Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Competence
Willingness
Y
Persist
ence
Skills
Know-
How
Concern
X
Figure 2.5
Dimensions of Trust Evaluation and their sub-components
2.2.7 The Inherently Attributional Nature of Trust
The very attitude, act, and relation of trust of
X
in
Y
(for a given performance) implies
X
's
causal internal attribution
of the possibility of success. Trust is not simply a prediction
(although it implies a prediction). In particular, it is not a prediction of a given behavior based
on some observed frequency, on some estimated probability, or on some regularity and norm.
It requires the grounding of such a prediction (and hope) on
an internal attribution to Y
.
This is why one trusts
in
Y
, and trusts
Y
. Also the 'trust
that
(event)' (that something will
happily happen) cognitively and procedurally implies a 'trust in' something or somebody on
which one relies, that is, the assumption that this entity will produce the desired event.
Trusting (in)
Y
presupposes a possibly primitive and vague 'causal mental model' (Johnson-
Laird, 1983) one that produces the expected result. Even when trust is non-social, when for
example we decide to trust a
weak chair
by sitting on it, we assume that its material, or its
mechanics, or its structure will resist under our weight. Trust presupposes at least a
design
stance (to use Dennet's terminology
20
(Dennet, 1989)).
This is the deepest meaning of the
competence
ascribed to
Y
, of the internal
power of
appropriately executing the task; this is the real meaning of the predicate
Able
used for its
decomposition. It is different from the other component. In order to perform the task
Y
must
be both
Able
and
in condition
but while
Able
is an internal attribution,
in condition
can be
external and contextual.
20
Although we believe that our theory of 'functioning' versus function (Miceli and Castelfranchi, 1983) is somewhat
clearer.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search