Exploring trust and distrust as conceptually and empirically distinct constructs: Association with symmetrical communication and public engagement across four pairings of trust and distrust

ABSTRACT

Existing relationship research has interpreted low trust as being equivalent to high distrust and high trust as the evidence of low distrust, which has failed to capture the full scope of the functions of trust and distrust in organization–public relationships. Recent research in this area suggests that trust and distrust might simultaneously exist during relational interactions and might play uniquely positive and negative functions in certain social contexts. The main purpose of this study was to offer a new insight in trust–distrust research by providing distinctions in conceptualization and operationalization between trust and distrust. This study also empirically tested the functions of four pairings of trust and distrust on two core public relations concepts (i.e., symmetrical communication and public engagement). The results from the surveys (N = 704; in 20 companies) of US consumers showed sound discriminant validity of trust and distrust. Further, the statistical results revealed that symmetrical communication and public engagement were most strongly associated with the high trust and high distrust pairing, supporting the utilities of distrust in public relations and the coexistence of trust and distrust in social interactions.

La investigación existente sobre relaciones ha interpretado la baja confianza como equivalente a la alta desconfianza y la alta confianza como la evidencia de baja desconfianza, lo cual ha fallado a la hora de capturar el alcance total  de las funciones de la confianza y la desconfianza en las relaciones entre la organización y el público. Investigaciones recientes en este área sugieren que la confianza y la desconfianza podrían existir simultáneamente durante las interacciones relacionales y podrían realizar funciones positivas y negativas en ciertos contextos sociales de forma única . El principal propósito de este estudio fue ofrecer una nueva perspectiva en la investigación de la confianza-desconfianza proporcionando diferencias en la conceptualización y operacionalización entre confianza y desconfianza. Este estudio también comprobó empíricamente las funciones de cuatro emparejamientos de confianza y desconfianza en dos conceptos principales de relaciones públicas (es decir, comunicación simétrica e implicación del publico). Los resultados de las encuestas (N = 704; en 20 empresas) de consumidores de los EEUU mostraron una validez discriminante razonable de la confianza y la desconfianza. Además, los resultados estadísticos revelaron que la comunicación simétrica y la implicación del público estaban más fuertemente asociados con el emparejamiento confianza alta y desconfianza alta, apoyando las utilidades de la desconfianza en las relaciones públicas y la coexistencia de la confianza y la desconfianza en las interacciones sociales.

现有的对关系的研究认为低度信任等同于高度不信任，高度信任则是低度不信任的证明，这种观点没有抓住组织公共关系中信任和不信任的所有功能。此领域最新的研究表明信任和不信任可能同时存在于关系互动中，且可能在一定的社会背景下发挥独特的正面和负面的功能。此研究的主要目的是想通过提供信任和不信任之间概念化和操作化的区别进而提供一种对信任和不信任研究的新理解。本研究也从实践上检测了信任和不信任在两个核心公共关系概念上的四个配对（例如，对等沟通和公共参与）。美国消费者调查的结果（N=704；来自20个公司）显示了信任和不信任良好的区分效度。

而且，统计结果揭示了对等沟通以及公共参与和高度信任和高度不信任配对紧密联系在一起，支撑了公共关系中不信任的有用特征以及社会交往中信任和不信任的共存。

KEYWORDS:

• Distrust
• public engagement
• symmetrical communication
• trust

Notes

¹ Hosmer (1995) reviewed and categorized existing trust literature according to five prevalent perspectives: Trust as (a) individual expectations, (b) interpersonal relationships, (c) economic exchanges, (d) social structures, and (e) ethical principles.

² Most of these views are based on the uni-dimensional view of trust. Consequently, distrust has not been conceptually defined as a separate construct, but, rather, viewed as the absence of trust.

³ Dependability was dropped for this study, although several previous studies in public relations used dependability as a dimension of trust, following Hon and Grunig (1999) lead. As previous researchers on trust/distrust (e.g., Lewicki et al., 1998) showed, the state of trust/distrust changes dynamically depending on various elements and contexts, which the study took in consideration when conceptualizing trust/distrust. Therefore, the notion of dependability was not deemed relevant here.

⁴ The list contained Apple, Google, Berkshire Hathaway, Southwest, P&G, Coca-Cola, Amazon.com, FedEx, Microsoft, and McDonald’s. For the most admired companies survey (n = 357), the responses from the survey participants were as follows: Amazon.com (n = 84); Apple (n = 41); Google (n = 37); Coca-Cola (n = 37); FedEx (n = 32); McDonald’s (n = 32); Microsoft (n = 29); Procter & Gamble (n = 28); Southwest Airlines (n = 24); and Berkshire Hathaway (n = 13).

⁵ The list contained Facebook, American Airlines, AT&T, Nokia, Goldman Sachs, Best Buy, Bank of America, Johnson & Johnson, Sears, and Netflix. For the most hated companies survey (n = 347), the responses from the survey participants were as follows: Goldman Sachs (n = 89); Bank of America (n = 74); Facebook (n = 54); AT&T (n = 30); American Airlines (n = 27); Best Buy (n = 22); Sears (n = 22); Johnson & Johnson (n = 11); Netflix (n = 11); and Nokia (n = 8).

⁶ Adams et al.’s (2010) original scale of Corporate Distrust is composed of 13 items, with two conceptual dimensions of discrediblity and malevolence. Three items from each dimension were adopted to compose a parsimonious scale of corporate distrust with 6 items instead of 13 items while aiming to retain the conceptual variance of the concept of distrust. The original items are (a) corporations are not respectful of laws, (b) corporations do not accept accountability for their actions, (c) people who run corporations will lie if doing so will increase company profits, (d) corporations do not care about acting ethically, (f) corporations will break laws if they can make more money from it, (g) corporations put their own interests above the public’s interests, (h) corporations are driven by greed, (i) corporations care only about money, (j) corporations want power at any cost, (k) corporations take a lot more than they give, (l) corporations intentionally deceive the public, (m) corporations do not consider the needs of their employees when making business decisions, and (n) corporations exploit their workers.