Definitions of Trust: From Conceptual Components to the General Core - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 3

This analysis is indeed quite useful, since it immediately reveals the degree of confusion
and ambiguity that plagues current definitions of trust. Moreover, it also provides a concrete
framework to identify empirically different 'families' of definitions, important conceptual
nucleuses, necessary components, and recurring terms. Thus we will use these precious results
as a first basis for comparison and a source of inspiration, and only later will we discuss in
detail specific definitions and models of trust.
Castaldo summarizes the results of his analysis underlining how the trust definitions are
based on five inter-related categories. They are:

The construct , where trust is conceived 'as an expectation ,a belief , willingness , and an
attitude ' (Castaldo, 2002).
The trustee , 'usually individuals, groups, firms, organizations, sellers, and so on' (Castaldo,
2002). Given the different nature of the trustee (individuals, organizations, and social insti-
tutions), there are different types of trust (personal, inter-organizational and institutional).
These trustees 'are often described by reference to different characteristics in the definitions
being analyzed - specific competencies, capacities, non-opportunistic motivations, personal
values, the propensity to trust others, and so on' (Castaldo, 2002).
Actions and behaviors , as underlined also from other authors (e.g. (Moorman Zaltman and
Desphande, 1992)) the behavioral aspect of trust is fundamental for 'recognizing the concept
of trust itself' (Castaldo, 2002); both trustor and trustee behaviors have to take into account
the consistence of the trust relationship. Behavioral aspects of trust have been studied also
showing its multi-dimensional nature (e.g (Cummings and Bromiley, 1996)).
Results and outputs of behavior, trustee's actions are presumed to be both predictable and
positive for the trustor. 'The predictability of the other person's behavior and the fact that
the behavior produces outcomes that are favorable to the trustor's objectives, are two typical
results of trust. This has been particularly studied in works which suggest models designed
to identify the consequences of trust (e.g. (Busacca and Castaldo, 2002)) (Castaldo, 2002).
The risk , without uncertainty and risk there is no trust. The trustor has to believe this. They
have to willingly put themselves into a 'position of vulnerability with regard to the trustee'.
Risk, uncertainty and ambiguity (e.g. (Johannisson, 2001)) are the fundamental analytic
presuppositions of trust, or rather the elements that describe the situations where trust has
some importance for predictive purposes. (

...

).

[There is some sort of] logical sequence ( ) [which has] often been suggested in the defini-

tions. This sequence often regards trust as the expectation, belief (and so on) that a subject with
specific characteristics (honesty, benevolence, competencies, and so on) will perform actions
designed to produce positive results in the future for the trustor, in situations of consistent
perceived risk (Castaldo, 2002).
Notwithstanding its merits, the main limit of Castaldo's analysis is that it fails to provide
a stronger account of the relationships among these recurrent terms in trust definitions, i.e.
indicating when they are partial synonyms, rather than necessary interdependent parts of a
larger notion, or consequences of each other, and so on. Just an empirical, descriptive and
co-relational account remains highly unsatisfactory. For example, it is true that 'Trust has been
predominantly conceived as an expectation ,a belief , willingness , and an attitude '.
However, it remains to be understood what are the conceptual ties between belief and
expectation , or between belief and willingness (is one a species of the other? Does one

...