公共治理环境中的信任与不信任:将监管关系中的联系概念化并进行测试。

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2024-09-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918
Koen Verhoest, Dominika Latusek, Frédérique Six, Libby Maman, Yannis Papadopoulos, Rahel M Schomaker, Jarle Trondal
{"title":"公共治理环境中的信任与不信任:将监管关系中的联系概念化并进行测试。","authors":"Koen Verhoest, Dominika Latusek, Frédérique Six, Libby Maman, Yannis Papadopoulos, Rahel M Schomaker, Jarle Trondal","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918","DOIUrl":null,"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":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2383918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公共治理中,信任与不信任之间的关系仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。关于信任与不信任之间的关系,有三种不同的观点引起了激烈的争论:(1) 信任与不信任是同一概念连续体的两端;(2) 信任与不信任是对立的,但两者之间存在中性地带;(3) 信任与不信任是相关但不同的概念。本文采用了一种新的不信任测量方法,并使用了来自九个国家和三个行业的多种类型利益相关者对监管机构的信任和不信任的感知数据,表明高信任度和高不信任度可以同时并存,而且信任度和不信任度仅在有限程度上呈负相关。此外,虽然可信度与信任度密切相关,但可信度与不信任度没有或仅有微弱的负相关。即使对受访者的特征、不同类型的利益相关者、部门和国家进行控制,这些发现也是稳健的。这表明,在公共治理环境中,信任和不信任应被视为不同的概念,文章呼吁对不信任与信任相比在测量、原因和影响方面的独特性进行更多研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Capturing the conversation of trust research 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) Is security still the chiefest enemy? The challenges and contradictions in European confidence- and security-building in the Cold War Police legitimacy in the making: the underlying social forces for police legitimacy among religious communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1