王毅鳳

Abstract：Trust， a crucial element in socioeconomic life， facilitates interpersonal and intergroup relationship development. Due to the absence of uniform definition， methodologies adopted usually mismatch hypotheses concerned， research results arguable. This paper highlights the importance of trust， reviews divisions of trust and their nuances， and facilitates the employment of databases or research methods to explore research questions by making distinctions between different levels of trust， macro-level trust and micro-level trust.

Key words： trust， interpersonal relationship， risk aversion， culture， value structures

The definition of trust

Trust is defined as “ the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations or beliefs regarding the intentions or behavior of another person or other people in general”， which implies the underlying risks and anticipation； as an expectation of benevolent treatment from others in risky situations （Foddy& Dawes， 2008）， setting trust only in uncertain situations； and an expectation of a counterparts reliability as to his/her obligations with the possibility of behaving opportunistically （Zaheer， A.， McEvily， B. &Perrone;， V.， 1998）， reflecting trustees initiative to choosing between self-interest and reciprocation. However， these definitions have some limitations. Firstly， they emphasize interpersonal relationship with little concern about trust at the national level. There is a need to make a distinction between interpersonal trust and impersonal trust.

Luhmann categorizes trust separately at the micro-level， the characteristic of small group relationships based on emotional bonds between individuals， and the macro-level， comparatively abstract relationships related with bureaucratic function （Luhmann， 1988）. In addition， works of McKnight， Harrison， Cummings， and Yamagishi all distinguish generalized trust from particularized trust. The former refers to inclination to trust others including strangers in general （Uslaner 2002）； while the latter concerns the positive expectation of others benign behaviors out of the knowledge of their traits and personalities as references， which is usually accumulated over a period of time towards specific others they know （Yamagishi， Toshio &Yamagishi;， M.， 1994）. Taking previous works into consideration， both generalized trust and particularized trust can be the sub-category of the micro-level trust， influenced by the macro-level trust. Generally speaking， these distinctions facilitate the choosing of research methods and corresponding research questions， and the check of conclusions.

The test of trust level

Many researches attempting to compare the trust levels across countries always rely on the responses to the survey question in World Values Survey （WVS）， that is， “generally speaking， would you say that most people can be trusted， or that you cant be too careful in dealing with people？”. Actually， the above mentioned attitudinal survey question reflects not the trust towards bureaucratic systems or macro-level trust but micro-level trust or generalized trust， to be specific. To serve as one of the solutions to identify the trust level in a country or the macro-level trust， Luhmann used the term confidence in government and bureaucratic systems as a substitute to represent macro-level trust （Luhmann， 1988）. Some studies are usually attempting to understand peoples generalized trust levels or the relationship between generalized trust and other variables with personalized trust as a moderator（Huck， Lünser， &Tyran;， 2012）， because generalized trust is culture-specific embroidered with individual characteristics.

Culture-specific value

Large differences of generalized trust level shown by the data from WVS， ranging from below 30 （e.g.， in Turkey， Indonesia， and Brazil） to above 120 （e.g.， in Denmark， Sweden， and Norway）， highlight cultural influence on trust （Balliet& Van Lange， 2013b）. Uslaner （2010） believe it is because high-trust countries have higher income equality and less corruption， which still needs further empirical support. For there are many begin relationships based on gradually accumulated trust （Kurzban et al. 2001）， and even primary mistrust （Kuwabara&Sheldon; 2012）， its hard to infer that high-trust countries ranked by WVS data are definitely wealthier （Fukuyama， 1995）. Researches should specify the kind of trust they are studying and combine it with other cultural- and contextual-specific factors.

According to whichever definitions of trust， risk and interdependence are always innate ingredients （Coleman， 1990； Williamson， 1993）. People dislike the feeling of being betrayed， and strive to alleviate ambiguity and uncertainty to minimize risk. Even in the economic transactions， risk aversion plays an important role （Bernoulli， 1954）. Even though its shared preference for uncertainty avoidance to minimize risks， people from different cultural backgrounds differ greatly. Although Beilmann and Lilleoja （2015） empirically reveal the link between social trust and value similarity in Europe， it hasnt been tested in other continents. Besides， which kind of value construction is instructive for trust building needs further research.

Conclusion

Due to the absence of uniform definition of trust， some research methodologies dont match their hypotheses. The topic of trust， as a crucial attitude in socioeconomic life， being mentioned repeatedly， still lacks systematic study. It can be framed as generalized trust， combined with online economic phenomena study， such as sharing economy. Particularized trust can be studied thoroughly in emic culture， which may be the preliminary step for comparative or etic trust studies. Value structures that facilitate trust building and its long-term maintenance havent been charted.

References

Balliet， D.， & Van Lange， P. A. M. （2013b）. Trust， punishment， and cooperation across 18 societies： A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science， 8， 363–379

Beilmann， M.，Lilleoja， L. （2015）. Social trust and value similarity： the relationship between social trust and human values in Europe. Studies of Transition States and Societies 7， 19-30

Bernoulli， D. （1954）. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica， 22， 23-36

Huck， F.， Gabriele K. Lünser， Tyran， J. （2012）. Competition fosters trust. Games and Economic Behavior，Volume （76）， 195-209

Kurzban， R.， McCabe， K.， Smith， V. L.， Wilson， B. J. （2001）. Incremental commitment and reciprocity in a real-time public goods game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin，27（12）， 1662–73

Kuwabara， K.， Sheldon， O. （2012）. Temporal dynamics of social exchange and the development of solidarity： ‘Testing the waters versus ‘taking a leap of faith. Social Forces， 91（1）， 253–73.

Foddy， M.， & Dawes， R. （2008）. Group-based trust in social dilemmas. New Issues and Paradigms in Research on Social Dilemmas. New York： Springer US.

Fukuyama， F. （1995）. Trust： The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York： Free

Press.

Luhmann， N. （1988）. Familiarity， confidence， trust， in Gambetta， D. （ed.）， Trust. Making and Breaking of Cooperative Relations， Oxford， Blackwell.

Uslaner， E. （2010）. Corruption， inequality， and the rule of law. New York， NY： Cambridge University Press

Williamson， O. E. （1993）. Calculativeness， trust， and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics， 36， 453-486

Yamagishi， Toshio and Midori Yamagishi. （1994）. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion，18， 9–66

Zaheer， A.， McEvily， B. and Perrone， V. （1998）. Does trust matter？ Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performace.Organisation Science， 9， 141-59