Humble trust

Abstract

I challenge the common view that trust is characteristically risky compared to distrust by drawing attention to the moral and epistemic risks of distrust. Distrust that is based in real fear yet fails to target ill will, lack of integrity, or incompetence, serves to marginalize and exclude individuals who have done nothing that would justify their marginalization or exclusion. I begin with a characterization of the suite of behaviors characteristic of trust and distrust. I then survey the epistemic and moral hazards of distrust, in particular, distrust’s propensity to bias interpretation, to perpetuate itself, to confirm itself, to dishonor, and to insult. Taking seriously these moral and epistemic hazards requires taking affirmative measures to respond to them. I elaborate one such response: “humble trust”. The practice of humble trust issues from skepticism about the warrant of one’s own felt attitudes of trust and distrust, curiosity about who might be unexpectedly responsive to trust and in which contexts, and commitment to abjure and to avoid distrust of the trustworthy. Humble trust enables individuals to trust that they will be trusted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Notable exceptions include Hawley (2014) who holds that “it is a mistake to theorise trust without considering distrust” (3). Jones (2013) examines distrust issuing from identity-based prejudice and Krishnamurthy (2015) offers an account of distrust’s role in protecting political minorities from tyranny.

  2. 2.

    For example Baier (1986), Jones (1996), Hawley (2014) and McCleod (2002).

  3. 3.

    Approach and avoidance are fundamental motivational tendencies in virtually all organisms. Slepian et al. (2017) propose that trust and distrust should be distinguished in terms of approach and avoidance motivation.

  4. 4.

    This puts my account at odds with recent accounts of distrust advanced by Krishnamurthy (2015) and Hawley (2014). I will not have space here to draw out the differences in our views here.

  5. 5.

    Although they often go together, distrusting a person should be distinguished from signaling distrust of a person. One may privately distrust a person but decide to avoid revealing distrust for various reasons. For example, one may lack a way of withdrawing from interaction undetected and one may want to avoid insulting the person; alternatively, one may simply be averse to confrontation.

  6. 6.

    I borrow this phrasing from Hawley (2014, 2) who makes the same point with regard to trust.

  7. 7.

    In this vein, Ryan Preston-Roedder argues that having a measure of faith in humanity is central to moral life (2013) and articulates a notion of “civic trust” that involves interacting with strangers without fear while relying on their goodwill (2017).

  8. 8.

    My categorization here simplifies, since there are cases in which we have moral reasons to adopt a distrustful stance (e.g.—when the wellbeing of vulnerable others is at stake) and there are cases in which we have prudential reasons to adopt a trustful stance (e.g.—when the opportunities associated with trusting cooperation are great).

  9. 9.

    As Adam Smith put it, “Compared with the contempt of mankind, all other evils are easily supported.” (2002, 81).

  10. 10.

    Empirically informed philosophers working under the banner of “situationism” deny the existence of character traits, appealing to empirical work in psychology that indicates that seemingly trivial and normatively irrelevant situational influences, such as mood modulators and ambient sensory stimuli, predict and explain people’s cognitive, affective, evaluative, and behavioral responses. But one does not have to be situationist or a character-skeptic to appreciate role that social support plays in cultivating right action, apt emotion, and moral perception.

  11. 11.

    NE 1098b33-1099a5; see also NE 1114a7-10.

  12. 12.

    In a similar vein, John Adams avers that, “The desire for esteem is as real a want of nature as hunger, and the neglect and contempt of the world as severe a pain as gout or stone.” Adams (2001, 313).

  13. 13.

    Ryan Preston-Roedder (2013, 667–668) reviews a number of ways in which we tend to confirm the expectations of others even when we do not intend to do so. First, we tend to internalize other people’s view of us and act in ways that are consistent with this view. For example, labelling elementary school pupils as “neat and tidy people” has greater and longer lasting effects than asking them to refrain from littering (Miller et al. 1975). Second, we tend to respond to subtle cues that are sent by the expectations of others by adopting the very behaviors they expect. For instance, Word et al. found that poor performance among black interviewees was predicted by and responsive to cues sent by white interviewers such as sitting relatively far away and making relatively little eye contact (1974). Third, the opportunities that are given to or withheld from us are influenced by how we are expected to behave, and access or lack of access to opportunity may result in our adopting the expected behaviors. Finally, when others expect us to act poorly, we may react in ways that shield us from the shame of confirming their low expectations. We may come to care less about how we behave or “self-handicap” so as to create obstacles for ourselves rather than having our failures chalked up to our lack of competence or character (Berglas and Jones 1978).

  14. 14.

    The dominant view is that although people reliably agree on which faces look untrustworthy or trustworthy (Rule et al. 2013; Todorov 2008) these judgments show no predictive validity (Todorov et al. 2015) because there is no reliable correspondence with actual trustworthiness (Todorov and Porter 2014). In contrast, Slepian and Ames argue for the internalized impressions account according to which a lifetime of being treated as trustworthy or untrustworthy as a result of one’s appearance may lead one to internalize these expectations and act in accordance with them, which eventually results in (modest) appearance-based accuracy (2016).

  15. 15.

    The pernicious distributive effects of prejudicial distrust manifest themselves in a measurable way in research on the “sharing economy”. Consider the case of airbnb. Staying in another person’s home or allowing someone to stay in your home is a context in which attitudes of trust and distrust play a central role in shaping decision making. A 2014 HBS study on airbnb found that non-black hosts are able to charge approximately 12% more than black hosts, holding location, rental characteristics, and quality constant. Moreover, black hosts receive a larger price penalty for having a poor location score relative to non-black hosts (2014, 4). A later study found that applications from guests with distinctively African American names are 16% less likely to be accepted relative to identical guests with distinctively white names (B. Edelman et al. 2017, 2).

  16. 16.

    Cf. Hieronymi (2008).

  17. 17.

    This feature of humble trust overlaps with what Preston-Roedder dubs “faith in humanity”: “So even a reasonably careful and clearheaded person could easily overlook evidence of people’s decency. But someone who has faith in humanity is especially sensitive to such evidence. She tends to look for, recognize, and focus on the good in people, and as a result, she is somewhat more likely than her peers to judge that people are decent, or that they have behaved well.” (2013, 667).

  18. 18.

    I have doubts about whether reciprocation in the trust game is good evidence of trustworthiness. Insofar as a player plays by the rules set out, it is not clear that their behavior is “untrustworthy” even if she keep all the money since that the player has made no commitment to do otherwise, even from within the game. I do think, however, that the trust game measures something in the vicinity of trust. I don’t have room to spell out the subtleties in this paper, however.

  19. 19.

    The ideas in this work were developed during my stay at the Centre de recherche en éthique (CRE) at Université de Montréal. Early versions of the paper were presented at McGill, Université de Montréal, American University in Beirut, Marist College, University of New Mexico, Sienna College, and the APA Pacific Division meeting. I received valuable feedback from Anthony Booth, Karen Jones, Katherine Hawley, Meena Krishnamurthy, Andrei Buckareff, Fadlo Khuri, Michael Brownstein, Angie Pepper, Christine Tappolet, Sarah Stroud, Paul Boswell, Richard Healey, Étienne Brown, and Mark Alfano.

References

  1. Adams, J. 2001. The political writings of John Adams. Conservative Leadership Series. Gateway Editions.

  2. Alfano, M. (2015). Friendship and the structure of trust.

  3. Alfano, M., & Huijts, N. (2019). Trust and distrust in institutions and governance. In Simon (Ed.), The Routledge handbook to trust.

  4. Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1989.7.3.275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405–417. (United States).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang, L. J., Doll, B. B., van’t Wout, M., Frank, M. J., & Sanfey, A. G. (2010). Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.03.001. (Elsevier Inc.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Domenicucci, J., & Holton, R. (2017). Trust as a two-place relation Oxford scholarship. In P. Faulkner, T. Simpson, & R. Holton (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 150–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Du Bois, W. E. B. (2007). The souls of black folk. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dunning, D., Anderson, J. E., Schlösser, T., Ehlebracht, D., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2014). Trust at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Dunning, David: Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY, US, 14853, dad6@cornell.edu: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036673.

  11. Edelman, B. G., & Luca, M. (2014). Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb. Com: SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2377353.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edelman, B., Luca, M., Svirsky, D., Ayres, I., Katz, L., & Lang, K. (2017). Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Farmer, H., McKay, R., & Tsakiris, M. (2014). Trust in me: Trustworthy others are seen as more physically similar to the self. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613494852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fetchenhauer, D., & Dunning, D. (2008). Do people trust too much or too little? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.04.006.

  15. Fetchenhauer, D., & Dunning, D. (2010). Why so cynical? Asymmetric feedback underlies misguided skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of others. Psychological Science, 21(2), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609358586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fetchenhauer, D., Dunning, D., & Schlösser, T. (2017). The mysteries of trust: Trusting too little and too much at the same time. In Trust in social dilemmas (pp 139–153). https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2010.163.

  17. Freeman, J. B., Stolier, R. M., Ingbretsen, Z. A., & Hehman, E. A. (2014). Behavioral/cognitive amygdala responsivity to high-level social information from unseen faces. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(32), 10573–10581. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5063-13.2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gandhi, M. (2005). Gandhi: Selected writings. Dover Publications.

  19. Govier, T. (1992). Distrust as a practical problem. Journal of Social Philosophy, 12(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2364-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hardin, R. (2001). Distrust. Boston University Law Review, 81(3), 495–522.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust. Russell Sage Foundation. https://books.google.com/books?id=juqFAwAAQBAJ.

  22. Hawkins, D. (2016). Flight attendant to black female doctor: ‘We’re looking for actual physicians’. Washington Post, October 14.

  23. Hawley, K. (2014). Trust, distrust and commitment. Nous, 48(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hieronymi, P. (2008). The reasons of trust. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048400801886496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Horsburgh, H. J. N. (1960). The ethics of trust. The Philosophical Quarterly, 10(41), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/233694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones, K. (2004). Trust and terror. In P. DesAutels & M. Walker (Eds.), Moral psychology: Feminist ethics and social theory (pp 3–18). Rowman & Littlefield.

  28. Jones, K. (2013). Distrusting the trustworthy. In D. Archard, M. Deveaux, N. Manson, & W. Daniel (Eds.), Reading Onora O’Neill (pp. 186–198). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203758793.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krishnamurthy, M. (2015). (White) Tyranny and the democratic value of distrust. Monist, 98(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onv020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lange, P., & Sedikides, C. (1998). European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199807/08)28:4%3c675:aid-ejsp883%3e3.0.co;2-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCleod, C. (2002). Self-trust and reproductive autonomy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McGeer, V. (2002). Developing trust. Philosophical Explorations, 5(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McGeer, V. (2008). Trust, hope, and empowerment. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048400801886413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Merritt, M. (2009). Aristotelean virtue and the interpersonal aspect of ethical character. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6(1). Brill Academic Publishers.

  36. Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 430–441. (United States).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. O’Neill, O. (2013). What we don’t understand about trust. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/onora_o_neill_what_we_don_t_understand_about_trust.

  39. Obama, B. (2007). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. Crown/Archetype. https://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC.

  40. Pettit, P. (1995). The cunning of trust. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(3), 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Preston-Roedder, R. (2013). Faith in humanity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87(3), 664–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Preston-Roedder, R. (2017). Civic trust. Philosophers’ Imprint, 17(4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Railton, P. (2014). Reliance, trust, and belief. Inquiry, 57(1), 122–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2014.858419. (Routledge).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rezlescu, C., Duchaine, B., Olivola, C. Y., & Chater, N. (2012). Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 176–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rule, N. O, Krendl, A. C. Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Rule, Nicholas O.: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 3G3, rule@psych.utoronto.ca: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031050.

  47. Scharlemann, J., Eckel, C. C., Kacelnik, A., & Wilson, R. K. (2001). The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22. www.elsevier.com/locate/joep.

  48. Slepian, M. L., & Ames, D. R. (2016). Internalized impressions: The link between apparent facial trustworthiness and deceptive behavior is mediated by targets’ expectations of how they will be judged. Psychological Science, 27(2), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Slepian, M. L., Young, S. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2017). An approach-avoidance motivational model of trustworthiness judgments. Motivation Science, 3(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Slingerland, E. (2014). Trying not to try: Ancient China, modern science, and the power of spontaneity. Crown/Archetype. https://books.google.com/books?id=sTG0AAAAQBAJ.

  51. Smith, A. (2002). Adam Smith: The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.

  52. Sofer, C., Dotsch, R., Oikawa, M., Oikawa, H., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Todorov, A. (2017). For your local eyes only: Culture-specific face typicality influences perceptions of trustworthiness. Perception, 46(8), 914–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617691786. (SAGE Publications Ltd STM).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Thomas, L. (1990). In my next life I’ll be white. Ebony, 46(2), 84.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tingley, D. (2014). Face-off: Facial features and strategic choice. Political Psychology, 35(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Todorov, A. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.012. (Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Todorov, A. (2017). The function of impressions. In Face value. Princeton University Press.

  57. Todorov, A., Baron, S. G., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Evaluating face trustworthiness: A model based approach. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn009. (Oxford University Press).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Todorov, A., Olivola, C., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57ddbda3d2b857cdad047af5/t/57e433449f7456687f28b5e6/1474573126946/TodorovOlivolaDotschMendeSiedlecki_2015_ARP.pdf.

  59. Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Todorov, A., & Porter, J. M. (2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1404–1417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532474. (SAGE Publications Inc).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (2004). Trust, distrust, and in between. In R. Hardin (Ed.), Distrust (pp. 60–82). New York, NY: Russell Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  62. van Wout, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108(3), 796–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wanderer, J. (2012). Addressing testimonial injustice: Being ignored and being rejected. Philosophical Quarterly, 62(246), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.712.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-Ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x. (SAGE Publications Inc).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615590992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90059-6. (Netherlands: Elsevier Science).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 603–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason D’Cruz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Cruz, J. Humble trust. Philos Stud 176, 933–953 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1220-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Trust
  • Distrust
  • Exclusion
  • Insult
  • Trustworthiness
  • Trust game
  • Decision-making
  • Facial appearance
  • Automatic processing
  • Implicit processing
  • Humble trust