Wednesday, 1 June 2011

The Challenge of Conceptualizing Trust and Distrust ..

Resource: D. H. McKnight and N. L. Chervany. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In R. Falcone, M. P. Singh, and Y.-H. Tan, editors, Trust in Cyber-societies, volume 2246 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 27–54. Springer, 2000.

An analysis of the word trust in three unabridged dictionaries (Websters, Random House, and Oxford) showed that trust had far more definitions (9, 24, and 18, respectively) than did the terms cooperation (3, 2, 6), confidence (6, 8, 13), and predictable (1, 2, 1). On average, trust had 17.0 definitions, while the others had an average of 4.7. Trust had close to as many definitions as did the very vague terms ‘love’ and ‘like.’ Hence, trust is by nature hard to narrow down to one specific definition because of the richness of meanings the term conveys in everyday usage.

It is hard to follow and difficult to compare with each other because the term trust is defined in a multitude of different ways. Trust has not only been described as an “elusive” concept [103: 130], but the state of trust definitions has been called a “conceptual confusion” [50: 975], a “confusing potpourri” [86: 625], and even a “conceptual morass” [3: 1, 10: 473].

“ ... trust is a term with many meanings.” – Oliver Williamson
Trust is itself a term for a clustering of meanings.” – Harrison White

92% of the definitions that involved trustee characteristics fell within these four categories:
  • Benevolence means caring and being motivated to act in one’s interest rather than acting opportunistically [34].
  • Integrity means making good faith agreements, telling the truth, and fulfilling promises [9].
  • Competence means having the ability or power to do for one what one needs done [3].
  • Predictability means trustee actions (good or bad) that are consistent enough to be forecasted in a given situation.




No comments:

Post a Comment