to economists for many reasons. Taking the "[[Finance:The Market for Lemons|Market for Lemons]]" transaction popularized by [[Biography:George Akerlof|George Akerlof]] as an example,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Akerlof|first=George A.|year=1970|title=The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism|url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1879431|url-access=subscription|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=84|issue=3|pages=488–500|doi=10.2307/1879431|jstor=1879431|s2cid=6738765 }}</ref> if a potential buyer of a car does not trust the seller not to sell a lemon, the transaction will not take place. The buyer will not buy without trust, even if the product would be 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>{{multiref2
|2={{cite journal|last1=Zheng|first1=J.|last2=Roehrich|first2=J.K.|last3=Lewis|first3= M.A.|s2cid=207472262|year=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|doi=10.1016/j.pursup.2008.01.004|url=http://opus.bath.ac.uk/12054/1/Zheng_Roehrich_Lewis_JPSM_libre.pdf }} }}</ref> employment, and prosperity. This observation prompted interest in trust as a form of [[Social:Social capital|social capital]] and research into the process of creation and distribution of such capital.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fukuyama|first=F.|year=1996|title=Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity|publisher=Touchstone Books}}{{ISBN?}} </ref> A higher level of social trust may be positively correlated with [[Finance:Economic development|economic development]]: Even though the original concept of "high trust" and "low trust" societies may not necessarily hold, social trust benefits the economy<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Zak | first1=Paul J. | last2=Knack | first2=Stephen | title=Trust and Growth | journal=The Economic Journal | publisher=Royal Economic Society, Wiley | volume=111 | issue=470 | year=2001 | jstor=2667866 | pages=295–321 | doi=10.1111/1468-0297.00609 | url=https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/80117 }}</ref> and a low level of trust inhibits [[Finance:Economic growth|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|year=2002|title=The economics of trust, norms and networks|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8608.00266|url-access=subscription|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> The [[Organization:World Economic Forum|World Economic Forum]]s of 2022 and 2024 both adopted the rebuilding of trust as their themes.<ref>Lahiri, I., [https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/01/11/davos-2024-what-the-theme-rebuilding-trust-is-all-about Davos 2024: What the theme 'rebuilding trust' is all about], ''Euronews'', published 11 January 2024, accessed 16 January 2024</ref>

Theoretical economical modelling 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.<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> Such a level of trust leads to an efficient market. Trusting less leads to losing 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 [[Finance:Profit margin|profit margin]] and a decrease in transactional costs can be used as an indicator of the economic value of trust.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Resnick|first=P.|title=The value of reputation on eBay: a controlled experiment|journal=Experimental Economics|volume=9|number=2|date=June 2006|pages=79–101|doi=10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2 |url=https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=71 }}</ref>

Economic "trust games" empirically quantify trust in relationships under laboratory conditions. Several games and game-like scenarios related to trust have been tried, {{clarify|reason=unclear what this phrase is trying to say... who is preferring what? what's certain about it?|text=with certain preferences to|date=August 2023}} those that allow the estimation{{Specify|reason=who is estimating?|date=August 2023}} of confidence in monetary terms.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Keser|first=C.|year=2003|title=Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems|journal=IBM Systems Journal|volume=42|number=3|pages=498–506 |doi=10.1147/sj.423.0498 }}</ref> In games of trust the Nash equilibrium differs from [[Pareto efficiency|Pareto optimum]] so that no player alone can maximize their own utility by altering their selfish strategy without cooperation. Cooperating partners can also benefit. The classical version of the game of trust has been described as an abstract investment game, using the scenario of an investor and a broker.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Berg |first1=Joyce |last2=Dickhaut |first2=John |last3=McCabe |first3=Kevin |date=1995-07-01 |title=Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825685710275 |journal=Games and Economic Behavior |language=en |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=122–142 |doi=10.1006/game.1995.1027 |s2cid=144827131 |issn=0899-8256}}</ref> The investor can invest some fraction of his money, and the broker can return to the investor some fraction of the investor's gains. If both players follow their naive economic best interest, the investor should never invest, and the broker will never be able to repay anything. Thus the flow of money, its volume, {{clarify|reason=what is meant by money's "character"?|text=and its character|date=August 2023}} is attributable entirely to the existence of trust. Such a 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 variants of this game exist. Reversing rules leads to the game of distrust, pre-declarations can be used to establish intentions of players,<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Airiau |first1=Stéphane |last2=Sen |first2=Sandip |title=Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems |chapter=Learning to commit in repeated games |date=2006-05-08 |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/1160633.1160861|chapter-url-access=subscription |series=AAMAS '06 |location=New York |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=1263–1265 |doi=10.1145/1160633.1160861 |isbn=978-1-59593-303-4|s2cid=15486536 }}</ref> while alterations to the distribution of gains can be used to manipulate the perceptions of both players. The game can be played by several players on the closed market,{{technical inline|date=August 2023}} with or without information about reputation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bolton|first1=G. E.|last2=Katok|first2=E.|last3=Ockenfels|first3=A.|year=2004|title=How Effective are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation|journal=Management Science|volume=50|number=11|pages=1587–1602|doi=10.1287/mnsc.1030.0199|s2cid=14352016 }}</ref>

Other interesting games include 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> and the gift-exchange game.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fehr|first1=E.|last2=Kirchsteiger|first2=G.|last3=Riedl|first3=A.|title=Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation|journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=108|date=May 1993|issue=2 |pages=437–460|doi=10.2307/2118338 |jstor=2118338 }}</ref> Games based on the Prisoner's Dilemma link trust with economic utility and demonstrate the rationality behind reciprocity.<ref>{{cite book|last=Poundstone|first=W.|year=1992|title=Prisoner's Dilemma|publisher=Doubleday|location=N.Y.}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>

The popularization of [[Social:E-commerce|e-commerce]] led to new challenges related to trust within the digital economy and the desire to understand buyers' and sellers' decisions to trust one another.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=McKnight |first1=D.H. |last2=Chervany |first2=N.L. |title=Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences |chapter=Conceptualizing trust: A typology and e-commerce customer relationships model |date=2001-01-06 |chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/927053|chapter-url-access=subscription |pages=10 pp.– |doi=10.1109/HICSS.2001.927053|isbn=0-7695-0981-9 |s2cid=12179931 }}</ref> For example, interpersonal relationships between buyers and sellers have been disintermediated by the technology,<ref>{{cite book|last=Giddens|first=A.|year=1991|title=Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age|publisher=Polity Press}}{{ISBN?}}</ref> and consequentially they required improvement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Golbeck|first=J.|year=2008|title=Computing with Social Trust|publisher=Springer}}{{ISBN?}}</ref> Websites can influence the buyer to trust the seller, regardless of the seller's actual trustworthiness.<ref>{{cite thesis|degree=PhD|last=Egger|first=F. N.|title=From Interactions to Transactions: Designing the Trust Experience for Business-to-Consumer Electronic Commerce|institution=Eindhoven University of Technology|location=The Netherlands}}</ref> Reputation-based systems can improve trust assessment by capturing a collective perception of trustworthiness; this has generated interest in various models of reputation.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Chang|first1=E.|last2=Dillion|first2=T.|last3=Hussain|first3=F. K.|year=2006|title=Trust and Reputation for Service-Oriented Environments: Technologies for Building Business Intelligence and Consumer Confidence|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.}}{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

== Management and organization science ==
In management and organization science, trust is studied as a factor which organizational actors can manage and influence. Scholars have researched 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 in which organizational structures influence people's trust and, at the same time, people's trust manifests in organizational structures. Trust is also one of the conditions of an [[Organization:Organizational culture|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|last1=Vanhala|first1=Mika|last2=Puumalainen|first2=Kaisu|last3=Blomqvist|first3=Kirsimarja|year=2011|title=Impersonal trust: The development of the construct and the scale|journal=Personnel Review|volume=40|pages=485–513|doi=10.1108/00483481111133354|url=https://lutpub.lut.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160004/vanhala_puumalainen_blomqvist_impersonal_trust_final_draft.pdf?sequence=1}}</ref> Structure often creates trust in a person, and this encourages them to feel comfortable and excel in the workplace; it makes an otherwise stressful environment manageable.

Management and organization science scholars have also studied how trust is influenced by contracts and how trust interacts with formal mechanisms.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Poppo|first1=Laura|last2=Zenger|first2=Todd|year=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|doi-access=free}}</ref> Scholars in management and related disciplines have also made a case for the importance of ''distrust'' as a related but distinct construct.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |last1=Lewicki |first1=Roy J. |last2=McAllister |first2=Daniel J. |last3=Bies |first3=Robert J. |year=1998 |title=Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities |journal=Academy of Management Review |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=438–458 |doi=10.2307/259288 |jstor=259288 |issn=0363-7425}}
|2={{Cite journal |last1=Guo |first1=Shiau-Ling |last2=Lumineau |first2=Fabrice |last3=Lewicki |first3=Roy J. |date=2017-02-15 |title=Revisiting the Foundations of Organizational Distrust |journal=Foundations and Trends in Management |language=English |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=1–88 |doi=10.1561/3400000001 |issn=2475-6946|doi-access=free }} }}</ref> Similarly scholars have assessed the relationship between monitoring and trust, for example in a trust game context,<ref>Schweitzer, M. E., Ho, T. and Zhang, Z. (2016), [http://www.teckho.com/uploads/pdfs/HowMonitoringInfluencesTrust-ATaleofTwoFaces.pdf How Monitoring Influences Trust: A Tale of Two Faces], ''Management Science: Articles in Advance'', pp. 1–19, accessed 4 January 2024</ref> and in [[Finance:Shareholder|shareholder]]-management relations.<ref>Lesmeister, S., Limbach, P. and Goergen, M., [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426622001832 Trust and monitoring], ''Journal of Banking and Finance'', Volume 143, October 2022, {{doi|10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106587}}, accessed 4 January 2024</ref>

Since the mid-1990s, organizational research has followed 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|year=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|s2cid=218955149 }}</ref>
# The first distinguishes between two major dimensions of trust: Trust in another can be characterized as cognition-based trust (based on rational calculation) and affect-based trust (based on emotional attachment).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McAllister|first1=Daniel|year=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|s2cid=32041515 }}</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 of having a longstanding relationship with the shop's owner (affect-based trust).
# The second 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 predict how different dimensions of trust form in organizations by demonstrating various trustworthiness attributes.<ref name="Tomlinson"/>

==Systems==
In systems, a trusted component has a set of properties that another component can rely on. If A trusts B, a violation in B's properties might compromise A's correct operation. 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 consider the relation. Consequently, 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, 2008.{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

== Other ==
Trust in politics is [[Social:Political efficacy|political efficacy]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00734.x | doi=10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00734.x | title=Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust | year=2010 | last1=Anderson | first1=Mary R. | journal=Political Psychology | volume=31 | pages=59–84 }}</ref>

==See also==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* Anticipation
* [[Philosophy:Attachment theory|Attachment theory]]
* [[Philosophy:Credulity|Credulity]]
* Gullibility
* Intimacy
* [[Philosophy:Leap of faith|Leap of faith]]
* Misplaced trust
* [[Social:Personal boundaries|Personal boundaries]]
* [[Social:Position of trust|Position of trust]]
* [[Source criticism]]
* [[Social:Swift trust theory|Swift trust theory]]
* [[Social:Trust metric|Trust metric]]
* [[Trusted system]]
}}

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

==Further reading==
* Bachmann, Reinhard and Zaheer, Akbar (eds) (2006). ''Handbook of Trust Research''. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.{{ISBN?}}
* [[Biography:Cristina Bicchieri|Bicchieri, Cristina]], Duffy, John and Tolle, Gil (2004). "Trust among strangers", ''Philosophy of Science'' 71: 1–34.
* Herreros, Francisco (2023). "The State and Trust". ''Annual Review of Political Science'' 26 (1)
* 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.
* Maister, David H., Green, Charles H. & Galford, Robert M. (2000). ''The Trusted Advisor''. Free Press, New York{{ISBN?}}
* {{cite book |last1=Natale |first1=S.M. |last2=Hoffman |first2=R.P. |last3=Hayward |first3=G. |title=Business Education and Training: Corporate Structures, Business, and the Management of Values |publisher=University Press of America |series=Business education and training : a value-laden process |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-7618-1003-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qd6Lht4f3kUC&pg=PA35 }}
*Schilke, Oliver; Reimann, Martin; Cook, Karen S. (2021). "[https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-082120-082850 Trust in Social Relations]". ''Annual Review of Sociology''. '''47'''(1).

==External links==
* {{iep|trust|Trust|}}
* {{PhilPapers|category|trust|Trust}}
* {{InPho|idea|1592|Trust}}
* {{cite SEP |url-id=trust |title=Trust}}
* [https://ventureteambuilding.co.uk/trust-fall/ 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.



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

{{Sourceattribution|Trust (social science)}}