Trustworthiness

Hardin, Russell

doi:10.1086/233695

Cited by 362 publications

(253 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, rational choice theorists explain why individuals act trustworthily in certain circumstances by demonstrating that trustworthiness promotes self-interest. A common rational choice strategy shows that trustworthy behavior can be expected in communities where untrustworthy behavior is likely to be detected and punished (Rescher 1989;Blais 1987;Adler 1994;Hardin 2002). …”

Section: Preliminary Distinctions and Scope Of The Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Frost‐Arnold¹

2013

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since anonymous agents can spread misinformation with impunity, many people advocate for greater accountability for internet speech. This paper provides a veritistic argument that accountability mechanisms can cause significant epistemic problems for internet encyclopedias and social media communities. I show that accountability mechanisms can undermine both the dissemination of true beliefs and the detection of error. Drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics, I suggest alternative mechanisms for increasing the trustworthiness of internet communication.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Distinctions and Scope Of The Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Frost‐Arnold¹

2013

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trust is, in fact, future-oriented (Linell and Keselman, 2011: 156), i.e. one's decision to trust another person is crucially related to their expectations about the trustee's future behavior (see also Gambetta, 1988;Hardin, 2002;Möllering, 2006). The CEO concludes the letter by explicitly addressing stakeholders' concerns in this respect.…”

Section: Repairing Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of trust-repair discourse

Fuoli

Paradis

2014

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a novel theoretical framework for examining trust-repair discourse. The model identifies two fundamental discourse strategies available to the trust-breaker when trust is at stake (i) to engage with and act upon the discourses that represent a potential source of distrust -neutralize the negative, (ii) to communicate a trustworthy discourse identity -emphasize the positive. These strategies are realized in discourse through the use of dialogic engagement and evaluative/a↵ective language, respectively. The ultimate communicative goal of the strategies is that of promoting the addressees' positive (re-)assessment of the speaker's ability, integrity and benevolence. The model is applied to the analysis of the CEO letter published by BP one year after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The analysis has the twofold purpose of demonstrating the viability of the model and determining the discourse strategies deployed by the CEO to repair trust in the company after the accident.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that trust relations are self-sustaining once they have been developed (Hardin, 2002). A trust relation develops through gradual risk-taking and reciprocation (Cook, Yamagishi, Cheshire et al, 2005).…”

Section: Reciprocal Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A trust relation develops through gradual risk-taking and reciprocation (Cook, Yamagishi, Cheshire et al, 2005). It is a learning process in which the truster learns to judge the trustworthiness of the trusted and the trusted learns that it pays off to fulfill the truster's trust (Hardin, 2002).…”

Section: Reciprocal Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, given that trust is context-dependent (Hardin, 2002), it is important that what players discover about each other are the kind of similarities that is conducive to joint learning of the optimal outcome. Some of the similarities or dissimilarities between players might interfere with or distract from the optimal solution.…”

Section: Joint Learning and Emergence Of Reciprocal Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation