Blog

Defining Trust

One of the issues which my internal examiner raised with my interim report was that while I described the differing definitions of trust in the field, I failed to describe the definition I was adopting for my work. This post attempts to describe my definition of trust, in the range of contexts in which it is used.

Depending on the context in which it is used, the term trust may identify a number of different forms of trust, and the distinction between them is rarely made. We describe our definition for each of these below.

Trust as an act

We consider this to be the primary meaning of the term “trust”. Trusting is the act of relying on the behaviour of another individual in an uncertain environment, where it is subjectively perceived that the outcome of the situation is contingent on the behaviour of the other individual.

Morton Deutsch’s definition of trust is perhaps the most widely accepted, it states that:

1. An 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⁻);
2. they perceives that the occurrence of Va⁺ or Va⁻ is contingent on the behaviour of another person; and
3. 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.

We differ in opinion with Deutsch on two counts; we don’t consider it necessary for Va⁻ to be harmful, only that it be less preferable than Va⁺, and thus also that the relative strengths of Va⁺ and Va⁺ need not be a factor in whether it is labeled a trusting choice or not. Reference information for Deutsch’s work can be found on Google Scholar and the above passage is reproduced from Marsh’s PhD Thesis on trust as a computational concept.

As an aside, we do not believe that one can trust in an inanimate object, the true target of trust must be elsewhere. To trust in the strength of a tree branch is instead to trust that ones own internal models and estimates of its strength are correct. To trust in a safety harness is a similar situation, one does not trust the harness itself, instead one trusts first ones own personal judgement that the safety harness appears safe and then that those who are responsible for constructing and maintaining the harnesses have done so with due care and diligence.

Trust as a decision

The decision of whether or not to trust is a choice between different courses of action, of which one or more is a trusting path, and one or more is a path which does not rely on trust. When dealing with complex, multifaceted decisions, potential paths may include measures to decrease the degree of risks or selectively avoid particularly risky events, thus it is often possible to take a trusting path which does not rely on trust in every respect.

The degree of risk, the stakes, and the utility of potential outcomes may all play a role in the decision of whether to trust, however one must remember that their evaluation and weighting are inherently subjective.

Trust as a bond

Trust as a bond between two people is the notion that they are able to comfortably rely on the behaviour of each other. Thus a bond of trust is the confidence that each will act in the best interests of the other when placed in a scenario where the utility of the other is contingent on their own actions.

Trust as a property of society

Trust within society arises from the confidence that other members of the society share the same core values and ideals as oneself, and the conjecture that they will therefore behave in a manner which is consistent with these.

These behavioral expectations — or social norms — are enforced within the group and breaching them can lead to punishment and exclusion. For an extensive discussion of the roles trust plays within society, see O’Hara’s book “Trust: from Socrates to Spin”.