Affectual Trust and Internal NetworksLouise Young
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
louise.young@uts.edu.au
Abstract
While trust is increasingly recognised as central to the functioning of relationships generally and tobusiness relationships in particular, there has been very little attention paid to the nature of theexperience of trust – as distinct from its antecedents and outcomes. In addition, trust has remained arelation-centric construct. This paper presents an affect-based framework for trust consisting of cognitive and emotional elements. This is used to consider the internal network of an organisationconcerned with service delivery based on in-depth interviews with service providers talking about their jobs and their employer. The affect-based framework, combined with theories of cognitivebalance, allow us to understand the importance of the trust context, in this case the context that hasled to distancing within this network and to consider the reasons for this distance. Keywords: networks, trust, service, satisfaction, emotions, affects
Affectual Trust and Internal Networks
Social scientists have long recognised the centrality of trust. The ability to trust enables humans tointeract in close relationships and is essential for psychological health and development (Asch,1952; Barber 1983; Eriksson, 1959). Trust is also important in business context exchanges such as buyer-seller relations, employee-employer and other internal relationships (Argyle 1972, Blau 1964,Kanter 1977). Despite recognition of the centrality of trust in human behaviour, the nature of ‘trust’ remains unclear because as we have argued in earlier work (Young 1993, 1996, 2001, Albaumand Young 1997, 2000) the focus of study has been on the antecedents and outcomes of trust.The purpose of this paper is to develop a greater understanding of the nature of trust in the properties of an internal network. The study focuses on the workers of a large Australian companyand specifically on the configuration and nature of the trust-rich and trust-deficient parts of their network. Trust and its impact are considered within a framework that considers trust as a varyingaffect, that is, as an interacting set of emotions and assessments. Growing distrust and suspicionare shown to be substantial influencers of some parts of the network with other, more positiveaffects dominant in other parts of the network. The paper closes with a discussion of the value of researching trust and balance in networks and the way managers might build trust.
An Alternative Conceptualisation of Trust
Most often trust has been considered in terms of the conditions that engender it and/or benefits thatarise from it. Typologies of trust differentiate it according to how much there is, what is based on(e.g. contract, good will, etc. as per Sako 1997) longevity (short term or long term as per Meyersonet al 1996) or strength (fragility or resilience as per Ring 1996) rather than on its nature. Work
considering the nature of trust is scarce. When trust is considered in the main two varieties areconsidered: one is cognitive, calculative and rational; the other is emotional (Huemer 1998, Lewisand Weingert, 1985; McAllister 1995, Ring 1992 and Williamson 1993).A calculative view of trust owes its roots to the early experimental psychology work of Deutsch(1958, 1962) and his colleagues who labelled as ‘trust’ the calculated decision to cooperate. A focuson the costs, benefits and probability of defection rather than the emotional or intuitive side of trusthas endured. Business literature presents emotional trust as impulsive and non-rational and asassociated with poorer quality decision-making (Williamson 1993). In contrast we argue this kindof “emotion free” trust is not trust but only an economic calculus of costs and benefits (in line withWilliamson 1993). We assert that trust involves additional emotional attributes that make what wecall ‘trust’ richer and more enduring (in line with Lewicki and Bunker 1996).There is considerable work citing the centrality of emotions in effective human functioning(Tomkins 1970). They play important roles in facilitating intuition and psychological and relationalhealth (Pinker 1997). It follows therefore that emotions will play important roles in businessrelationships including those in the workplace and will be connected to or be part of to the trust anddistrust occurring there. A review of social science literature indicates that positive emotions have been considered as components of trust, as antecedents or outcomes of trust and/or have been usedas synonyms of trust. Trust has been described in terms liking (e.g. Swan et al 1987), admiration(e.g. Childers & Ruekert 1986), respect (e.g. Jackson 1985), faith (e.g. Zaltman and Moorman1988), acceptance (e.g. Bonoma 1976) confidence (e.g. Luhmann 1979), and security (e.g. Zand1978). Though there is little direct discussion of the centrality of emotion in business trust, someliterature moves towards the notion that emotions are important (Bagozzi et al 1999, Glaser 1991).The variety of emotions used to describe trust also lends credence to there being multiple forms of emotion-grounded trust. Hence, ‘trust’ is envisaged here as an umbrella term incorporating in itsdifferent manifestations differing forms and combinations of emotions and calculations.Figure 1 summarizes what we argue is the process of the formation of interpersonal trust. Thefigure depicts trust as emerging through the combining of certain emotions and cognitions. This isdenoted by the just-touching points of the two-way arrows (signifying their combination) at thecentre of the trust box.Building on the discussions of Argyle (1991) and De Rivera (1984) emotions and hence forms of trust are differentiated according to whether they function to allow the building, sustaining and/or enjoying of relationships. Examples of emotions that are of each type and have been reported assimilar to or components of trust are shown in each group (based on De Rivera’s Structural Theory[1984]). As the figure indicates, these different types of emotions interact and/or combine witheach other – depicted by three arrows leading from them to a circle. This is in line with authorswho argue that emotions can be inevitably linked, as are delight and happiness, or contingentlylinked, as are anger and shame (Smedslund, 1988). Emotions can be compounded (Millenson, 1967)yet can at the same time retain their separate identity (Appley 1990). (See Young [2001] for further discussion of emotional factors of trust.)
.
Figure 1: The Nature of Trust
Figure 1 also depicts what we argue are the cognitive elements of trust including the calculation of costs, benefits, and risks associated with particular situations (Bagozzi et al 1999), the way thatothers who are recipients of trust are perceived (Young and Wilkinson 1989) - with competence andmotivation being the perceptions most central to the development of trust (Butler 1991, Heider 1958, Lewis and Weigert 1985) - and assessment of the state of the focal relationship (Wilkinsonand Young 1994). These perceptions combine to form an overall assessment of a relationship – depicted by three arrows from each type of assessment leading to a circle.As Figure 1 indicates, emotions influence assessments of risk and/or vice versa. If consistent, theemotions of trust and the assessments of relational risk combine to form affectual trust, i.e. trustthat contains both emotion and cognition. If inconsistent, discomfort with emotions beingexperienced relative to the situation will generate a different mix of emotions and/or reassessment of the relational situation will occur (in line with the cognitive balance theories of Heider 1958 andothers). The two-way arrows leading from the centre of the trust box back to the circles denotingthe combination of emotions and calculations indicate this.
External Factors
: Norms,environmental uncertainty, socialstructures, cultural predispositionto trust,
Internal factors:
predispositionto trust, personality
Trust
Relationship BuildingEmotions
: Interest,Admiration, Respect andLiking
RelationshipSustaining Emotions
:,Affection, Gratitude,Security, Confidence,Acceptance
Relationship enjoyingemotions
Appreciation,Contentment, Satisfaction,
Cognition/Calcula-tion
of: costs, benefits, valueand risk,
Contextualisation
i.e.embedding of present responseinto focal environment: relationshipdynamics (process of trust-building),history and relative levels of powerand trust
Perception
of others:
i.e.motivation and competence inrecipient of trust
Benefits of trust
: Transactioncost reduction, Relationship co-ordination, development andenjoyment, Job satisfaction, etc.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
