Trustful behaviour is meaningful behaviour: Implications for theory on identification-based trusting relations

ABSTRACT

This article emphasises that trustful behaviour is meaningful behaviour which communicates that the interaction partner is perceived as a trustworthy actor. It shows how this almost trivial insight can enrich our theoretical understanding of trusting relations in a significant way. Three assumptions will be derived which emphasise the relational character of trust and which focus on causal and constitutive interactions between trustful behaviour and certain inter-subjective structures in which a relationship is embedded: first, trustful behaviour (re-)produces shared social identity; second, trustful behaviour satisfies the socio-emotional needs of the trusted actor; and third, trustful behaviour complies with a social norm and obligation to trust. These assumptions will be applied for a theoretical analysis of processes of building and maintaining identification-based trusting relations. It will be highlighted that the active celebration of trustful behaviour itself is necessary for the (re-)production of the socio-emotional foundation of an identification-based trusting relationship. Moreover, the theoretical analysis will provide a discussion of appropriate and effective reassurance strategies which actors may follow in times of uncertainty and doubt. In sum, the article provides a new perspective on the relationship between trust and risk: not only trustful behaviour is (objectively) risky, but also the refusal of trust. Actors who unnecessarily refuse to engage in trustful behaviour risk deteriorating the relationship.

KEYWORDS:

• Identification-based trust
• meaning of trust
• trust-building
• trust-maintenance
• norms
• as-if trusting

ACTION EDITOR:

• Guido Möllering

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Guido Möllering, and two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and suggestions, and Andreas Hasenclever for his continued support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Lukas Kasten is a research associate at the Institute of Political Science of the Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. He is a peace and conflict researcher with a special interest in trust-building processes between individuals, groups, and organisations. His research focuses on the nexus between social identity and trust and on the effects of international security institutions on processes of trust-building between states.

Notes

1 Research on in-group favouritism also shows that actors tend to represent in-group members as especially trustworthy as it serves the socio-emotional need to represent one's own in-group as superior, in this way fostering self-esteem. Researchers have thereby shown that ‘[a]cross experimental and field studies (…), the dimensions on which evaluative bias in favour of in-groups occurs most reliably are those associated with trustworthiness, honesty, or loyalty’ (Brewer, 1979, p. 321; see also Dion, 1973).

2 Researchers generally account for the positive emotional reactions that are elicited by trustworthy behaviour (for instance Chen, Saparito, & Belkin, 2011). My elaborations, however, focus on the emotional significance of trustful behaviour for the trustee.

3 Hence, structure (social identity) and agency (trustful behaviour) become inseparable from this perspective (see also Frederiksen, 2014).

4 Importantly, the idea that trustful behaviour may become a social norm shows similarity but does not fully resemble an understanding of trust as ‘normal’ and routinised behaviour as suggested by institutional-based trust concepts (see above). When a social norm of trust is at work, the decision to engage in trustful behaviour is more conscious and reflexive than institutional-based trust concepts would suggest.

5 This insight renders IBT necessarily symmetric and mutual in kind. A can only trust B if B also trusts A. In contrast, calculus-based trust may in fact be asymmetrical in kind, as it only presumes information about the other side's egoistic interest in cooperation, but not a social relationship which can only be maintained when both actors engage in trustful (and trustworthy) conduct. For the evolving debate on the symmetry of trust, see Korsgaard, Brower, and Lester (2014).

6 Existing research on trust-repair incorporates this line of reasoning only insofar as it is argued that the accused may perceive accusations as ‘unreasonable’ (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2008).

7 These insights can also enrich theoretical models which identify the antecedents or ‘reasons’ which may motivate and enable actors to engage in trustful behaviour. For instance, McKnight and Chervany (2001) show how interactions between an individual-psychological ‘disposition to trust’, ‘institution-based trust’, a ‘trusting belief’ and ‘trusting intentions’ results in ‘trust-related behaviour’. My elaborations highlight that trustful behaviour may also result from normative considerations about its social appropriateness.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant 191476275.