This article undertakes a substantial theoretical reorientation of research into the concept of trust. Analysing key passages in the work of Georg Simmel, it is argued that the link between trust bases and a trustful state of expectation is much weaker than is commonly assumed. In particular, Simmel recognises a `further element', a kind of faith, that is required to explain trust and its unique nature. His work has influenced key authors in the field such as Luhmann and Giddens, but the `further element' that concerns the crucial, proverbial leap of trust is still underdeveloped. Hence, the article proceeds to conceptualise trust as a mental process of three elements that further research should embrace: expectation, interpretation and suspension. Expectation is the state (outcome) at the end of the process. It is preceded by the combination of interpretation and suspension. The former concerns the experiencing of reality that provides `good reasons'. It is recognised that current trust research already moves away from the rational choice model and allows for affective and abstract (moral) trust bases. However, any form of interpretation is limited and does not inevitably enable expectation. Therefore, an additional element (in line with Simmel) is introduced in this article: suspension. This is the mechanism of bracketing the unknowable, thus making interpretative knowledge momentarily certain. Suspension enables the leap of trust. Functional consequences of trust such as risk-taking, co-operation, relationships or social capital should not be confounded with trust.

This article undertakes a substantial theoretical reorientation of research into the concept of trust. Analysing key passages in the work of Georg Simmel, it is argued that the link between trust bases and a trustful state of expectation is much weaker than is commonly assumed. In particular, Simmel recognises a 'further element' , a kind of faith, that is required to explain trust and its unique nature. His work has influenced key authors in the field such as Luhmann and Giddens, but the 'further element' that concerns the crucial, proverbial leap of trust is still underdeveloped. Hence, the article proceeds to conceptualise trust as a mental process of three elements that further research should embrace: expectation, interpretation and suspension. Expectation is the state (outcome) at the end of the process. It is preceded by the combination of interpretation and suspension. The former concerns the experiencing of reality that provides 'good reasons' . It is recognised that current trust research already moves away from the rational choice model and allows for affective and abstract (moral) trust bases. However, any form of interpretation is limited and does not inevitably enable expectation. Therefore, an additional element (in line with Simmel) is introduced in this article: suspension. This is the mechanism of bracketing the unknowable, thus making interpretative knowledge momentarily certain. Suspension enables the leap of trust. Functional consequences of trust such as risk-taking, co-operation, relationships or social capital should not be confounded with trust.In her comprehensive monograph on trust, Barbara Misztal (1996:49-50) introduces the relevant work of Georg Simmel (1858-1918) as follows:His contribution to the sociological conceptualization of this notion is significant. Many of his brilliant analyses of the nature of trust relationships were later adopted and developed by scholars such as Luhmann and Giddens. Simmel's theory of trust provides a theoretical framework for analysing personal as well as generalized (or impersonal) trust.This article will demonstrate that it is indeed worthwhile to return to Simmel for more than a passing reference and to read him carefully as an early, original source in which we can find not only essential elements of currently established trust models,

This paper contributes to the conceptual and empirical understanding of organizational trust. It confirms the importance of "contextual confidence" in institutions for building trust. Moreover, it extends models of trust production to include the effects of purposive action by the truster over and above the contextual prediction of trust emphasized in previous research. Accordingly, "active trust development" is conceptualized as a strategy to strengthen the basis for trust. Empirical evidence is drawn from a survey of 615 Hong Kong firms that manage operations in mainland China.Confidence in China's institutional context was found to have a strong positive association with trust in the local staff working within that context. Active trust development was validated as a means of enhancing trust, though its effect on trust was not as strong as that of perceived institutional effectiveness.Active trust development initiatives are particularly valuable in an environment such as contemporary China, where the institutional foundations for trust remain underdeveloped. The positive correlation of trust with organizational performance provides an incentive for managers to explore these initiatives. At the same time, government and other bodies in China and elsewhere, which are in a position to create and promote effective institutions, are encouraged to intensify their efforts in that direction.

No abstract