points about trust

a centralized approach may raise privacy issues that have to be considered in the system design.

Trust reflects the expectation one actor has about another’s future behavior to perform given activities dependably, securely, and reliably based on experiences collected from previous interactions.

Trust reflects an expectation and, therefore, cannot be expressed objectively. It is influenced by subjective perceptions of the involved actors.

Trust is context dependent and is basically valid within a particular scope only, such as the type of an activity or the membership in a certain team.

Trust relies on previous interactions, i.e., from well-proven previous behavior a prediction of the future is inferred.

Among strangers, trust is understandably much more difficult to build

Source: P. Resnick, K. Kuwabara, R. Zeckhauser, and E. Friedman. Reputation systems. Commun. ACM, 43:45–48, December 2000.

Among strangers, trust is understandably much more difficult to build.
Strangers lack known past histories or the prospect of future interaction, and they are not subject to a network of informed individuals who would punish bad and reward good behavior. In some sense, a stranger’s good name is not at stake. Given these factors, the temptation to “hit and run” outweighs the incentive to cooperate, since the future casts no shadow.

As a solution to the ubiquitous problem of trust in new short-term relationships on the Internet, reputa- tion systems have immediate appeal; the participants themselves create a safe community. Unfortunately, these systems face complex challenges, many of which yield no easy solutions.

Reputation systems are the worst way of building trust on the Internet, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time-to-time.

Trust and Risk

source: D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. In ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, volume 23, pages 393–404, 1998.

Across disciplines, there is agreement on the conditions that must exist for trust to arise. Risk is one condition considered essential in psychologi- cal, sociological, and economic conceptualiza- tions of trust (Coleman, 1990; Rotter, 1967; William- son, 1993). Risk is the perceived probability of loss, as interpreted by a decision maker (Chiles & Mc- Mackin, 1996; MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986). The path-dependent connection between trust and risk taking arises from a reciprocal relationship: risk creates an opportunity for trust, which leads to risk taking. Moreover, risk taking buttresses a sense of trust when the expected behavior mate- rializes (Coleman, 1990; Das & Teng, this issue). Trust would not be needed if actions could be undertaken with complete certainty and no risk (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Uncertainty regarding whether the other intends to and will act appro- priately is the source of risk.

Issues on trust

Resource: D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. In ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, volume 23, pages 393–404, 1998.

The question is not so much "How much do I trust?" but "In what areas and in what ways do I trust?" (Lewicki et al.)

Both history and the nature of the interaction between the parties can shape the form that trust takes.

Trust has a "bandwidth," where it can vary in scope as well as degree:
- Trust takes different forms in different relationships—from a calculated weighing of perceived gains and losses to an emotional response based on interpersonal attachment and identification.
- The scope of trust may vary, depending on the relationship's history, stage of development, and cues in the immediate setting.
The bandwidth of trust varies in the same relationship over time. Moreover, broad and narrow bandwidths characterize different types of relationships. Where a trustor believes in the positive intentions of the trustee across a broad range of situations, bandwidth is great. In contrast, bandwidth is narrow when trust's range is limited to specific conditions only (Sitkin & Roth,
1993).

Lewicki et al.'s differentiation oi trust and distrust as separate concepts is an implicit recognition of variations in bandwidth across relationships where trust (expectations oi positive intentions) and distrust (expectations of negative intentions) can exist simultaneously.

What is Trust?

source: D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. In ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, volume 23, pages 393–404, 1998).

psychology/micro-organizational behavior, strategy/economics:
"willingness to be vulnerable," proposed by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995).
"willingness to rely" on another (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen)
"confident, positive expectations" (Lewicki et al.)

"Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of an- other".

Trust is not a behavior (e.g., cooperation), or a choice (e.g., taking a risk), but an underlying psychological condition that can cause or result from such actions.
Trust is psychological and important to organizational life.

The conditions that must exist for trust to arise. Risk is one condition considered essential in psychological, sociological, and economic conceptualizations of trust (Coleman, 1990; Rotter, 1967; Williamson, 1993). The second necessary condition of trust is interdependence, where the interests of one party cannot be achieved without reliance upon an- other.

three phases of trust:
(1) building (where trust is formed or reformed),
(2) stability (where trust already exists),
(3) dissolution (where trust declines).
These phases of trust characterize the ebb and flow of relationships

depend on the function of trust, it can be seen as:
an independent variable (cause),
dependent variable (effect), or
interaction variable (a moderating condition for a causal relationship).

Trust can be affected by:
- reputation, particularly the historical trustworthiness of parties in previous interactions with others (Burt & Knez,1996)
- The social context (e.g., networks) that makes reputational effects possible.
- how individuals representing each firm relate to each other (Fichman & Goodman, 1996; Zaheer et al.)

In sum, what do we know about trust? We find that trust is a psychological state composed of the psychological experiences of individuals, dyads, and firms. There is a common underlying definition of trust across scholars from different disciplines, and this basic definition applies across trust's levels of analysis and develop- mental phases. Scholars tend to view trust dynamically but focus on specific phases in developing their conceptual frameworks. Some are interested in trust's beginning, others in its end, and still others in trust as an ongoing and stable phenomenon.