Trust

Alternative Forms

Definitions

Definition 1

The subjective probability (0 ≤ p ≤ 1) assessed by a trusting entity that another trusted entity will act in a certain way understood as beneficial or non-detrimental. The expected behavior of the trusted entity may consist in action or inaction.

Trust is necessary because the trusting entity will not be in the capacity to or does not want to incur the costs of increasing its capacity to continuously monitor and control the actions of the trusted entity. In consequence, the trusting entity accepts with a certain level of uncertainty to incur the costs of its trust being betrayed.

Trust may be increased with information transparency and controls (e.g. background checks, contracts, inspection, etc.) or faith in the solidity of the trusted entity’s moral or other values.

Trust is dynamic, that is the trusting entity may continuously re-assess the probability of the trusted entity to act in a certain way as the environment evolves and new information is gathered.

Trust is asymmetric, that is if x trusts y, y will not necessarily trust x.

Trust is subjective, that is if x trusts z, y will not necessarily trust z. This is also called trust personalization.

Trust is intransitive, that is if x trusts y and y trusts z, x does not necessarily trust z.

Trust may be understood as non-distributive, that is if x trusts the group formed by y and z, x does not necessarily trust y and z individually. Conversely, is if x trusts y and z individually, x does not necessarily trust the group formed by y and z. Here, the idea is that a group of entities (e.g. an alliance or cooperative arrangement) constitute a new entity with distinctive properties from the characteristics of its individual members. But trust may also be understood as distributive if we consider group of entities in an abstract way.

Trust is intersubjective, that is social agents tend to share their subjective understanding and assessment of trust relationships. In a social system, trust is an emergent property that arises from the complex interactions of its agents. In a social system, trust facilitates cooperation and reduces complexity.

The opposite of trust is distrust. By definition, distrust is the probability of the trusted entity not acting in the expected way that is equal to: 1 - p.

Related Terms

Chain of Trust
Distrust Antonym
Hard Trust
Soft Trust
Trust Asymmetry (Dictionary Entry)
Trust Composability (Dictionary Entry)

Trust Distributivity
Trust Inter-subjectivity
Trust Personalization (Dictionary Entry)
Trust Subjectivity
Trust Transitivity

Quotes

(…) trust in a person is a commitment to an action based on a belief that the future actions of that person will lead to a good outcome.

(Golbeck, 2006, p. 2)

We adopt in this paper a simple definition of trust, encompassing both the above conceptualizations, as the probability that one party attaches to cooperative behavior by other parties. This view of trust accordingly asserts that the expectation by one party of the probability of such cooperative behavior by another party will be based both on “hard” data such as the existence of contracts, etc. and on “soft” data, such as one’s faith in another party’s morality.

(Hwang and Burgers, 1997, p. 1)

Gambetta uses values in the range 0 to 1. In other words, trust is a probability, which he deines as follows: “trust (or, symmetrically, distrust)¹³ is a particular level of the subjective probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action, both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity ever to be able to monitor it¹⁴) and in a context in which it affects his own action.” (Gambetta, 1990a, page 217).

(Marsh, 1999, p. 36)

In summary, trust within society is an emergent property of the interactions of trusting individuals in that society. Studying the phenomenon at either level whilst ignoring the other leads to the inevitable loss of understanding of trust as a personal and a social concept.

(Marsh, 1999, p. 33)

Thus society lends its own problems to increase the complexity of the everyday world. And so, “further increases in complexity call for new mechanisms for the reduction of complexity” (Luhmann, 1979, page 7). There are means of doing this, from Hobbes's ultimate political authority to utility theory. The point is, Luhmann suggests, that “in conditions of increasing social complexity man can and must develop more effective ways of reducing complexity” (ibid., page 7). Moreover, “Where there is trust there are increased possibilities for experience and action, there is an increase in the complexity of the social system and also in the number of possibilities which can be reconciled with its structure, because trust constitutes a more effective form [than, for example, utility theory] of complexity reduction” (ibid., page 8). Thus, trust is a means of reducing complexity, which is stable, socially acceptable, and effective.

(Marsh, 1999, p. 32)

(a) the individual is confronted with an ambiguous path, a path that can lead to an event perceived to be beneficial (Va⁺) or to an event perceived to be harmful (Va^-);
(b) he perceives that the occurrence of Va⁺ or Va^- is contingent on the behaviour of another person; and
(c) he perceives the strength of Va^- to be greater than the strength of Va⁺.
If he chooses to take an ambiguous path with such properties, I shall say he makes a trusting choice; if he chooses not to take the path, he makes a distrustful choice.

(Deutsch, 1962, p. 303 in Marsh, 1999, p. 25-26)