A Normative Virtue-Based Trust Model

  • Michael G. Harvey
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)


A unified theory of trust is translated into a normative virtue-based trust model. The trust model describes how proper trust facilitates socially valuable ends such as cooperation and collaboration, while too much trust in other entities or not enough trust leads to socially undesirable ends such as accepting too much risk or vulnerability or selfishness and conflict, respectively. The trust relation can be evaluated according to a simple objective decision structure so long as there is no violation of basic trust, based on adapting actions that increase the level of trust, cooperation, and collaboration through mutual adjustment, and adjusting actions that increase the level of distrust, selfishness and conflict through domination. When a trust violation occurs, where selfish behavior may lead to conflict, the trust relation should be evaluated according to a more complex subjective decision structure, based on the success of acts of intellectual virtue at the level of reflective knowledge in moderating the relative influences of the basic trust dispositions operative at the level of animal knowledge to achieve balance or harmony in the trust relation.


Social Exchange Epistemic State Rational Belief Virtual Team Intellectual Virtue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Zagzebski L (2014) Trust. In: Tempte K, Boyd C (eds) Vices and their virtues. Oxford University Press, New York (in press), pp 269–284. Much of Sects. 2–3 in the draft copy are based on Chap. 2 of the following book by the same author (2012) Epistemic authority: a theory of trust, authority, and autonomy in belief. Oxford University Press, New York (in press). All references are to the draft copy: . Accessed 15 Jul 2014
  2. 2.
    Foley R (2012) The foundational role of epistemology in a general theory of rationality. In: Fairweather A, Zagzebski L (eds) Epistemic authority: essays on epistemic virtue and responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 214–230Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sosa E (2007) Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Vol. 1: A virtue epistemology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sosa E (2009) Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Vol. 2: Reflective knowledge. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plato (2000) Price JT (ed) The republic (trans: Jowett B). Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ryutov T (2007) A socio-cognitive approach to modeling policies in open environments. In: 8th IEEE international workshop on policies for distributed systems and networks, Bologna, Italy, 13–15 Jun 2007, pp 29–38Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brugha C (2006) Conflict decision processes: with illustrations from Ireland. Int Sci J Methods Models Complex 8(1):1–26. doi: 10.1109/POLICY.2007.21 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Du R et al (2011) Integrating Taoist Yin-Yang thinking with western nomology: a moderating model of trust in conflict management. Chin Manag Stud 5(1):55–67. doi: 10.1108/17506141111118453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishishiba M, Ritchie LD (2000) The concept of trustworthiness: a cross-cultural comparison between Japanese and US business people. J Appl Commun Res 28(4):347–367. doi: 10.1080/00909880009365581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodensteiner NM, Stecklein JM (2001) The role of a multidimensional concept of trust in the performance of global virtual teams. In: 12th international conference on comparative management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 23–25 May 2001, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith JE (1988) Mediation, conflict, and creative diversity. In: Liu SH, Allinson RE (eds) Harmony and strife: contemporary perspectives, east & west. Chinese University Press, Hong Kong, pp 31–48Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon H (1976) From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Kastelein J et al (eds) 25 years of economic theory. Springer, Boston, pp 65–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations