Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
(Castaldo, 2002); however, it is present in others, for example those from social psychology
or philosophy.
30
Perhaps the most 'primitive' and original component (nucleus) of trust (especially of implicit
and affective trust) is precisely the belief or feeling: 'no harm here/from
' and thus to
feel
safe
,no
alarm
,no
hostility
, being
'open to'
..,
well disposed
. This is why trust usually implies
no suspect, no arousal and alarm; being accessible and non-defended or diffident; and thus
being relaxed. The idea of '
no danger
' is equivalent to '
the goals of mine will not be frustrated
by Y'
; which - applied to animated entities (animals, humans, groups, and anthropomorphic
entities) - is specified as the idea that '
Y has no the goal of harming me
'.
We call this elementary form of trust:
...
α
-form
(Negative or Passive or Defensive Trust). In
a sense 'feeling safe' can be the basic nucleus of trust and entire in itself; seemingly without
any additional component. However, looking more carefully we can identify the other core
components. Clearly positive
evaluations
and
expectations
(beliefs) are there. If I don't worry
and do not suspect any harm from you, this means that I evaluate you positively (good for me;
not to be avoided; at least harmless), since not being harmed is a goal of mine. Moreover, this
feeling/belief is an expectation about you: I do not expect damage from you; which is a passive,
weak form of positive expectation. Perhaps I do not expect that you might actively realize an
achievement goal of mine; but I at least expect that you do not compromise a maintenance
goal of mine: to continue to have what I have.
It is rather strange that this basic meaning of 'trusting' and this component is not captured in
those definitions (except indirectly, for example, with the term 'confidence',
31
or marginally).
This is for us the most 'primitive' and basic nucleus of trust, even before relying on
Y
for the
active realization of a goal of
X
;just
passively
relying on
Y
to not be hostile or dangerous, non
harming
X
.
Of course there is a stronger, richer, and more complete form of trust (
-form
: that we
call 'active', 'positive', 'achievement' trust) not only due to the idea/feeling (expectation) that
the other will not harm me (lack of negative expectations); but including specific positive
expectations: the idea/feeling that the other
will 'adopt' (some of) my achievement goals
, will
be helpful; that
Y
's attitude is 'benevolent' in the sense that not only is it not hostile, noxious
or indifferent, but that he can be disposed to adopt and realize my goal (or at least that
Y
can
be useful for achieving my goals). I can count on
Y
, and make myself dependent on
Y
for
realizing (some of my) goals.
In terms of the theory of 'interference' (the basic notion founding social relations and
action (Castelfranchi, 1998),
β
-form
is the assumption or feeling that 'there can/will not
be
negative interferences
' from/by
Y
's side; while
α
-form
is the assumption or the feeling
that 'there can/will be
positive interferences
from/by
Y
β
(Where 'by' means 'on purpose':
goal-oriented or intentional).
To be 'full' and complete trust should contain both ideas (
-form
); but this
is not always true. Sometimes it is more elementary and seems just limited to (
α
-form
) and (
β
α
-form
);
sometimes it is mainly (
β
-form
).
30
See, for example, (Hart, 1988): trust enables us to assume “benign or at least non-hostile intentions on the part
of partners in social interactions”.
31
The English term
'confident'/'confidence'
seems mainly to capture this nucleus of trust.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search