The relationship between trust and distrust in public governance is still an open question. In the literature, three different perspectives on how trust and distrust are related are intensively debated: (1) trust and distrust as two ends of the same conceptual continuum; (2) trust and distrust as opposites, but with neutral ground in between; and (3) trust and distrust as related, yet distinct concepts. Employing a new measure for distrust and by using perceptual data on trust and distrust in regulatory agencies from multiple types of stakeholders in nine countries and three sectors, this article shows that high trust and high distrust can co-exist at the same time, and that trust and distrust are negatively correlated only to a limited extent. Moreover, while trustworthiness correlates strongly with trust, trustworthiness does not or only weakly correlate with distrust in a negative way. These findings are robust even when controlling for respondents' characteristics, different types of stakeholders, sectors and countries. This suggests that in public governance settings trust and distrust should be considered as distinct concepts, and the article calls for more research into the distinctiveness of the measurement, causes and effects of distrust, compared to trust.
{"title":"Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations.","authors":"Koen Verhoest, Dominika Latusek, Frédérique Six, Libby Maman, Yannis Papadopoulos, Rahel M Schomaker, Jarle Trondal","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918","DOIUrl":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between trust and distrust in public governance is still an open question. In the literature, three different perspectives on how trust and distrust are related are intensively debated: (1) trust and distrust as two ends of the same conceptual continuum; (2) trust and distrust as opposites, but with neutral ground in between; and (3) trust and distrust as related, yet distinct concepts. Employing a new measure for distrust and by using perceptual data on trust and distrust in regulatory agencies from multiple types of stakeholders in nine countries and three sectors, this article shows that high trust and high distrust can co-exist at the same time, and that trust and distrust are negatively correlated only to a limited extent. Moreover, while trustworthiness correlates strongly with trust, trustworthiness does not or only weakly correlate with distrust in a negative way. These findings are robust even when controlling for respondents' characteristics, different types of stakeholders, sectors and countries. This suggests that in public governance settings trust and distrust should be considered as distinct concepts, and the article calls for more research into the distinctiveness of the measurement, causes and effects of distrust, compared to trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"14 2","pages":"127-156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537161/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142584620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-20DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2024.2331285
Joseph A. Hamm Editor in Chief, Lisa van der Werff Deputy Editor in Chief, Amanda Isabel Osuna Managing Editor, Kirsimarja Blomqvist Area Editor, Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill Area Editorial Fellow, Nicole Gillespie Area Editor, Ben Syed Area Editor, Edward C. Tomlinson Area Editor
Published in Journal of Trust Research (Vol. 14, No. 1, 2024)
发表于《信任研究期刊》（第 14 卷第 1 期，2024 年）
{"title":"Capturing the conversation of trust research","authors":"Joseph A. Hamm Editor in Chief, Lisa van der Werff Deputy Editor in Chief, Amanda Isabel Osuna Managing Editor, Kirsimarja Blomqvist Area Editor, Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill Area Editorial Fellow, Nicole Gillespie Area Editor, Ben Syed Area Editor, Edward C. Tomlinson Area Editor","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2331285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2331285","url":null,"abstract":"Published in Journal of Trust Research (Vol. 14, No. 1, 2024)","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141151313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-16DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2024.2330889
Fanny Lalot, Rainer Greifeneder
In his paper ‘Improving media trust research through better measurement: An item response theory perspective', Frank Mangold (2024) adopts an item response theory approach to rethink and reconceptu...
{"title":"On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)","authors":"Fanny Lalot, Rainer Greifeneder","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2330889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2330889","url":null,"abstract":"In his paper ‘Improving media trust research through better measurement: An item response theory perspective', Frank Mangold (2024) adopts an item response theory approach to rethink and reconceptu...","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140609122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2024.2319667
Thomas Hughes
The regime of Confidence- (and Security-) Building Measures (C(S)BMs) represented an effort to re-imagine Arms Control in Europe and reduce the possibility of unwanted escalation due to misundersta...
{"title":"Is security still the chiefest enemy? The challenges and contradictions in European confidence- and security-building in the Cold War","authors":"Thomas Hughes","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2319667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2319667","url":null,"abstract":"The regime of Confidence- (and Security-) Building Measures (C(S)BMs) represented an effort to re-imagine Arms Control in Europe and reduce the possibility of unwanted escalation due to misundersta...","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140018733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-15DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2024.2302160
Dikla Yogev
Literature focusing on race and policing has consistently reported a decline in recent years in police legitimacy among minority communities. Yet, the effect of religion on policing has not receive...
{"title":"Police legitimacy in the making: the underlying social forces for police legitimacy among religious communities","authors":"Dikla Yogev","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2302160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2302160","url":null,"abstract":"Literature focusing on race and policing has consistently reported a decline in recent years in police legitimacy among minority communities. Yet, the effect of religion on policing has not receive...","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139755083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-22DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2023.2248083
Michael Schepisi, Biljana Gjoneska, Silvia Mari, Maria Serena Panasiti, Giuseppina Porciello, Roland Imhoff
ABSTRACTTo believe in conspiracy theories is to suspect that (powerful) others are plotting behind one’s back. Conspiracy beliefs might be therefore an issue of (dis)trust. In this study, we sought to explore whether this association is modulated by the way trust is operationalised and by the specific target to whom trust is directed. In doing so, we used two proxies of trust: (i) money investment within a hypothetical version of the trust game and (ii) the likelihood of disclosing a personal digital information (i.e. password). Then we presented participants with a set of trustees representing different social categories and having different degrees of closeness to the participants. Our results showed that when trust was expressed as money investment, higher levels of conspiracy mentality were associated to less trust towards powerful categories, such as ingroup politicians, scientists, public organisations, pharmaceutical and textile CEOs. Conversely, when trust was expressed as the likelihood of disclosing one’s own password, this association was observed only when the trustee was an ingroup politician. Here, we demonstrated that the negative association between conspiracy mentality and trust is not a uniform phenomenon, rather is subject to the expression of trust and to its specific targets.KEYWORDS: Conspiracy mentalityinterpersonal trustdigital securitymonetary investmentpolitical intergroup bias AckowledgementsWe thank the EU COST Network on ‘Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories' (COMPACT Action) for inspiring this work. We thank Ambra Saraceno for her suggestions on the measures employed in this work.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Authors contributionMichael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Silvia Mari contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Silvia Mari. Analyses were performed by Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello and Maria Serena Panasiti. Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Biljana Gjoneska interpreted the results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Michael Schepisi. Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti, Silvia Mari, Biljana Gjoneska and Roland Imhoff revised previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Ethics approvalAs part of a large international project, the present study falls under a cluster of ethics approvals of studies on conspiracy theories, secured by one of the leading institutions in the project. The present research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.ConsentParticipants completed the survey on voluntary basis and give their informed consent to participate in the study.Data availability statementDataset and script for the analyses of the present study are available in Mendeley rep
【摘要】相信阴谋论就是怀疑(有权势的)其他人在背后密谋。因此，阴谋论可能是一个(不信任)问题。在本研究中，我们试图探索这种关联是否受到信任运作方式和信任所指向的特定目标的调节。在此过程中，我们使用了两种信任代理:(i)在假设版本的信任游戏中进行资金投资;(ii)披露个人数字信息(即密码)的可能性。然后，我们向参与者展示了一组代表不同社会类别的受托人，他们与参与者的亲密程度不同。我们的研究结果表明，当信任表现为金钱投资时，阴谋心理的水平越高，对权力类别的信任就越低，比如团体政治家、科学家、公共组织、制药和纺织公司的首席执行官。相反，当信任被表示为泄露自己密码的可能性时，只有当受托人是内部政治人物时，这种联系才会出现。在这里，我们证明了阴谋心理与信任之间的负相关不是一个统一的现象，而是受信任的表达和具体目标的影响。关键词:阴谋心态人际信任数字安全货币投资政治群体间偏见我们感谢欧盟成本网络的“阴谋理论比较分析”(COMPACT Action)对这项工作的启发。我们感谢Ambra Saraceno就这项工作中采用的措施提出的建议。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti和Silvia Mari对研究的概念和设计做出了贡献。材料准备和数据收集由Michael Schepisi、Giuseppina Porciello、Maria Serena Panasiti和Silvia Mari完成。Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello和Maria Serena Panasiti进行了分析。Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti和Biljana Gjoneska解释了结果。手稿的初稿是由Michael Schepisi撰写的。Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti, Silvia Mari, Biljana Gjoneska和Roland Imhoff修改了以前的手稿版本。所有作者都阅读并批准了最终的手稿。伦理批准作为一个大型国际项目的一部分，本研究属于阴谋论研究的一系列伦理批准，由该项目的一个主要机构保证。本研究是根据1964年《赫尔辛基宣言》进行的。参与者在自愿的基础上完成调查，并给予他们参与研究的知情同意。数据可用性声明本研究分析的数据集和脚本可在Mendeley知识库中获得，链接如下:https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/fxn3zwd4vp/1.Additional informationfunding本研究由米兰比可卡大学2017-ATE-0007基金部分支持。作者简介michael Schepisi(博士)目前是维罗纳大学人文科学系的博士后研究员。他在罗马大学(Sapienza University of Rome)获得博士学位，论文主题是政治意识形态在社会认知中的作用，特别关注偏见和道德决策。他的研究兴趣包括群体间偏见的神经-心理-社会决定因素的研究。Biljana Gjoneska(医学博士)是马其顿科学与艺术学院(MK)的终身研究员。她的工作包括对群体行为和网络相关行为的跨文化调查，涉及社会心理方面(如阴谋论、不信任和错误信息的在线传播)和健康问题(即各种形式的网络成瘾)。她是心理科学加速器(PSA)伦理委员会的助理主任，几个欧盟成本行动的管理委员会成员，以及几个行为科学国际合作的国家代表。西尔维娅·马里(博士)是米兰-比可卡大学的副教授。她是心理学系心理学本科课程的协调员。她的研究兴趣包括态度和信仰的决定因素，包括阴谋思维及其行为后果，应用于政治心理学、健康心理学和群体间关系等各个领域。她是国际科学学会的成员，包括ISPP和EASP，以及许多合作研究网络的成员。 Maria Serena Panasiti是罗马萨皮恩扎大学心理学系临床心理学副教授。她对临床和健康人群的社会认知研究感兴趣。她的主要研究课题是(受损)内感受或情绪处理对社会/道德决策的影响。Giuseppina Porciello(博士)是罗马萨皮恩扎大学心理学系的非终身教授。她还在罗马的AgliotiLAB和圣卢西亚医院担任临床研究员。她的研究主要围绕身体信号在一个人对自己身体的意识中的作用以及它们对高阶认知、情感和社会过程的影响。她还研究了群体内和群体外过程的行为和生理方面，特别关注种族和政治意识形态。她是意大利心理学会(AIP)和意大利心理生理学和认知神经科学学会(SIPF)的成员。罗兰·伊姆霍夫(Roland Imhoff)是美因茨约翰内-古腾堡大学社会和法律心理学教授。他的部分研究集中在政治行为和态度的社会认知基础上，强调阴谋心态是一种普遍的世界观。他是“德国心理学会”阴谋论特别工作组的成员，也是EASP执行委员会的成员。
{"title":"Conspiracy mentality differently shapes interpersonal trust when money or digital privacy is at stake","authors":"Michael Schepisi, Biljana Gjoneska, Silvia Mari, Maria Serena Panasiti, Giuseppina Porciello, Roland Imhoff","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2248083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2248083","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTTo believe in conspiracy theories is to suspect that (powerful) others are plotting behind one’s back. Conspiracy beliefs might be therefore an issue of (dis)trust. In this study, we sought to explore whether this association is modulated by the way trust is operationalised and by the specific target to whom trust is directed. In doing so, we used two proxies of trust: (i) money investment within a hypothetical version of the trust game and (ii) the likelihood of disclosing a personal digital information (i.e. password). Then we presented participants with a set of trustees representing different social categories and having different degrees of closeness to the participants. Our results showed that when trust was expressed as money investment, higher levels of conspiracy mentality were associated to less trust towards powerful categories, such as ingroup politicians, scientists, public organisations, pharmaceutical and textile CEOs. Conversely, when trust was expressed as the likelihood of disclosing one’s own password, this association was observed only when the trustee was an ingroup politician. Here, we demonstrated that the negative association between conspiracy mentality and trust is not a uniform phenomenon, rather is subject to the expression of trust and to its specific targets.KEYWORDS: Conspiracy mentalityinterpersonal trustdigital securitymonetary investmentpolitical intergroup bias AckowledgementsWe thank the EU COST Network on ‘Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories' (COMPACT Action) for inspiring this work. We thank Ambra Saraceno for her suggestions on the measures employed in this work.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Authors contributionMichael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Silvia Mari contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Silvia Mari. Analyses were performed by Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello and Maria Serena Panasiti. Michael Schepisi, Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti and Biljana Gjoneska interpreted the results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Michael Schepisi. Giuseppina Porciello, Maria Serena Panasiti, Silvia Mari, Biljana Gjoneska and Roland Imhoff revised previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Ethics approvalAs part of a large international project, the present study falls under a cluster of ethics approvals of studies on conspiracy theories, secured by one of the leading institutions in the project. The present research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.ConsentParticipants completed the survey on voluntary basis and give their informed consent to participate in the study.Data availability statementDataset and script for the analyses of the present study are available in Mendeley rep","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-26DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2023.2229791
F. Mangold
{"title":"Improving media trust research through better measurement: An item response theory perspective","authors":"F. Mangold","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2229791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2229791","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47663243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2023.2246837
Simon Schafheitle, Antoinette Weibel, Guido Möllering
Trust implies vulnerability, as stated by various scholars across disciplines (Baier, 1986; Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Some of the most cited definitions (e.g. Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al., 1998) contain the crucial idea that the essence of trust is an acceptance of vulnerability based on positive expectations. As Bigley and Pearce (1998, p. 407), reviewing earlier work, observe: ‘When the terms “trust” and “distrust” have been evoked in the social sciences, they almost always have been associated with the idea of actor vulnerability.’ Scholars in other disciplines such as philosophy (e.g. Baghramian et al., 2020), economics (e.g. James, 2002), education (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), medicine (Barnard, 2016), and theology (Bruni, 2021) also define trust in the light of vulnerability. Finally, behavioural conceptualizations of trust imply risk-taking and thereby incurring vulnerability, as trusting might not be reciprocated or even allows the other party to do harm (Dasgupta, 1988; Luhmann, 1979). While vulnerability is recognised as a conceptual cornerstone in trust research, few authors delve into detailed explanations of how they specifically utilise and qualify the concept. To further complicate, fundamental controversies concerning vulnerability in trust research remain unresolved. Some researchers, for instance, view vulnerability as a deliberate decision influenced by factors like perceived trustworthiness (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995), while others, following Deutsch (1958), see vulnerability as an existential awareness of the inherent risks in relationships, which is essential for the subsequent development of trust. In this vein, the acknowledgment of ‘being at somebody’s mercy’ is a prerequisite for trust to emerge. Hence, whether we perceive vulnerability as an existential condition or as a deliberate state, its relationship with trust—whether it precedes or follows trust—should significantly influence the way we advocate for trust, model it, and measure it. However, this matter has received limited attention. With our fundamental criticism, we of course acknowledge the few notable exceptions. For instance, Misztal (2011) examines vulnerability as both a condition and outcome for trust proposing three types of vulnerability. Nienaber et al. (2015) distinguish between active vulnerability and passive vulnerability, and Weibel et al. (2023) explore vulnerability as a condition for trust and differentiate various types of active trusting based on the specific vulnerability involved. While these studies offer valuable insights, much of the existing trust research tends to be superficial in qualifying vulnerability, and at worst, it opens itself to fundamental critique. It begs the question: What is the value of trust research if it fails to address the core underlying issue of vulnerability with greater precision and depth? In addition to lacking more sophisticated conceptualizations, mainstream trust resea
{"title":"Inviting submissions to the Special Issue on trust and vulnerability (Deadline 31 August 2024)","authors":"Simon Schafheitle, Antoinette Weibel, Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2246837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2246837","url":null,"abstract":"Trust implies vulnerability, as stated by various scholars across disciplines (Baier, 1986; Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Some of the most cited definitions (e.g. Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al., 1998) contain the crucial idea that the essence of trust is an acceptance of vulnerability based on positive expectations. As Bigley and Pearce (1998, p. 407), reviewing earlier work, observe: ‘When the terms “trust” and “distrust” have been evoked in the social sciences, they almost always have been associated with the idea of actor vulnerability.’ Scholars in other disciplines such as philosophy (e.g. Baghramian et al., 2020), economics (e.g. James, 2002), education (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), medicine (Barnard, 2016), and theology (Bruni, 2021) also define trust in the light of vulnerability. Finally, behavioural conceptualizations of trust imply risk-taking and thereby incurring vulnerability, as trusting might not be reciprocated or even allows the other party to do harm (Dasgupta, 1988; Luhmann, 1979). While vulnerability is recognised as a conceptual cornerstone in trust research, few authors delve into detailed explanations of how they specifically utilise and qualify the concept. To further complicate, fundamental controversies concerning vulnerability in trust research remain unresolved. Some researchers, for instance, view vulnerability as a deliberate decision influenced by factors like perceived trustworthiness (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995), while others, following Deutsch (1958), see vulnerability as an existential awareness of the inherent risks in relationships, which is essential for the subsequent development of trust. In this vein, the acknowledgment of ‘being at somebody’s mercy’ is a prerequisite for trust to emerge. Hence, whether we perceive vulnerability as an existential condition or as a deliberate state, its relationship with trust—whether it precedes or follows trust—should significantly influence the way we advocate for trust, model it, and measure it. However, this matter has received limited attention. With our fundamental criticism, we of course acknowledge the few notable exceptions. For instance, Misztal (2011) examines vulnerability as both a condition and outcome for trust proposing three types of vulnerability. Nienaber et al. (2015) distinguish between active vulnerability and passive vulnerability, and Weibel et al. (2023) explore vulnerability as a condition for trust and differentiate various types of active trusting based on the specific vulnerability involved. While these studies offer valuable insights, much of the existing trust research tends to be superficial in qualifying vulnerability, and at worst, it opens itself to fundamental critique. It begs the question: What is the value of trust research if it fails to address the core underlying issue of vulnerability with greater precision and depth? In addition to lacking more sophisticated conceptualizations, mainstream trust resea","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"252 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49113411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2023.2246836
Guido Möllering, Joseph A. Hamm
{"title":"Impact and (the Journal of) Trust Research","authors":"Guido Möllering, Joseph A. Hamm","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2246836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2246836","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"99 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43518765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2023.2215747
Rachel L. Campagna, Jennifer A. Griffith
Millions of employees are now classified as gig workers – a subset of contingent employees with alternative employment arrangements. This type of work arrangement can be beneficial for both managers (e.g. cost savings, specialised skillsets) and employees (e.g. work preferences such as flexibility). Yet little research has addressed how trust for a manager might factor into gig workers’ performance when compared to traditional employees, perhaps because research has implied that trust is irrelevant to gig workers. We test this prediction across four studies to show that low trust is a double-edged sword with unfavourable and favourable outcomes. On the one hand, we find that less trust in the manager leads to lower performance and commitment among gig workers. Yet, on the other, we find that lower levels of trust help to offset or mitigate the harmful outcomes of trust violations, or unexpected, negative workplace events. Our findings highlight the important role of trust in this context of gig versus traditional workers.
{"title":"When the gig isn’t up: The importance (and relevance) of trust on gig workers’ performance and commitment","authors":"Rachel L. Campagna, Jennifer A. Griffith","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2215747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2215747","url":null,"abstract":"Millions of employees are now classified as gig workers – a subset of contingent employees with alternative employment arrangements. This type of work arrangement can be beneficial for both managers (e.g. cost savings, specialised skillsets) and employees (e.g. work preferences such as flexibility). Yet little research has addressed how trust for a manager might factor into gig workers’ performance when compared to traditional employees, perhaps because research has implied that trust is irrelevant to gig workers. We test this prediction across four studies to show that low trust is a double-edged sword with unfavourable and favourable outcomes. On the one hand, we find that less trust in the manager leads to lower performance and commitment among gig workers. Yet, on the other, we find that lower levels of trust help to offset or mitigate the harmful outcomes of trust violations, or unexpected, negative workplace events. Our findings highlight the important role of trust in this context of gig versus traditional workers.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"164 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41462983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号