Advertisement

Trust/Distrust: Impact on Engaged Learning

  • Martha J. HoffEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Today’s youth experience life with and through their cell/smart phones. In researching the impact of mobile technology on literacy practices, I found that while access to phones and digital spaces was not a significant issue, trust was. Trust generalizes from social interactions and is positively associated with trusting of unknown others. Those who trust are comfortable engaging with others not previously known; they trust that others, through association, have similar interests and will behave in certain, predictable, positive ways. The willingness to be open to and actively engage with others is assumed. Prior experiences impact how we trust. While mobile technology can lead us to doors that open into new spaces and places, the how and why of one’s trust determines not only if that door is opened but the type and level of engagement and interaction entered. When distrust is present, the ethos of participatory cultures (engage, participate, collaborate, cooperate, and disperse knowledge) is undermined. Distrust is different from low trust, with much stronger and deeper emotional roots. We cannot assume that because youth have technology and seemed to be constantly engaged with it means they are willing to participate, collaborate, cooperative in all places and spaces. Understanding why and where an individual’s trust/distrust is situated is important to understanding how and why they choose to engage in online/digital spaces. To realize the benefits of mobile learning and the online and classroom spaces characterized by collaboration, social connection, and distributed knowledge, we must acknowledge the diversity of engagement.

Keywords

Trust Distrust Engaged learning Participatory communities Youth 

References

  1. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Brownlie, J., and A. Howson. 2005. “Leaps of faith” and MMR: An empirical study of trust. Sociology 39 (2): 221–239.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, Y.S., and S.R. Fang. 2013. Antecedents and distinctions between online trust and distrust: Predicting high- and low-risk Internet behaviors. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 14 (2): 149–166.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, K., Cheshire, C., Gerbasi, A., and Aven, B. 2009. Assessing trustworthiness in providers. eTrust: Forming relationships in the online world, New York, NY: Russell Sage, 189–214.Google Scholar
  5. Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Dimoka, A. 2010. What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. Mis Quarterly, 373–396.Google Scholar
  7. DuFour, R., R. DuFour, and R. Eaker. 2008. Revisiting learning communities at work, new insights for improving schools. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  8. Dumouchel, P. 2005. Trust as an action. European Journal of Sociology 46: 417–428.Google Scholar
  9. Ess, C.M. 2010. Trust and new communication technologies: Vicious circles, virtuous circles, possible futures. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 23: 287–305.Google Scholar
  10. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gefen, D. 2000. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28: 725–737.Google Scholar
  12. Glanville, J.L., and P. Paxton. 2007. How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Social Psychology Quarterly 70 (3): 230–343.Google Scholar
  13. Glanville, J.L., M.A. Anderson, and P. Paxton. 2013. Do social connections create trust? Social Psychology Quarterly 70: 230–242.Google Scholar
  14. Heckscher, C. 2015. Trust in a complex world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hoff, M.J. 2014. The impact of new technology on literacy practices: An urban perspective. Order number 3621206. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://search-proquest-com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/pqdtglobal/docview/1541549574/E9B635A58E0542F3PQ/1?accountid=13567. Accessed 3 Dec 2018.
  16. Hoff, M.J. 2016. “I don’t conversate with those I don’t know”: The role of trust/distrust in online engagement. Digital Culture & Education 8 (2): 90–106.Google Scholar
  17. Hogg, M., and G. Vaughan. 2005. Introduction to social psychology. 4th ed. Sydney: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  18. Hsu, M.H., T.L. Lu, C.H. Yen, and C.M. Chang. 2007. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 65: 153–169.Google Scholar
  19. Ibrahim, E.N.M., and N. Walid. 2014. Trust contributing factors in m-learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 129: 554–561.Google Scholar
  20. Ito, M., S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, d. boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, …, and L. Tripp. 2010. Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. 2006. Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, H., K. Clinton, R. Purushotma, A.J. Robison, and M. Weigel. 2009. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, G.R., and J.M. George. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 531–546.Google Scholar
  24. Kassin, S. 2005. Social pyschology. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Klein, J. 2010. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, ed. R. Frodeman, J. Klein, and C. Mitcham. Detroit: Wayne State University.Google Scholar
  26. Kramer, R.M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 569–598.Google Scholar
  27. Kuan, H.H., and G.W. Bock. 2005. The collective reality of trust: An investigation of social relations and networks on trust in multi-channel retailers. In Proceedings of the 13th European conference on information systems, Regensburg, 26–28 May 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Lankshear, C., and M. Knobel. 2011. New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Lewicki, R.J., D.J. McAllister, and R.J. Bies. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 438–458.Google Scholar
  30. Lowry, P.B., R.M. Scheutzler, J.S. GIboney, and T.A. Gregory. 2015. Is trust always better than distrust? The potential value of distrust in virtual teams engaged in short-term decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation 24: 723–752.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Mackely, A. 2013. Murmuration: Building a participatory culture. Teacher Librarian 40 (4): 23–27.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, S. 1994. Optimism and pessimism in trust. In Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Caracas, Venezuela), J. Ramirez, Ed., McGraw-Hill Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734.Google Scholar
  35. McKnight, D.H., and N.L. Chervany. 2001. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (2): 35–59.Google Scholar
  36. McKnight, D.H., L.L. Cummings, and N.L. Chervany. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 473–490.Google Scholar
  37. McKnight, D.H., C.J. Kacmar, and V. Choudhury. 2004. Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. e-Service Journal 3 (2): 35–55.Google Scholar
  38. Messick, S. 1995. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist 50 (9): 741–749.Google Scholar
  39. Messick, D.M., and R.M. Kramer. 2001. Trust as a form of shallow morality. In Trust in society, ed. K.S. Cook, 89–117. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Möllering, G. 2002. Perceived trustworthiness and inter-firm governance: Empirical evidence from the UK printing industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics 26 (2): 139–160.Google Scholar
  41. Mooradian, T., B. Renzl, and K. Matzler. 2006. Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning 37 (4): 523–540.Google Scholar
  42. Nepal, S., W. Sherchan, and C. Paris. 2012. Building trust communities using social trust. International conference on user modeling, adaptation, and personalization. In Advances in user modeling, Girona, 243–255, 11–15 Jul 2011.Google Scholar
  43. Nonnecke, B., J. Preece, D. Andrews, and R. Voutour. 2004. Online lurkers tell why. In Proceedings of the tenth Americas conference on information systems, 1–7. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Paxton, P. 2007. Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces 86 (1): 47–76.Google Scholar
  45. Pearson, S., M.C. Mont, and S. Crane. 2005. Persistent and dynamic trust: Analysis and the related impact of trusted platforms. In Trust management, 355–363. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Pinker, S., K.A. Thomas, Pl DeScioli, and O.S. Hague. 2004. The psychology of coordination and common knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (4): 657–676.Google Scholar
  47. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  48. Ridings, C.M., D. Gefen, and B. Arinze. 2002. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11 (3): 271–295.Google Scholar
  49. Rotter, J.B. 1980. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist 35 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
  50. Rousseau, D.M., S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 393–404.Google Scholar
  51. Saunders, N.L., G. Dietz, and A. Thornhill. 2014. Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or independent but co-existing? Journal of Human Resources 67 (6): 639–665.Google Scholar
  52. Schoorman, R.D., R.C. Mayer, and J.H. Davis. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review 32: 334–354.Google Scholar
  53. Shercan, W., S. Nepal, and C. Paris. 2013. A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Computing Surveys 45 (4): Article 47.Google Scholar
  54. Stolle, D. 2001. Getting to trust: An analysis of the importance of institutions, families, personal experiences and group membership. In Social capital and participation in everyday life, 118–133. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Sully de Luque, M.F., and M. Javidan. 2004. Uncertainty avoidance. In Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, ed. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, 602–652. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Yamagishi, T. 2011. Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Yu, B., and M.P. Singh. 2000. A social mechanism for reputation management in electronic communities. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on cooperative information agents (CIA ’00), 154–165. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Yu, B., and M.P. Singh. 2002. An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS ’02), 294–301. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and CurriculumWarner School of Education and Human Development, University of RochesterRochesterUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Hea-Jin Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of College of Education and Human EcologyThe Ohio State University at LimaLimaUSA

Personalised recommendations