Abstract
Everyday interaction is replete with situations where individuals must decide whether they should trust their conversation partner. In this chapter, the concepts of trust and mistrust are discussed and it is argued how they are conceptualised in indirect reporting. It is examined that trust and sensitivity to misinformation can be regulated on the basis of both social and cognitive characteristics. As related to the social aspect, two perspectives can be effective in the formation of trust: social stratification (macro features) and social relations (micro features). Regarding the cognitive features underlying trust, individuals must decide whether they should trust others and take risks, or rather, be more sensitive, searching for cues and clues to ensure that the conversation partner is trustworthy. Trust is not just an individual trait, something that is only regulated by cognitive factors. Trust can be interpreted based on discursive as well as conventional rules. In this regard, this chapter distinguishes between ‘trust 1’ and ‘trust 2’. The indirect reporter’s revealing of someone else’s utterances indicates that s/he is trying to consider a third party as evidence for the reporter’s trustworthiness. Indirect reporting can be considered a type of self-disclosure, where the reporter shares some personal experiences with someone else (the hearer). And lastly, ‘mutual trust’ and how it is shaped during indirect reports are explored.
The importance of the ability to trust, and the act of trusting, is that it enables an energetic rest; a rest from thinking and being aware that when an individual recognizes another as a party for a collaborative exchange, the other is doing precisely the same. Trust is necessary for reciprocal altruism, an important source of our sociability.
(Santibáñez, 2012, p. 490)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A person to whom property is legally committed to be administered for the benefit of a beneficiary.
- 2.
The difference between mistrust and distrust is based on epistemological features. Mistrust is something metaphysical, a general sense of unease towards something; by contrast, distrust is something experimental, which is formed based on solid evidence.
- 3.
Note that there is no reliable study reporting on this in detail, but a comprehensive analysis of Persian reported speech can be found in Chap. 9.
References
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.
Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3–4), 466–476.
Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2010). Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Demolombe, R. (2001). To trust information sources: A proposal for a modal logical framework. In C. Castelfranchi & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Trust and deception in virtual societies (pp. 111–124). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Edelman, M. J. (2001). The politics of misinformation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gambetta, D., & Hamill, H. (2005). Streetwise: How taxi drivers establish their customers’ trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gargiulo, M., & Ertug, G. (2006). The dark side of trust. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), The handbook of trust research (pp. 165–186). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond cultures. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/A Division of Random House.
Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Herreros, F. (2004). The problem of forming social capital: Why trust? London/New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Hill, C., & O’Hara O’Connor, E. (2006). A cognitive theory of trust. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1717. Available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/180
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoorens, V., & Poortinga, Y. (2000). Behavior in social context. In K. Pawlik & M. Rosenzweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology (pp. 40–63). London: Sage.
Jackson, D. (1997). Dynamic organisations: The challenge of change. London: Macmillan.
LeBlanc, R. M. (1999). Bicycle citizens: The political world of the Japanese housewife. Berkeley, CA/London: University of California Press.
Lomax, A., & Berkowitz, N. (1972). The evolutionary taxonomy of culture. Science, 177, 228–239.
Lorini, E., & Demolombe, R. (2009). From trust in information sources to trust in communication systems: An analysis in modal logic. In J. C. Meyer & J. Broersen (Eds.), Knowledge representation for agents and multi-agent systems (Lecture notes in Computer Science, vol. 5605). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York: Wiley.
Malina, B. J. (2009). Social-scientific approaches and the gospel of Matthew. In M. A. Powell (Ed.), Methods for Matthew (pp. 154–193). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2006). Reflections on an initial trust-building model. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 29–51). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
McMahon, T. F. (2004). Ethical leadership through transforming justice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transactions, 5, 37–40.
Santibáñez, C. (2012). The principle of relevance in the light of cooperation and trust: Discussing Sperber and Wilson’s theory. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20(3), 483–504.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sztompka, P. (2003). Trust: A sociological study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Takash, J. (2008). Results through relationships: Building trust, performance, and profit through people. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weber, L. R., & Carter, A. I. (2003). The social construction of trust. New York: Springer.
Yamagishi, T. (1998). The structure of trust: An evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morady Moghaddam, M. (2019). Trust and Indirect Reports. In: The Praxis of Indirect Reports. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14268-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14269-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)