FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1995017547> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1995017547 endingPage "222" @default.
• W1995017547 startingPage "215" @default.
• W1995017547 abstract "Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Due to the confines of space and the desire for ‘flow’ to my argument, I can deal with the caveats and objections here! First, I would argue that even a trust-initiating behaviour with a complete stranger still involves an assessment of their trustworthiness: instinctive perhaps and certainly based on flimsy evidence, but nevertheless an assessment is made. For example, when I need directions in a strange city, I wait until I encounter someone who looks like they are a local and can probably speak English (=ability), and who seems from their demeanour to be kind (=benevolence), and unlikely to rob me, or lie to me for fun (=integrity). This decision is either pure guesswork or hope, in which case it's not really ‘trust’ in the sense of being based on ‘confident positive expectations’, or it's a reasoned-ish decision based on at least some evidence. See also my later argument on trust in surgeons. Second, it may be that ‘ABI’ does not cover every dimension of a person's trustworthiness. I suspect that ‘predictability’/ ‘reliability’ is an additional and distinct dimension (Dietz & den Hartog, 2006), as do Cunningham and McGregor (2000 Cunningham, J.B. and McGregor, J. 2000. Trust and the design of work: Complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53(12): 1575–1591. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Mishra and Mishra (2008 Mishra , A. , & Mishra , K.E. 2008 . Trust is everything : Become the leader others will follow. Self published. Retrieved from http://www.lulu.com [Google Scholar]), and Tzafrir and Dolan (2004). Mishra and Mishra see ‘openness’ as another key trustworthiness indicator. Tzafrir and Dolan's measure (2004) includes ‘harmony’. Relatedly, the focal party's trustworthiness – their ‘ABI + ’ – may not be the only assessment made prior to the trust decision. The assessment can also be made of the relationship. Indeed, research in Eastern contexts suggests that these more ‘personalised’ considerations predominate (Li, 2007, 2008), and that they may be independent from ‘ABI’. In response, I'd suggest that guanxi testimonies and ‘personal trustfulness’ (Li, 2007, 2008) might be interpreted as sending cues as to a person's ABI+ (‘he's good at his job’; ‘I've always found her to be honest’). But I am making the broader claim that the sequence is universal, not the content. Third, the trusting behaviour may not come. Trust and trustworthiness are not equivalents; the decision to trust (trust-as-choice) does not automatically follow from evidence of someone's trustworthiness (trust-as-attitude). There may be valid reasons not to go ahead with the risk-taking act, even if I consider someone to be trustworthy: perhaps because I do not need to take the risk or because the risk is too great, despite my partner's trustworthiness, or because to trust one party may jeopardise my relationship with someone else. If, however, the other party generates confident positive expectations (i.e., is trustworthy) and the risk is manageable, but still the risk-taking act does not come, that suggests that ‘trust’ is not really present (Schoorman et al., 2007, p. 350). Finally, the whole process is, of course, influenced by the trustor's pre-disposition to trust, as per Mayer et al. (1995). 2. On this point, I once heard a professor, and an acknowledged expert on trust, argue that we can only trust people we know personally; we cannot be said to ‘trust’ a stranger. My train driver and surgeon scenarios cast doubt on this argument; in both cases, we have enough evidence available for their ability, benevolence and integrity (and predictability) to develop ‘confident positive expectations’. For most of us getting onto a train or even an operating table, putting our lives in the hands of an unknown driver or surgeon, is a risk-taking act we are prepared to make. One might argue that in both cases, there is no choice, so it's not really ‘trust’, but this is not the case for the train as there are other transport options. Plus, if you truly had no trust whatsoever in the driver, the journey would be spent paralysed with terror. The lack of choice may be so in life-threatening surgical scenarios, but in many countries policy dictates that an informed consensual choice be made available to patients. Properly examined, I'd expect most such choices to be trust-based rather than mere hope. 3. One possible example that comes to mind is online purchasing from individual fellow citizens, such as on eBay. We do not know the seller but we can be reasonably confident in them because of the reliability of eBay itself and its policies governing the transactions that it facilitates. But I suspect that most of us choose to trust sellers because of their reputation rating and their marketplace communications. Tellingly for this argument, these are both within the seller's control, and are not institutional in origin." @default.
• W1995017547 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1995017547 creator A5019962673 @default.
• W1995017547 date "2011-10-01" @default.
• W1995017547 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W1995017547 title "Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other?" @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1505636753 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1597044040 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W16182129 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1815588791 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1964219802 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1977714815 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1987468683 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W1995532516 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2002416300 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2008434719 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2008519080 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2043450458 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2051634125 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2069164677 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2076743339 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2095652350 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2097862179 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2101415473 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2130140239 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W2148215741 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W3123036875 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W4237803000 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W4244088420 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W4248588746 @default.
• W1995017547 cites W4301356625 @default.
• W1995017547 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.603514" @default.
• W1995017547 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1995017547 type Work @default.
• W1995017547 sameAs 1995017547 @default.
• W1995017547 citedByCount "91" @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472012 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472013 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472014 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472015 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472016 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472017 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472018 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472019 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472020 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472021 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472022 @default.
• W1995017547 countsByYear W19950175472023 @default.
• W1995017547 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1995017547 hasAuthorship W1995017547A5019962673 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C2778223634 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C33676613 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C111472728 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C126322002 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C138885662 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C144024400 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C15744967 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C202444582 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C2778223634 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C33676613 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C33923547 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C71924100 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C73484699 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C77805123 @default.
• W1995017547 hasConceptScore W1995017547C98184364 @default.
• W1995017547 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1995017547 hasLocation W19950175471 @default.
• W1995017547 hasOpenAccess W1995017547 @default.
• W1995017547 hasPrimaryLocation W19950175471 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2043543007 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2089801293 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2108611755 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2141014878 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2799332305 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W3094245317 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W3094546236 @default.
• W1995017547 hasRelatedWork W3128930256 @default.
• W1995017547 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W1995017547 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1995017547 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1995017547 magId "1995017547" @default.
• W1995017547 workType "article" @default.