Suchergebnisse

PurposeIt is important to infer and diagnose whether a negotiator is trustworthy. In international negotiations, people may assume that high-trust nations are more likely to produce more trustworthy negotiators. Does this assumption hold universally? This study aims to address this research question by investigating the relationship between national-level societal trust and individual-level trust in negotiations.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a cross-sectional research design and a sample of 910 senior managers from 58 nations or regions. The hypotheses are tested by hierarchical linear modeling.FindingsThis study draws on the dynamic constructivist theory of culture to propose moderated hypotheses. Results show that societal trust predicts individuals' social perceptions of attitudinal trust in negotiations, only when cultural face norms are weak rather than strong; societal trust predicts individuals' social perceptions of behavioral trust in negotiations (i.e. high information sharing and low competitive behavior), only when negotiators process information analytically rather than holistically.Originality/valueThis study is the first to examine the relationship between national-level societal trust (i.e. generalized trust) and individual-level trust in negotiations (i.e. particularistic trust). It uses a large-scale, multinational sample to show that relying on societal trust to infer trust in negotiations is valid only in Western societies.

Although the trust, as such, is not a legal concept in Dutch law and is difficult to fit into the current Dutch legal framework, there are certain Dutch legal concepts that share characteristics of a trust or that share the functionality of the trust. In this contribution, the subject matter of trusts in Dutch law is approached both from the perspective of trust characteristics as well as from the perspective of the functionality of the trust as a concept. This research is not only of interest for academic purposes, but also in the context of potential future legislation introducing the trust into Dutch law. We conclude that there is no fundamental objection against the introduction of the trust or new trust-like concepts in Dutch law. The introduction of a trust as a general concept would, however, require a substantial change of law.

In this article we argue that the experience and effects of trust are influenced by how people construe trust in specific situations – people are not merely passive receptacles of information but bring their own understanding of trust to social situations (Bandura, 1989). Drawing on the literature on conceptual metaphors we describe these as three trust-metaphors. These trust-metaphors we suggest have important ramifications for how people experience trust, how people go about developing trust and peoples' reactions to trust or changes in trust (trust-breaches). Different trust-metaphors mediate the link between situational contingencies and demands on the one hand and peoples' strategies for managing different social situations. Thus different metaphors here can be seen as corresponding to different «strategies» of managing different types of interdependence in different types of situations.

Abstract
This study attempts to resolve two issues in social trust research: the negative or positive effect of particularized trust (PT) and the causality between institutional trust (IT) and generalized trust (GT). It analyzes two types of data from South Korea: pooled data of cross-sectional national probability surveys; and online experimental three-wave panel data. Analyses of cross-sectional data suggest new classifications of trust types, family trust (FT) qualitatively different from PT, and the covariates of GT. Panel data analyses bolster the findings from cross-sectional data analysis and confirm a causal antecedence and lagged effects of IT. These findings imply that keys to achieving a high trust society are overcoming intense FT, expanding the radius of PT, and enhancing IT.

Although trust is a lively area of research, it is rarely investigated in countries outside of commonly available cross-national public-opinion datasets. In an effort to fill this empirical void and to draw conclusions concerning the general determinants of trust, the current article employs detailed survey data from a frequently overlooked Central Asian country, Uzbekistan, to test the relationship between particularized trust and demographic traits previously identified as influential. While a number of Uzbek demographic characteristics coincide with previously identified determinants of trust, age and education yield negative effects not previously found. Interestingly, individual-level demographic variables become insignificant when controlling for regional, religious, and linguistic variation. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical implications. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright, the International Political Science Association.]

Trust in the news media received wide scholarly attention for almost a century, which was further boosted as a result of recent developments in the media landscape and changes in how news is made and consumed. Despite that, the conceptualization of trust in the news media is still debated, and its measurement comparability has not yet been established. In this paper, I build up on earlier conceptualizations of trust in the news media, and test three theoretically derived measurement models to determine their cross-cultural equivalence in 28 EU countries. Using Eurobarometer data, I test the validity and comparability of these measurements employing multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. The findings indicate that trust is a unidimensional latent construct, equally interpreted across contexts. People's level of trust in the news media reflects their general attitude to the news stories and reporters in all sources of media they are exposed to. While bifactorial measurements of news media trust, differentiating between legacy and online sources, have some merit in single case-studies, they are non-invariant and therefore non comparable. This means that any cross-population differences found employing them are likely a function of measurement idiosyncrasies or other unknown factors.