Socio-Cognitive Model of Trust: Basic Ingredients - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 67

However, as we have already seen in Section 2.5, those assumptions might not necessarily
and always be true/full beliefs, but just acceptances . I act on the presumption that, since I do
not really know/assume that it is true; I do not know, but it might be. This is another meaning
of the expression: 'I have decided to trust him': 'I have decided to give for credible, to give
credit '; and on such a basis I have decided to rely on him.
The two decisions are not fully independent. On the one side, obviously, if I can decide to
believe (assume) that you are trustworthy, then - on such a basis - I can decide to trust you, as an
action of reliance. But there is also a strange relation in the other sense. Following Festinger's
model of 'cognitive dissonance' reduction (Festinger, 1957), after a decision automatically
and unconsciously we adjust the strength and the value of our beliefs on which the decision is
based, in order to feel consonant and coherent (probably the function is to make our intentions
more stable). So we increase the value of the beliefs favorable to our preference and choice,
and make weaker the contrasting beliefs (focused on costs, risks, and the value of alternative
choices). In terms of trust, after the decision to trust Y (as intention and action) we will adjust
the attitude/disposition beliefs (evaluations and expectations about Y). So, the decision to
believe obviously affects the decision to trust (counting on), but also the decision to trust may
affect (feed back on) the beliefs .
Taking into account explicitly and consciously this effect in our decision-making would be
irrational, since Y 's trustworthiness is not enhanced at all; only our subjective perception of it
is enhanced. We can be (after the choice) less anxious, but not safer. 42 This is quite different
from the other prediction about Y 's increased trustworthiness due to our action to trust him,
as an actual effect on him (see Chapter 6).
2.8 Risk, Investment and Bet
Any act of trusting and counting on implies some bet and some risk. Trust is there precisely
because the world is uncertain and risky (Luhmann, 1979). In fact, X is basing her behavior
on uncertain expectations and predictions; and is making herself dependent on Y , and thus
exposed to be vulnerable by Y . Also, because Y is not fully under X 's control; especially
when he is an autonomous agent, with his own mind and interest. 43 X might eventually be
disappointed, deceived and betrayed by Y : her beliefs may be wrong. At the same time X bets
something on Y .
First, X renounced to (search for) possible alternatives (for example, other partners) and X
might have lost her opportunity: thus X is risking on Y the utility of her goal g X (and of her
whole plan).
Second, X had some cost in evaluating Y , in waiting for its actions, etc. and X wasted her
own time and resources.
Third, perhaps X had some cost to induce Y to do what X wants or to have him at her
disposal (for example, X has paid for Y or for his service); now this investment is a real bet
(Deutsch, 1985) on Y .
42 We can take into account this expected effect in our decision, not as an increased reliability of Y , but as a good
outcome of the decision, to be evaluated.
43 Trust is “a device for coping with the freedom of others” (Gambetta, 1988) (p.219), or better with their
“autonomy”.