Definitions of Trust: From Conceptual Components to the General Core - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 16

According to Marsh, X trusts Y if and only if ' X expects that Y will behave according to X 's
best interest, and will not attempt to harm X ' (Marsh, 1994a; Marsh, 1994b).
This is a rather good definition of trust, but with some significant limits. First and foremost,
it only refers to an attitude, the expectation of X that Y will behave according to X 's own
interest. Therefore, in this definition, the notion of trust as decision and act, as reliance and
counting on Y , is missed; and the idea of exposing oneself to failure or harm, of making oneself
vulnerable by Y has also been overlooked.
Moreover, it is not clear whether Y 's behavior is (expected to be) intentional or not nec-
essarily intentional. The first part of the definition is ambiguous about this: ' Y will behave
according

...

' - does this mean intentionally or accidentally? Will Y intentionally help X ,or
will his action just be factually exploited by X ? The second sentence instead seems to refer
explicitly to an intentional act, since it uses the term 'attempt'; thus the possible harm that X
does not expect from Y would be intended, not accidental. However, Marsh's definition leaves
open the possibility that two independent conditions for X to trust Y are there: on the one hand,
X must expect Y to behave in a certain way, either intentionally or unintentionally; in addition,
X must expect Y not to attempt (hence intentionally, by definition) to bring X any harm. In this
interpretation, the second sentence of Marsh's definition would refer to something akin to the
feeling of safety that is frequently linked with the notion of trust. However, it remains manifest
that the exceeding ambiguity of this definition of trust in turn impinges on its applicability.
Finally, it is worth noting that the notion of 'interest' is not defined by Marsh, 9 so we can

only assume it to be somehow close to other notions like welfare and goals.

1.5.5 Yamagishi: Mixing up the Act of Trusting and the Act of Cooperating
Following Yamagishi's interpretation of his comparative results between American and
Japanese culture (Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994) (Yamagishi, 2003), what characterizes
the latter is assurance rather than proper trust.
This means that the Japanese are more trusting (let us mark this use of the notion of trust as

ω ), i.e. more disposed to rely on the others ( X 's side), than the Americans, when and if they

feel protected by institutional mechanisms (authorities and sanctions).
Moreover, according to Yamagishi, the Japanese would tend to trust (in a different sense, that
we shall indicate with

λ

) only when it is better for them to do so, because of the institutional
or social costs associated with being 'untrusting' (in Yamagishi's own words), i.e. only for
avoiding sanctions ( Y 's side).
First of all, notice that here there is a misleading use of the term 'trust': in the first case ( ω ),

it means that X trusts in Y to do α , i.e. X believes that Y is trustworthy and relies on Y ;inthe

second use ( ), to trust is an act of cooperation, the proper contribution the agent should make

to a well-codified social interaction.
These two uses must be distinguished. Obviously they are related, since in Japan X con-
tributes/cooperates since he worries about institutional sanctions, and he trusts the others
because he ascribes to them the same cultural sensibility and worries. Nonetheless, the two
perspectives are very different: expectations about the others' behavior, on the one hand, and

λ

9 For a definition about the notion of interest as different from goal (and on trust relative to interest protection )see
Chapter 2.