Dynamics of Trust - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 146

It is the case in which there is a part of the task performed (activated, supported etc.) from
the Environment and, at the same time, both Abilities and Motivations cannot influence this
part of the task. Consider for example, the task of urgently delivering a piece of important
machinery to a scientific laboratory in another town. Suppose that this apparatus could be
sent by using any service of delivery (public, private, fast or normal, and so on) so that a
part of the task (to materially bring the apparatus) is independent (once made the choice)
from the actions of the trustee.
iii) Case in which Abilities and Environment are dependent on each other.
We have two sub-cases: first, the Environment favours or disfavours the Y 's Abilities (useful
for the task achievement); second, the Y 's Abilities can modify some of the conditions of
the Environment (both these sub-cases could be known or not before the task assignment).
iv) Case in which Motivations and Environment are dependent with each other.
Like for case (iii), there are two sub-cases: first, the Environment influences Y 's Motiva-
tions (useful for the task achievement); second, Y 's Motivations can modify some of the
conditions of the Environment (both these sub-cases could be known or not before the task
assignment).

Given this complex set of relationships among the various sub-constituents of trust, a well
informed trustor who is supplied with an analytic apparatus (a socio-cognitive agent), could
evaluate which ingredients performed well and which failed in each specific experiential
event (analyzing and understanding the different role played by each ingredient in the specific
performance).
Let us start from the case in which Abilities and Motivations both are considered as composed
of internal properties and independent from the Environment (case (ii)). After an experiential
event the trustor could verify:

Actual ( DoA , DoW ) − Expected ( DoA , DoW ) > 0 (6.5)

, − , <

Actual ( DoA DoW ) Expected ( DoA DoW ) 0 (6.6)

Actual ( e ( )) − Expected ( e ( )) > 0 (6.7)

Actual ( e ( )) − Expected ( e ( )) < 0 (6.8)

Where the operators Actual and Expected give the values of the arguments as respective
evaluations after the performance of the task and before it.
In (6.5) and (6.7) both the trustee ( internal-trust ) and the environment ( external-trust )are
more trustworthy than expected by the trustor; vice versa, in (6.6) and (6.8) they are both less
trustworthy than expected by the trustor.
In Table 6.1 all the possible combinations are shown.
Where: 'More Int-trust' ('Less Int-trust') means that the trustor after the performance
considers the trustee more (less) trustworthy than before it (he performed better (worst) than
expected); 'More Ext-trust' ('Less Ext-trust') means that the trustor after the performance
considers the environment more (less) trustworthy than before it (it performed better (worst)
than expected).