View source for Trust (social science) - Wikipedia
View source for Trust (social science)
← Trust (social science)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.
The block was made by Jon Kolbert (meta.wikimedia.org).
The reason given is Open Proxy: Webhost: Contact stewards if you are affected .
Start of block: 20:12, 23 July 2019
Expiry of block: 20:12, 23 January 2022
Your current IP address is 40.76.139.33 and the blocked range is 40.76.0.0/16.
Please include all above details in any queries you make.
If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy.
Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki or send an email to the stewards OTRS queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.
You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.
Editing from 40.76.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by SQL for the following reason(s):
The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider.
Since the web host acts like a proxy or VPN, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.
If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined using whatismyip.com. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. If you are using a Wikipedia account, you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appeal using the unblock ticket request system.
Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.
This block has been set to expire: 16:25, 2 June 2023.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.
Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy ·
Appealing blocks: policy and guide
If the block notice is unclear, or it does not appear to relate to your actions, please ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
==Psychology==
In psychology, trust is believing that the person who is trusted will do what is expected. According to the [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalyst]] [[Erik Erikson]], development of basic trust is the [[Erikson's stages of psychosocial development|first state of psychosocial development]] occurring, or failing, during the first two years of life. Success results in feelings of security and optimism, while failure leads towards an orientation of insecurity and mistrust[{{cite web|author=Child Development Institute Parenting Today |url=http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml |title=Stages of Social-Emotional Development In Children and Teenagers |publisher=Childdevelopmentinfo.com |accessdate=2013-01-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111002220833/http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml |archive-date=October 2, 2011 }}] possibly resulting in [[attachment disorder]]s.[Fonagy, Peter (2010). ''Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis''. Other Press Professional, {{ISBN|1590514602}}] A person's dispositional tendency to trust others can be considered a personality trait and as such is one of the strongest predictors of subjective well-being.[{{cite journal|last=DeNeve|first=Kristina M.|author2=Cooper, Harris |title=The Happy Personality: A Meta-Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1998|volume=124|pages=197–229|url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/personality/wellbeing/1998_Deneve_cooper_psych_bull.pdf|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197|pmid=9747186|issue=2}}] Trust increases subjective well-being because it enhances the quality of one's interpersonal relationships; happy people are skilled at fostering good relationships.[{{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}}]
Trust is integral to the idea of [[social influence]]: it is easier to influence or persuade someone who is trusting. The notion of trust is increasingly adopted to predict acceptance of behaviors by others, [[Institutional trust|institution]]s (e.g. [[government agency|government agencies]]) and objects such as machines. Yet once again, perceptions of honesty, competence and value similarity[{{Cite journal|last1=Garcia-Retamero|first1=Rocio|last2=Müller|first2=Stephanie M.|last3=Rousseau|first3=David L.|date=2012-03-13|title=The Impact of Value Similarity and Power on the Perception of Threat|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00869.x|journal=Political Psychology|volume=33|issue=2|pages=179–193|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00869.x|issn=0162-895X}}] (slightly similar to benevolence) are essential.
There are three different forms of trust commonly studied in psychology. Trust is being vulnerable to someone even when they are trustworthy. Trustworthiness are the characteristics or behaviors of one person that inspire positive expectations in another person. Trust propensity is the ability to rely on others.[{{cite web|title=PsycNET|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&format=HTML&id=2007-09571-002|accessdate=29 October 2017|website=Psycnet.apa.org}}] Once trust is lost, by obvious violation of one of these three determinants, it is very hard to regain. Thus there is clear asymmetry in the building versus destruction of trust.
Increasingly in recent times, research has been conducted regarding the notion of trust and its social implications:
* In her book,[Barbara Misztal, ''Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order'', Polity Press, {{ISBN|0-7456-1634-8}}] Barbara Misztal attempts to combine all notions of trust together. She describes three basic things that trust does in the lives of people: it makes social life predictable, it creates a sense of [[community]], and it makes it easier for people to work together.
* In the context of sexual trust, Riki Robbins[Riki Robbins, ''Betrayed!: How You Can Restore Sexual Trust and Rebuild Your Life'', Adams Media Corporation, {{ISBN|1-55850-848-1}}] describes four stages. These consist of perfect trust, damaged trust, devastated trust and restored trust.[{{cite web|url=http://www.innerself.com/Relationships/Four_Stages_of_Trust.htm |title=Four stages of trust |publisher=Innerself.com |accessdate=2013-01-04|date=2006-09-20 }}]
* In the context of [[information theory]], Ed Gerck defines and contrasts trust with social functions such as [[Power (philosophy)|power]], surveillance, and [[accountability]].[Ed Gerck, ''Trust Points'', Digital Certificates: Applied Internet Security by J. Feghhi, J. Feghhi and P. Williams, Addison-Wesley, {{ISBN|0-201-30980-7}}, 1998.][{{cite web|author=Ed Gerck |url=http://mcwg.org/mcg-mirror/trustdef.htm |title=Definition of trust |publisher=Mcwg.org |date=1998-01-23 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}]
* From a [[social identity]] perspective, the propensity to trust strangers (see [[in-group favoritism]]) arises from the mutual knowledge of a shared group membership,[{{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}}][{{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 }}] or the need to maintain the group's positive distinctiveness.[{{Cite journal|last=Simpson|first=Jeffry A.|date=2016-06-23|title=Psychological Foundations of Trust|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=16|issue=5|pages=264–268|language=en|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x|s2cid=45119866|issn=1467-8721}}]
One factor that enhances trust among humans is facial resemblance. Through digital manipulation of facial resemblance in a two-person sequential trust game, supporting evidence was found that having similar [[facial feature]]s (facial resemblance) enhanced trust in a subject's respective partner.[{{cite journal|author=Lisa M. DeBruine|date=7 July 2002|title=Facial resemblance enhances trust|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences|volume=269|issue=1498|pages=1307–1312|doi=10.1098/rspb.2002.2034|pmc=1691034|pmid=12079651}}] Though facial resemblance was shown to increase trust, it also had the effect of decreased [[sexual desire]] in a particular partner. In a series of tests, digitally manipulated faces were presented to subjects to be evaluated for attractiveness within the context of a long-term or short-term relationship. The results showed that within the context of a short-term relationship, which is dependent on sexual desire, similar facial features caused a decrease in desire. Within the context of a long-term relationship, which is dependent on trust, similar facial features increased the attractiveness of an individual, leading one to believe that facial resemblance and trust have great effects on relationships.[{{cite journal|last=DeBruine|first=Lisa|date=3 November 2005|title=Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance|journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society B]]|volume=272|issue=1566|pages=919–22|doi=10.1098/rspb.2004.3003|jstor=30047623|pmc=1564091|pmid=16024346}}]
Interpersonal trust literature[{{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}}] situations which test partners' ability to act in the best interests of the other individual or the relationship, simultaneously rejecting that option which is in one's personal [[self-interest]]. Trust-diagnostic situations occur throughout the course of everyday life, though can be created by individuals wanting to test the current level of trust in a relationship.[{{Cite journal|last1=Rempel|first1=John K.|last2=Ross|first2=Michael|last3=Holmes|first3=John G.|date=2001|title=Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=81|issue=1|pages=57–64|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57|pmid=11474726|issn=1939-1315}}] Those in low trust relationships tend to make distress-maintaining attributions[{{Cite journal|last=Collins|first=Nancy L.|date=1996|title=Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|language=en|volume=71|issue=4|pages=810–832|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810|pmid=8888604|issn=1939-1315}}][{{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}}] whereby the consequences of partner's negative behavior become of greatest focus, and any impacts of positive actions are minimized. This feeds into the overarching notion that the individual's partner is disinterested in the relationship, and any positive acts are met with [[skepticism]], leading to further negative outcomes.[Timmons-Mitchell, Jane. ''Treating Sexual Victimization: Developing Trust-based Relating in the Mother-daughter Dyad{{ISBN?}}{{page?|date=December 2019}}''] Moreover, trust can often be affected by the [[Marital breakdown|erosion of a marriage]].[{{Cite journal|last=Brinig|first=Margaret F.|date=2011|title=Belonging and Trust: Divorce and Social Capital|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1767431|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1767431|issn=1556-5068}}] Children of [[divorce]] do not exhibit less trust in mothers, partners, spouses, friends, and associates than their peers of intact families. The impact of parental divorce is limited to trust in the father.[{{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}}]
===Social identity approach===
The [[social identity approach]] explains trust in strangers as a function of group-based stereotypes or [[ingroup favoritism|in-group favoring]] behaviors based on [[self-categorization theory|salient group memberships]]. With regard to ingroup favoritism, people generally think well of strangers but expect better treatment from in-group members in comparison to out-group members. This greater expectation then translates into a higher propensity to trust an in-group rather than out-group member.[{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/233971331|title=New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas|date=2008|publisher=Springer|others=Biel, Anders., Eek, Daniel., Gärling, Tommy., Gustafsson, Mathias.|isbn=978-0-387-72596-3|location=[New York, N.Y.]|oclc=233971331}}][{{cite journal | last1 = Guth | first1 = W. | last2 = Levati | first2 = M.V. | last3 = Ploner | first3 = M. | year = 2006 | title = Social identity and trust – An experimental investigation | url = http://edoc.mpg.de/300511| journal = The Journal of Socio-Economics | volume = 37 | issue = 4| pages = 1293–1308 | doi = 10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.080 }}] They may be operationalized as [[Unilateralism|unilateral]] or [[bilateral]] relationships of exchange. General social categories such as university affiliation, course majors, and even ad-hoc groups have been used to distinguish between in-group and out-group members. In unilateral studies of trust, the participant is asked to choose between envelopes containing money that was previously allocated by an in-group or out-group member.[{{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}}] Participants could expect an amount ranging from nothing to the maximum value an allocator could give out. Bilateral studies of trust have employed an investment game devised by Berg and colleagues where individuals choose to give a portion or none of their money to another.[Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). "Trust, reciprocity, and social history". ''Games and Economic Behaviour'', 10, 122–142] Any amount given would be tripled and the receiver would then decide whether they would return the favor by giving money back to the sender. Trusting behavior on the part of the sender and the eventual trustworthiness of the receiver was exemplified through the giving of money.[{{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}}]