Trust as performance

Carter, J. Adam

doi:10.1111/phis.12214

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, trust and trustworthiness become themselves indicators of the quality and effectiveness of the interactions between human and non-human agents in achieving particular goals within that environment. We consider this line of reasoning to be similar to Carter's (2022) focus on cooperative exchange in his 'trust as performance' approach. The norms of trust and trustworthiness apply more broadly to the digital environment in the evaluation of the extent to which constituent human and non-human agents could collectively deliver the outcomes to which they are entrusted.…”

Section: E-trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus would then be on evidence of honesty, competence and reliability, so that a trustor is then able to decide if a trustee is worth the trust or not. Rather than to analyse trust in terms of trustworthiness, Carter ( 2023 ) proposes to evaluate the latter like the former in terms of a state, an action or a process that has a constitutive aim (Carter 2022 ; Sosa 2021 ). Both trust and trustworthiness encompass performance that pertains to a cooperative exchange or engagement assessible in terms of varying degrees of success.…”

Section: An Epistemic Environment Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust

Ho,

Caals

2024

ABR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the digital health context, we consider the following questions: How does the European Union (EU) seek to facilitate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI systems through the AI Act? What does trustworthiness and trust mean in the AI Act, and how are they linked to some of the ongoing discussions of these terms in bioethics, law, and philosophy? What are the normative components of trustworthiness? And how do the requirements of the AI Act relate to these components? We first explain how the EU seeks to create an epistemic environment of trust through the AI Act to facilitate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI systems. The legislation establishes a governance regime that operates as a socio-epistemological infrastructure of trust which enables a performative framing of trust and trustworthiness. The degree of success that performative acts of trust and trustworthiness have achieved in realising the legislative goals may then be assessed in terms of statutorily defined proxies of trustworthiness. We show that to be trustworthy, these performative acts should be consistent with the ethical principles endorsed by the legislation; these principles are also manifested in at least four key features of the governance regime. However, specified proxies of trustworthiness are not expected to be adequate for applications of AI systems within a regulatory sandbox or in real-world testing. We explain why different proxies of trustworthiness for these applications may be regarded as ‘special’ trust domains and why the nature of trust should be understood as participatory.

show abstract

Section: E-trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Epistemic Environment Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust

Ho,

Caals

2024

ABR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One point of note here: forbearing from reciprocity, in a sense that would be analogous with distrust, would involve refraining from accepting the obligation incurred with being entrusted with something, as opposed to, accepting the obligation and then betraying the trust. For discussion of forbearance in trusting (and distrusting), see Carter (2022). reliance to reciprocity, the other reciprocity to reliance); the conjunction of the two performances (exhaustive of the cooperative exchange) gets very near full marks precisely because nearly all evaluative norms on both sides are met; success, competence and aptness norms are satisfied on the trustee's side; success and competence but not aptness norms are satisfied on the trustor's side.…”

Section: Objectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Objectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and trustworthiness

Carter

2022

Philos Phenomenol Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I motivate and defend a new way of theorising about trust and trustworthiness -and their relationship to each other -by locating both within a broader picture that captures largely overlooked symmetries on both the trustor's and trustee's side of a cooperative exchange.The view defended here takes good cooperation as a theoretical starting point; on the view proposed, cooperation between trustor and trustee is working well when achievements in trust and in responding to trust are matched on both sides of the trust exchange. In a bit more detail, the trustor 'matches' her achievement in trusting (an achievement in fitting reliance to reciprocity) with the trustee's achievement in responding to trust (an achievement in fitting reciprocity to reliance). From this starting point, we can then appreciate symmetrical ways that the trustor and trustee can (respectively) fall short, by violating what are shown to be symmetrical evaluative norms -of success, competence and aptness -that regulate the attempts made by both trustor and trustee. The overall picture has important advantages over the received way of theorising about how trust stands to trustworthiness, and it clears the way -by identifying key questions that have been obscured -to making further progress.

show abstract

“…While there is a longer theoretical discussion to have regarding how to evaluate 'good trusting'[14], it is our position that hopeful trust is a pragmatic stance that clearly makes sense, so could therefore be considered 'good'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Un-Paradoxing Privacy: Considering Hopeful Trust

Knowles

Conchie

2023

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant literature has proposed an important role for trust in moderating people’s willingness to disclose personal information, but there is scant HCI literature that deeply explores the relationship between privacy and trust in apparent privacy paradox circumstances. Attending to this gap, this paper reports a qualitative study examining how people account for continuing to use services that conflict with their stated privacy preferences, and how trust features in these accounts. Our findings undermine the notion that individuals engage in strategic thinking about privacy, raising important questions regarding the explanatory power of the well-known privacy calculus model and its proposed relationship between privacy and trust. Finding evidence of hopeful trust in participants’ accounts, we argue that trust allows people to morally account for their ‘paradoxical’ information disclosure behavior. We propose that effecting greater alignment between people’s privacy attitudes and privacy behavior—or ‘un-paradoxing privacy’—will require greater regulatory assurances of privacy.

show abstract

Trust as performance

Cited by 17 publications

References 134 publications

How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust

How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust

Trust and trustworthiness

Un-Paradoxing Privacy: Considering Hopeful Trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About