Psychology of Trust This Research

Psychology of Trust This research examines the theoretical framework that has been posited to be applicable in human beings concerning the issue of 'trust' including how trust is developed or formed, what results when trust is not formed and finally, this work has examined what results when trust is violated. This work review two types of trust stated by Lewicki and Tomlinson (2003) which are: (1) calculus-based trust; and (2) identification-based trust, also known as CBT and IBT, respectively.

Trust is a calculated risk cognitively acknowledged as a vulnerability to the hope-for positive behavior of the individual to who 'trust' is granted. THE PSYCHOLOGY of TRUST The objective of this work is to research and examine 'trust' and specifically to understand what the definition of trust is or what trust actually means and how trust is formed or developed or alternatively, what results when trust is not developed normally.

This work also examines the different types of trust that exist in terms of the 'levels', 'degrees', or 'dimensions' of trust that are experienced by human beings and further intends to examine the results when trust is violated. When trust is violated there is a natural reaction of the human being to be angry, hurt, frustrated, and fearful. Furthermore, there is a great amount of debate surrounding whether or not trust, once violated may be rebuilt or re-established between two individuals.

This work seeks to understand this issue of trust as well. DISCUSSION Some individuals trust very easily, and often far too easily which results in others taking advantage of their vulnerability while other individuals rarely trust others and only manage to extend trust after a firm foundation has been laid to base that trust upon.

While violation of trust between casual relationships may not result in a complete breakdown of the relationship and it may be able to continue on some level the violation of trust between two individuals who are intimately close often results in a breakdown leaving a chasm far too wide to cross and at best takes much time, effort and willingness for trust to re-established and this may only result if the victim of the violation has the willingness to do so.

REVIEW of PREVIOUS STUDIES The work of Erik Erikson is related in the work entitled: "Stages of Social-Emotional Development in Children and Teenagers" published by the Child Development Institute. Erikson is stated to believe that "the socialization process consists of eight phases" (CDI, 2007) These were referred to by Erikson as the 'eight stages of man' and were the formulation of Erikson's vast experience in psychotherapy specifically experientially with children and adolescents from all classes of society.

Erikson refers to each of these stages as a 'psychosocial crisis' "which arises and demands resolution before the next stage can be satisfactorily negotiated." (CDI, 2007) the Child Development Institute presents the eight stages as follows: 1) Learning Basic Trust vs. Basic Distrust (Hope) 2) Learning Autonomy vs. Shame (Will) 3) Learning Initiative vs. Guilt (Purpose) 4) Industry vs. Inferiority; (Competence) 5) Learning Identity vs. Identity Diffusion (Fidelity) 6) Learning Intimacy vs. Isolation (Love) 7) Learning Generativity vs. Self-Absorption (Care) 8) Integrity vs.

Despair (Wisdom) In the first stage, or the period of infancy to the age of two years the child when treated with nurture and love develops trust and security as well as a "basic optimism." (CDI, 2007) the child who is otherwise treated is one that "becomes insecure and mistrustful." (CDI, 2007) in the second stage occurring between two and four years-of-age, the child who is "well-parented...emerges from this stage sure of himself, elated with his new found control, and proud rather than ashamed." (CDI, 2007) the third stage is one in which Erikson refers to as the "play age" lasting from 3 1/2 to 4 years-of-age until the child enters school.

During this stage the child learns the following: 1) imagination and skill broadening through activity plays of diverse types, including fantasy; 2) cooperation with others; 3) to lead as well as follow." (CDI, 2007) The child who is immobilized by guilt is: 1) fearful; 2) hangs on the fringes of groups; 3) continues to depend unduly on adults; and 4) is restricted both in the development of play skills and imagination." (CDI, 2007) The fourth stage is what is referred to by Erikson as the 'school age' and continues into the middle school years.

This stage involves the child's mastery of formal life skills including: 1) relating with peers according to social rules; 2) progression from free play to play that is elaborately structured by rules demanding formal teamwork (baseball); and 3) mastering social studies, arithmetic, and reading. (CDI; 2007; paraphrased) The child who is mistrusting will be shame-filled, doubting the future and experience both "defeat and inferiority." (CDI, 2007) the fifth stage occurs during the stage of adolescence starting at about 13 years of age and lasting until the child is approximately 20 years-of-age.

During this stage of development the "adolescent, learns how to satisfactorily and happily answer the question of 'Who am I?'" (CDI, 2007) However, even those most well adjusted experience a bit of role identity diffusion although this is generally witnessed mostly in male adolescents while female adolescents "experiment with minor delinquency, rebellion flourishes and self-doubts flood the youngster..." (CDI, 2007) the sixth stage is one of early adulthood in which the "successful young adult...can experience true intimacy..." (CDI, 2007) the seventh stage is also in adulthood wherein "the psychosocial crisis demands generativity, both in the sense of marriage and parenthood and in the sense of working productively and creatively." (CDI, 2007) the final and eighth stage, if the other stages have been successfully managed the adult has a well defined role in life that they are comfortable with and they feel satisfied with what they have thus far produced (children, work, hobbies) and are able to be intimate without feeling "strain, guilt, regret, or lack of realism" however if "one or more of the earlier psychosocial crises have not been resolved..." (CDI, 2007) the adult is likely to have a self-perspective that is characterized by "disgust and despair." (CDI, 2007) The work of Lewicki and Tomlinson (2003) entitled: "Trust and Trust Building" relates that there has been extensive exploration of "the phenomenon of trust" by various disciplines "across the social sciences, including economics, social psychology, and political science." (2003) Lewicki and Tomlinson state that Rousseau defined trust as "a psychological state of comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another." (2003) According to Lewicki and Tomlinson theoretical claims of the original of interpersonal trust "has proceeded broadly along three fronts: 1) explaining differences in the individual propensity to trust; 2) understanding dimensions of trustworthy behavior; and 3) suggesting levels of trust development." (2003) It has been argued by personality theorists that some individuals are more likely to trust than are other individuals and that the expectancy that others may be trusted has been modeled by the individual's previous history of interactions on the social level.

It appears from the research of Lewicki and Tomlinson that trust in an individual is "grounded in our evaluation of his/her ability, integrity and benevolence. That is, the more we observe these characteristics in another person, our level of trust in that person is likely to grow." (2003) Lewicki and Tomlinson relate that these are the 'dimensions' that exist in the individual's trust of one another.

To understand precisely what is meant it is necessary to examine ability, integrity, and benevolence insofar as the definitions that are applied to these words. Lewicki and Tomlinson state that 'ability': "refers to an assessment of the other's knowledge, skill, or competency. This dimension recognizes that trust requires some sense of the other is able to perform in a manner that meets our expectations." (2003) Integrity is stated to be: "the degree to which the trustee adheres to principles that are acceptable to the trustor.

This dimension leads to trust based on consistency of past actions, credibility of communication, commitment to standards of fairness, and the congruence of the other's word and deed." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) Finally, 'benevolence' is stated to be the "assessment that the trusted individual is concerned enough about our welfare to either advance our interests, or at least not impede them. The other's perceived intentions or motives of the trustee are most central.

Honest and open communication, delegating decisions, and sharing control indicate evidence of one's benevolence." (2003) Lewicki and Tomlinson relate that trust develops at 'levels' according to more recent theories surrounding the subject of trust and that "trust builds along a continuum of hierarchical and sequential stages, such as trust grows to 'higher' levels.

It becomes stronger and more resilient and changes in character." (2003) Initially trust is stated by Lewicki and Tomlinson to be at a "calculus-based level" or that the careful calculation of "how the other party is likely to behave in a given situation depending on the rewards for being trustworthy and the deterrents against untrustworthy behavior." (2003) in other words this is a trust based on possible rewards or possible punishment, or gains vs. losses.

Over a period of time when the relationship is further tested trust evolves to 'identification-based trust which is stated to be the "highest level" of trust in that "the parties have internalized each other's desires and intentions. They understand what the other party cares about so completely that each party is able to act as an agent for the other." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) at this stage of trust Lewicki and Tomlinson state that "a strong emotional bond between the parties" (2003) has been formed.

Violations of trust occur when the individual holding "confident positive expectations of the trustee are disconfirmed." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) the result is lower trust because research has shown that violation of trust result in a stifling of "mutual support and information sharing" (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) and in organizations "exert negative effects on organizational citizenship behaviors, job performance turnovers and profits." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) Violation of trust generally results in the individual who has extended trust: (1) making a cognitive appraisal of the situation; and 2) experiencing a distressed emotional state." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) single isolated violation of trust may cause serious damage and even destroy trust so badly that it cannot be repaired however, "a pattern of violations may be needed to create serious damage to the relationships.

Lewicki and Tomlinson relate that the severity of the offense may be along a continuum "from low to high" (2003) and may be considered severe on the following bases: Magnitude of the Offense: indication of the seriousness of the consequences incurred by the victim.

Number of Prior Violations - when a clear patterns of trust violations exists, even if they are all of a minor nature when viewed in isolation, the overall pattern of trust violation may be considered a serious breach Specific Dimensions of Trust: violations that are related to integrity and benevolence are experienced most often as being more severe and damaging that violations that are based on ability.

(Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003; paraphrased) Rebuilding trust has been held by many to be impossible however Lewicki and Tomlinson draw upon "recent research indicating a more optimistic view..." (2003) However, the caution is stated by Lewicki and Tomlinson that "rebuilding rust is not as straightforward as building trust in the first place.

After trust has been damaged there are two key considerations for the victim: (1) dealing with the stress the violation imposed on the relationship; and 2) determining if future violations will occur." (2003) The primary question at this point is stated by Lewicki and Tomlinson to be: "Is the victim willing to reconcile?" (2003) Reconciliation is active effort between both parties to restore a relationship that has been damaged and to "strive to settle the issues that led to the disruption of that relationships.

Reconciliation is a behavioral manifestation of forgiveness, defined as a deliberate decision by the victim to surrender feelings of resentment and grant amnesty to the offender." (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003) the following diagram illustrates the possible actions that may occur depending upon the victim's willingness to reconcile the relationship, or not to reconcile. Possible Actions of Victim Whose Trust is Violated Source: Lewicki and Tomlinson (2003) In order for trust to.