Construct · 6 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningtrust in technologycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to trust is trust in technology.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of another, based on the expectation that the other will perform an action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control them. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman separated trust (the willingness) from trustworthiness (the trustee's ability, benevolence, and integrity) and from the trustor's propensity, three things that a single "trust" item cannot tell apart. Rousseau and colleagues' cross-disciplinary review settled on nearly the same core: a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability.[1][2]
A generalized expectancy that the word or promise of others can be relied on, a stable disposition, not a judgment about anyone in particular. Rotter's Interpersonal Trust Scale asks about politicians, salespeople, parents, and the news, and averages across them; a high scorer trusts in general. This is what Mayer et al. later renamed propensity, precisely to keep it apart from trust in a specific person.[3]
The amount a first mover sends to an anonymous second mover in the investment ("trust") game, knowing it will be tripled and that nothing obliges the receiver to return any of it. Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe defined trust by the act (a costly transfer under no enforcement) and reciprocity by what comes back. Glaeser and colleagues then showed the standard survey question ("generally speaking, can most people be trusted?") does not predict the amount sent; it predicts the amount returned.[4][5]
A property of societies rather than persons: the share of a population who say most people can be trusted, treated as a stock of social capital that lowers transaction costs and supports institutions. Putnam's argument about American civic decline rests on the trend in this one survey item. Luhmann, from a different tradition, treated trust as a mechanism for reducing social complexity (a way of acting as if the future were more certain than it is) and separated personal trust from system trust in money, law, and expertise.[6][7]
A component is trusted when its failure or subversion can break the security of the system, that is, when you are relying on it without checking. Thompson's point was that the trust is unavoidable and regresses without end: you cannot verify the compiler that compiled the compiler. Blaze and colleagues turned it into an engineering object, a policy language for deciding which keys may authorize which actions; NIST's zero-trust architecture makes the inversion explicit: every request is verified because nothing is trusted by location.[8][9][10]
In human factors, trust refers to trust in automation, the attitude that an automated agent will help a person reach their goals, which guides how much they rely on it. This meaning comes from Lee (2004) in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.[11]
Next
Combine items across the trust scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct