Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relational Trust and Distrust: Ingredients of Face-to-Face and Media-based Communication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trust and Communication in a Digitized World

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

The analysis of relational trust and distrust between human actors is a promising but underdeveloped part of trust research. Instead of a scenario in which a trustor observes a trustee and therefore strategically gives him or her a credit of trust, the concept of relational trust focuses on the interaction and trust relationship between the actors. Here, we argue that relational trust and distrust are both part of an intersubjective “shared identity” between the interactants. We further explore their role in reciprocal face-to-face and media-based relationships. In this context, relational trust is defined as an essential communicational ingredient that enables interaction and the growth of human relationships through mutual confidence. Relational distrust, in contrast, helps interactants avoid risky relationships because it leads to skepticism within the relationship. We consider both relational trust and distrust to be ongoing communicational parts of any interaction. Based on our definition, we introduce an analytical model for further examination.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Endreß’ concept of pre-reflective, “operating trust” (“fungierendes Vertrauen”) for a similar approach.

  2. 2.

    Risks must not be confused with an actual threat or a specific danger. In this context, a risk can be defined as an insecurity about the contingencies of an interaction, including potential threats and opportunities. Contrary to risks such as uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity, relationships can also feature securities such as certainty, disambiguity or simplicity

  3. 3.

    Lewis and Weigert use affective and emotional synonymously.

  4. 4.

    See Melucci’s definitions of “cognitive definitions”, “active relationships” and “emotional investment”.

  5. 5.

    This is particularly true for children, who even more strongly rely on the testimony of others and process past experiences such as “the informant’s past inaccuracy, ignorance, uncertainty, or apparent idiosyncrasy” to feed their perceived profile of the other side (Harris 2007, p. 138).

  6. 6.

    Translation from the German term “Kernphänomen”.

  7. 7.

    We use this as a translation of the German description “Netzwerk von Kommunikationsflüssen”.

References

  • Andersen, R., et al. (2008). Trust-based recommendation systems: An axiomatic approach. In WWW’08 Proceedings of the 17th international Conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, 170–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astheimer, J., Neumann-Braun, K., & Schmidt, A. (2011). My face. Portrait photography on the social web. In U. P. Autenrieth & K. Neumann-Braun (Eds.), The visual worlds of social networks sites. Images and image-based communication on Facebook and Co (pp. 15–60). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., et al. (2005). The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierhoff, H.-W., & Rohmann, E. (2010). Psychologie des Vertrauens. In M. Maring (Ed.), Vertrauen—zwischen sozialem Kitt und der Senkung von Transaktionskosten (pp. 71–89). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blöbaum, B. (2014). Trust and journalism in a digital environment (Working Paper). Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope. Social movements in the internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, K. (2015). Pegida: What does the German far-right movement actually stand for? The Guardian Online. http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2015/jan/06/pegida-what-does-german-far-right-movement-actually-stand-for. Accessed 3 Apr 2015.

  • De Vries, P. (2006). Social presence as a conduit to the social dimensions of online trust. In W. Ijsselsteijn, Y. de Kort, & C. Midden (Eds.), Persuasive technology. First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being (pp. 55–59). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dernbach, B. (2005). Was schwarz auf weiß gedruckt ist… Vertrauen in Journalismus, Medien und Journalisten. In B. Dernbach & M. Meyer (Eds.), Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (pp. 135–154). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, A., et al. (2014). Reputation formation and the evolution of cooperation in anonymous online markets. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echterhoff, G. (2014). Achieving commonality in interpersonal communication: Shared reality and memory processes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 104–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenegger, M. (2005). Reputation in der Mediengesellschaft. Konstitution—Issues Monitoring—Issues Management. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endreß, M. (2008). Fungierendes Vertrauen—Eine prä-reflexive wie meta-reflexive Ressource. Vortrag Berlin Juli 2008, 1–17. http://www.bildungsvertrauen.de/material/endress_nw1.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2015.

  • Endreß, M. (2012). Vertrauen und Misstrauen—Soziologische Überlegungen. In C. Schilcher, M. Will-Zocholl, & M. Ziegler (Eds.), Vertrauen und Kooperation in der Arbeitswelt (pp. 81–102). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frevert, U. (2013). Vertrauensfragen. Eine Obsession der Moderne. München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldbeck, J. (2013). Analyzing the social web. Waltham: Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1983). The strenght of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, B. M. K., et al. (1992). Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2004). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L. (2007). Trust. Developmental science, 10(1), 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making. Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, B. (2008). Analyzing online social networks. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 14–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, H. S., & Park, S. (2007). Being together: User’s subjective experience of social presence in CMC Environments. In Human-computer interaction, Part 1 (pp. 844–853). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhof, K. (2008). Theorie der Öffentlichkeit als Theorie der Moderne. In C. Winter, A. Hepp, & F. Krotz (Eds.), Theorien der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft. Gundlegende Diskussionen, Forschungsfelder und Theorienentwicklung (pp. 65–89). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 865–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlan, D., et al. (2009). Trust and social collateral. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1307–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: Networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohring, M. (2004). Vertrauen in Journalismus. Theorie und Empirie. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33, 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krastev, I. (2012). Can democracy exist without trust? TedGlobal. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/ivan_krastev_can_democracy_exist_without_trust. Accessed 5 June 2014.

  • Lankes, D. R. (2008). Credibility on the internet: Shifting from authority to reliability. Journal of Documentation, 64(5), 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiterer, A. (2014). ZAPP Studie: Vertrauen in Medien ist gesunken. Zapp—Das Medienmagazin. http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/zapp/ZAPP-Studie-Vertrauen-in-Medien-gesunken,medienkritik100.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.

  • Lewicki, R. (2003). Trust and shared identity. Beyond intractability. http://www.beyondintractability.org/audiodisplay/lewicki-r-12-shared-identity1. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.

  • Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32(6), 991–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. L. (1959). Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior. Human Relations, 12(4), 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1968). Vetrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen: Probleme und Alternativen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Eds.), Vertrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts (pp. 143–160). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y.-H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in cyber-societies. Integrating the human and artificial perspectives. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 27–54). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1995). The process of collective identity. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 41–63). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of advances in trust research (pp. 285–306). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münker, S. (2009). Emergenz digitaler Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, C. (2007). Interaktivität, Interaktion, Internet. Eine Begriffsanalyse. Publizistik, 52(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quandt, T. (2012). What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, Z. (2011a). Source credibility and journalism. Journalism Practice, 5(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, Z. (2011b). User comments. The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer et al. (Eds.), Participatory journalism. Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96–117). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2003). Risikoabschätzung und -bewertung. Ein neues Konzept zum Umgang mit Komplexität, Unsicherheit und Ambiguität. In J. Beaufort, E. Gumpert, & M. Vogt (Eds.), Fortschritt und Risiko. Zur Dialektik der Verantwortung in (post-) modernen Gesellschaften (pp. 21–52). J.H. Roll: Dettelbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness and social presence. In 6th Annual International Workshop on Presence. Aalborg. http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2106/.

  • Rousseau, D., et al. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M. (2002). Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandvoss, C. (2012). Enthusiasm, trust and its erosion in mediated politics: On fans of Obama and the Liberal Democrats. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. (1974). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherchan, W., Nepal, S., & Paris, C. (2013). A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(4), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Bruce, C. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararajan, A., et al. (2013). Research commentary—Information in digital, econonic, and social networks. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 883–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanz, J. (2014). How Airbnb and Lyft finally got Americans to trust each other. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/2014/04/trust-in-the-share-economy/. Accessed 13 Nov 2014.

  • Thiedeke, U. (2007). Trust, but test! Das Vertrauen in virtuellen Gemeinschaften. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinel, M., et al. (2011). A closer look on social presence as a causing factor in computer-mediated collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 513–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley, A. L. (2001). Cultural mistrust: An important psychological construct for diagnosis and treatment of African Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(6), 555–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeineddine, F. B., & Pratto, F. (2014). Political distrust: The seed and fruit of popular empowerment. In J.-W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia. Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 106–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, L., et al. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 574–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff, S. (2013). Be the friction—Our response to the New Lords of the Ring. Frankfurter Allgemeine. http://www.faz.net/-gqz-7adzg. Accessed 1 June 2014.

  • Zucker, L. G. (1985). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840 to 1920. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 53–111). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Anil Kunnel & Thorsten Quandt

Authors
  1. Anil Kunnel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thorsten Quandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anil Kunnel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Bernd Blöbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kunnel, A., Quandt, T. (2016). Relational Trust and Distrust: Ingredients of Face-to-Face and Media-based Communication. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation