Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on TrustConsensus on Conceptualizations and Definitions of Trust: Are We There Yet?

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust: Consensus on Conceptualizations and Definitions of... [This chapter presents a “review of reviews” of issues surrounding the conceptualization and definition of trust and identifies a number of common essences of trust conceptualizations, as well as common disagreements about the definitional boundaries of trust. Common essences of trust include that trust involves a trustor (subject) and trustee (object) that are somehow interdependent; involves a situation containing risks for the trustor (which also implies the trustor has goals); is experienced by the trustor as voluntary (implying autonomy, agency, and intrinsic motivation); and includes (or excludes) different types, forms, or sources of trust concepts, some of which may form the bases of others and many of which involve or relate to positive evaluations or expectations. Meanwhile, researchers continue to disagree on numerous considerations, including the types of relationships that must be in place for psychological or behavioral states to be truly considered trust; whether and the extent to which all trust conceptualizations necessitate risk, conscious consideration of risk, volition, and/or active choice by the trustor and trustee; the separability of risk and trust; the psychological versus behavioral nature of trust; the cognitive versus affective nature of trust; and the requirements for trust to stem from some bases but not others. In considering the reasons for such agreements and disagreements, we conclude that the varied interests of different researchers might be furthered by greater future attention to refining a set of definitions for trusting and trust-relevant constructs that are part of “trust-as-process.”] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on TrustConsensus on Conceptualizations and Definitions of Trust: Are We There Yet?

Editors: Shockley, Ellie; Neal, Tess M.S.; PytlikZillig, Lisa M.; Bornstein, Brian H.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/interdisciplinary-perspectives-on-trust-consensus-on-Wxw01HDBQR

References (128)

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
ISBN
978-3-319-22260-8
Pages
17 –47
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_2
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[This chapter presents a “review of reviews” of issues surrounding the conceptualization and definition of trust and identifies a number of common essences of trust conceptualizations, as well as common disagreements about the definitional boundaries of trust. Common essences of trust include that trust involves a trustor (subject) and trustee (object) that are somehow interdependent; involves a situation containing risks for the trustor (which also implies the trustor has goals); is experienced by the trustor as voluntary (implying autonomy, agency, and intrinsic motivation); and includes (or excludes) different types, forms, or sources of trust concepts, some of which may form the bases of others and many of which involve or relate to positive evaluations or expectations. Meanwhile, researchers continue to disagree on numerous considerations, including the types of relationships that must be in place for psychological or behavioral states to be truly considered trust; whether and the extent to which all trust conceptualizations necessitate risk, conscious consideration of risk, volition, and/or active choice by the trustor and trustee; the separability of risk and trust; the psychological versus behavioral nature of trust; the cognitive versus affective nature of trust; and the requirements for trust to stem from some bases but not others. In considering the reasons for such agreements and disagreements, we conclude that the varied interests of different researchers might be furthered by greater future attention to refining a set of definitions for trusting and trust-relevant constructs that are part of “trust-as-process.”]

Published: Jul 3, 2015

Keywords: Definition(s); Conceptualization of trust; Trustworthiness; Vulnerability; Risk; Agency; Context(s); Cooperation; Trust-as-choice; Trust-as-attitude; Trust-as-process; Behavioral trust; Affective nature of trust; Cognitive nature of trust; Dispositional trust; Generalized trust; Intrinsic motivation; Trustor goals; Interdependence; Volition

There are no references for this article.