Dysfunctional trusting and distrusting: Integrating trust and bias perspectives

Figures & data

Table 1. Example search terms for integrative review.

Search terms		Total	All in title	Source
	‘bias’	82,240	14916
	‘cognitive bias’	83,200	2140	Google Scholar
	‘social bias’	20,000	217	Google Scholar
Bias	‘attributional bias’	10,200	175	Google Scholar
	‘framing’	12,635	3307	PsycInfo
	‘heuristics’	15,808	2673	PsycInfo
Trust	‘trust evaluations’	2100	18	Google Scholar
	‘trustworthiness’	610,000	137000	Google Scholar
	‘trustworthiness’	4690	705	PsycInfo
	‘propensity to trust’	9500	75	Google Scholar
	’dispositional trust’	3270	44	Google Scholar
	‘trust and control’	15,100	460	Google Scholar
	‘vulnerability and trust’	1380	33	Google Scholar
	‘trust and risk’	21,200	968	Google Scholar
	‘uncertainty’	2350	92	Google Scholar
	‘dysfunctional trust’	54	0	Google Scholar
	‘dysfunctional distrust’	53	0	Google Scholar
Combinations	trust and bias	1372	29	PsycInfo
	trust and framing	238	10	PsycInfo
	trust and attributional bias	4	0	PsycInfo
	trust and cognitive bias	119	2	PsycInfo
	trust and reality	1353	7	PsycInfo

Table 2. Three approaches to studying the content of trust frames.

Conceptual approach	Frames involve
1. Frames about issues pertinent to the decision	risks, goals, motivation
2. Cognitive representations of the self, other and relationships	control, identity, attributions of others’ intention and behaviour, justice, fairness & reciprocity
3. Cognitive representations of the anticipated interactional processes	judgements regarding relationships, trust vs distrust, evaluations of self & other’s trustworthiness

(Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2019).

Figure 1. Dysfunctional trust – Bias and trust process model. (T) = consequence of processes involved in trusting; (D) = consequence of processes involved in distrusting.

Lewicki, R., & Brinsfield, C. (2019). Framing trust: Trust as a heuristic. In W. A. In Donohue, R. G. Rogan, & S. Kaufman (Eds.), Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication (pp. 110–135). Peter Lang Publishing.

 Google Scholar