Ripples of trust : reconciling rational and relational accounts of the source of trust

Abstract

Despite significant interest in trust over the last decade, the literature has yet to explain adequately the sources of trust, and especially, the sources of trust in government The aim of this thesis is to understand whether trust in government is sourced at the level of political institutions, or whether experiences in other institutional domains such as the family (a primary institution) and the local community (an intermediate institution) play a part. Other researchers have not empirically explored the development of trust from all three institutional levels in the same study. In this thesis sources of trust are examined at three institutional levels using a rational and relational process model to compare rational choice and socio-psychological/cultural theoretical perspectives. An argument is presented and supported to demonstrate that by conceptualising trust in government and its organisations as an attitude which is learned through our socialisation experiences, factors from rational choice and socio-psychological perspectives can be used to provide a greater understanding of how trust develops at different institutional levels. The plausibility of causal pathways frorn these different theoretical perspectives is tested in the Australian context. Particular attention is given to Putnam's social capital theory, and to testing the assertion that trust is sourced at the intennediate institutional level through involvement in clubs and associations. A major finding is that civic engagement and associational membership, that is, socialisation at the intermediate institutional level, has little or no role as a source of any kind of trust. The study demonstrates that trust in others learned through socialisation in the primary institution of the family ripples out as the source of both social and political trust. As well, it shows that rational factors play a role equal to socio-psychological factors in the development of attitudes of trust towards both strangers and government. Socio-psychological factors develop our trust and help us to generalise it, while rational factors dampen but do not destroy our trust. Several factors which were common across different institutional contexts, such as satisfaction with life, perceived dishonesty in others, and feeling powerless, suggest that we combine rational and relational factors in deciding whether to give our trust. While we learn to trust in the primary institution of the family, our experiences during life teach us to be realistic in our expectations of others and give us greater assurance about who to trust and when. The empirical test shows that trust in different institutional contexts is based on different factors, yet trust in one institutional context is related to trust in other institutional contexts. Those favouring a rational choice explanation have focused more on government, and those favouring a relational explanation of trust have focussed more on society. However, these results provide support for the idea that both theoretical perspectives play an equal part in the development of trust at all institutional levels. It seems we can go no further in understanding the sources of trust by testing these two theoretical perspectives. Future work on trust should be towards the integration of these perspectives.