The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Finally, we cannot assume that we begin with a blank slate of trust or distrust in relationships. In fact, we seldom approach others with no information. Rather, we tend to approach the other with some initial level of trust or of caution (McKnight, Cummings, and Chervaney, 1998). In fact, some authors have argued that there is a strong disposition to overtrust in early relationships, a situation where the trustor’s trust exceeds the level that might be warranted by situational circumstances (Goel, Bell, and Pierce, 2005). Thus, determining the appropriate level of initial trust prior to substantial data about the other party may be more difficult than determining the appropriate level after some data have been collected (Ullman-Margalit, 2004).

  In addition, we develop expectations about the degree to which we can trust new others, depending on a number of factors:

  Personality predispositions. Research has shown that individuals differ in their predisposition to trust another (Rotter, 1971; Wrightsman, 1994). The higher an individual ranks in predisposition to trust, the more she expects trustworthy actions from the other, independent of her own actions. Similarly, research has shown that individuals differ in their predispositions to be cynical or show distrust (Kanter and Mirvis, 1989).

  Psychological orientation. Deutsch (1985) has characterized relationships in terms of their psychological orientations, or the complex synergy of “interrelated cognitive, motivational and moral orientations” (p. 94). He maintains that people establish and maintain social relationships partly on the basis of these orientations, such that orientations are influenced by relationships and vice versa. To the extent that people strive to keep their orientations internally consistent, they may seek out relationships that are congruent with their own psyche.

  Reputations and stereotypes. Even if we have no direct experience with another person, our expectations may be shaped by what we learn about him or her through friends, associates, and hearsay (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, and Treadway, 2003). The other’s reputation often creates strong expectations that lead us to look for elements of trust or distrust and also to approach the relationship attuned to trust or to suspicion (Glick and Croson, 2001).

  Experience over time. With most people, we develop facets of experience as we talk, work, coordinate, and communicate. Some of these facets are strong in trust, while others may be strong in distrust. For example, one study of organizational communication showed that as frequency of communication increases, the parties’ general predisposition toward the other party decreased in importance, while organizational and situational factors (e.g., tenure, autonomy) increased in importance in the determination of trust. Over time, it is likely that either trust or distrust context or experience elements begin to dominate the experience base, leading to a stable and easily defined relationship. As these patterns stabilize, we tend to generalize across the scope of the relationship and describe it as one of high or low trust or distrust.

  Implications of This Revised View of Trust.

  By incorporating the revisions just described into existing models of trust, we can summarize our ideas about trust and distrust within relationships:

  Relationships are multifaceted, and each facet represents an interaction that provides us with information about the other. The greater the variety of settings and contexts in which the parties interact, the more complex and multifaceted the relationship becomes.

  Within the same relationship, elements of trust and distrust may peacefully coexist because they are related to different experiences with the other or knowledge of the other in varied contexts.

  Relationships balanced with trust and distrust are likely to be healthier than relationships grounded only in trust. Particularly in organizational and managerial relationships, “neither complete lack of trust, nor total trust, nor very high levels of affective attachment, nor enduring social reliance, nor destructive mistrust and betrayal, are appropriate or positive for organizational purposes” (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003, p. 297). Particularly in business relationships, unquestioning trust without distrust is more likely to create more problems than solutions (Wicks, Berman, and Jones, 1999; Blois, 2003). Similarly, unquestioning distrust (e.g., paranoia) can sometimes be healthy, but sometimes perverse (Kramer, 2001, 2002). To quote the popular caution: “Trust . . . but verify!”

  Facets of trust or distrust are likely to be calculus based or identification based. Earlier, we defined trust as confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct and distrust as confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct. We now elaborate on those definitions: Calculus-based trust (CBT) is a confident positive expectation regarding another’s conduct. It is grounded in impersonal transactions, and the overall anticipated benefits to be derived from the relationship are assumed to outweigh any anticipated costs.

  Calculus-based distrust (CBD) is a confident negative expectation regarding another’s conduct. It is also grounded in impersonal transactions, and the overall anticipated costs to be derived from the relationship are assumed to outweigh the anticipated benefits.

  Identification-based trust (IBT) is a confident positive expectation regarding another’s conduct. It is grounded in perceived compatibility of values, common goals, and positive emotional attachment to the other.

  Identification-based distrust (IBD) is a confident negative expectation regarding another’s conduct, grounded in perceived incompatibility of values, dissimilar goals, and negative emotional attachment to the other.

  Characterizing Relationships Based on Trust Elements

  Because there can be elements of each type of trust and distrust in a relationship, there are many types of relationships, varying in the combination of elements of calculus-based trust, calculus-based distrust, identification-based trust, and identification-based distrust. All of these types of relationships theoretically exist, but given the relative infancy of this theory, we cannot effectively explore or discuss all of the possibilities.

  To simplify this framework, let us assume that we can characterize relationships as simply high or low in the number of CBT, CBD, IBT, and IBD elements. This reduces the framework to sixteen possible combinations of trust elements (see table 5.1). Each row in this table represents a type of relationship based on the pattern of high or low levels of CBT, CBD, IBT, and IBD. These combinations are listed in the first four columns, and a brief description of the relationship is found in the last column.

  Table 5.1 Sixteen Relationship Types Based on Dominant Trust and Distrust Elements

  Based on our model, all sixteen types of relationship are hypothetically possible and may be found among one’s friends, acquaintances, and professional associates. However, space limitations in this chapter only permit us to offer a few selective illustrations.

  Relationship 1 of table 5.1, low in all forms of trust and distrust, represents new relationships in which the actors have little prior information and no expectations about each other. Type 1 relationships may also not be new to us, but because we have had such limited interaction with the other, there has been no basis for developing significant trust or distrust. Nevertheless, we tend to extend a modicum of trust. We walk into a new dry cleaning store chosen at random and give the attendant our favorite suit because we trust that the dry cleaner will clean it, not ruin it. The very existence of the shop’s appearance as a clean, professional-looking, legitimate business is sufficient to satisfy our trust. Thus, while the “low-low-low-low” situation may exist hypothetically, in fact this type of relationship may occur only when there are actual data for the trustor to infer that low levels of trust and distrust are the most appropriate disposition (Jeffries and Reed, 2000).

  Relationship 2 is high only in CBT. This is likely to be a business or professional relationship in which the actors have had a number of successful exchanges and transactions that are beneficial to them. Over time, each person’s behavior has been positive and consistent, and the parties rely on each other to continue to act in the same way. For ex
ample, my investment counselor has made very good decisions about my money over time, and I continue to take his advice about when it is time to buy or sell.

  Relationship 6, high in CBT and IBT, represents a prototypical high-trust relationship. Both parties benefit greatly from the relationship, so they seek out opportunities to be together and do things together. Continued success in these interactions enhances their trust.

  MANAGING TRUST AND DISTRUST IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS

  As we have noted, trust and distrust develop as people gain knowledge of one another. One of the benefits of our model of relationships based on trust is its clear explanation of changes in relationships over time. Relationship changes can be mapped by identifying actions that change the balance of the trust and distrust elements in the relationship or fundamentally alter the type of interaction in the relationship. In this section, we identify behaviors that previous research suggests can change perceptions of trust and distrust.

  Actions That Build Calculus-Based Trust

  People who are involved in relationships with high levels of CBT and low levels of IBT (such as relationship 2 in table 5.1) may have relatively stable expectations about these relationships. Initially CBT may be based on only the other’s reputation for trustworthiness (Gabarro, 1978; Butler, 1991). Over time, CBT develops as we observe the other and identify certain behavior patterns over time. Previous research has demonstrated that effective business relationships are based on predictability (Jennings, 1971), reliability (McAllister, 1995), and consistency of behavior (Gabarro, 1978). In work relationships, then, CBT is enhanced if people behave the same appropriate way consistently (at different times and in different situations), meet stated deadlines, and perform tasks and follow through with planned activities as promised.

  In any context, if people act consistently and reliably, we are likely to see them as credible and trustworthy (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998). For example, students often want to be able to trust their faculty instructors. To the degree that faculty clearly announce their course requirements and grading criteria, use those standards consistently, follow the course outline clearly, and keep their promises, they enjoy a great deal of trust from students.

  Emotions can also build trust. Happiness and gratitude can build trust, while anger decreases it. The salience of the emotion’s cause and familiarity with the target moderate the relationship between emotions and trust (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005).

  Strategies to Manage Calculus-Based Distrust

  As we have noted, CBT and CBD are often founded on a cost-benefit analysis. If the costs of depending on someone’s behavior outweigh the benefits, we are typically inclined to change or terminate the relationship. This may be feasible with personal friendships, but it is often not possible to leave professional relationships even when CBD is high.3 Consequently, it is necessary to manage CBD so that the parties can continue to work together.

  There are several strategies for managing CBD:

  Agree explicitly on expectations as to what is to be done, on deadlines for completion, and on the penalties for failing to comply with them. This upfront commitment by the parties to a course of action and to the consequences for nonperformance sets explicit expectations for behavior that may reduce the fear parties have about the vulnerabilities associated with working together.

  Agree on procedures for monitoring and verifying the other’s actions. If we distrust someone, we seek ways to monitor what he does to ensure that future trust violations do not occur. Writing about disarmament during the Cold War, Osgood (1962) explicitly proposed unilateral steps that antagonistic parties can take to signal good faith and an intention to build trustworthiness.

  Cultivate alternative ways to have one’s needs met. Someone who distrusts another (and the other’s possible performance in the future) tries to find ways to minimize future interaction or discover alternative ways to get needs met. Distrust can be managed by letting the other know that one has an alternative and is willing to invoke it if there are further trust violations.

  Increase the other’s awareness of how his own performance is perceived by others. Workplace difficulties are sometimes alleviated when supervisors discuss performance expectations with subordinates rather than assuming that both have the same understanding of what constitutes appropriate work behavior. Many workplace diversity efforts are actually attempts to familiarize workers from different cultures with one another. Behaviors that seemed strange or inconsistent may be explained as differences in cultural patterns of interaction. Once the parties recognize the logic inherent in each other’s behavior, they are likely to view the other as consistent and predictable (Foeman, 1991), which enhances CBT.

  Actions That Build IBT

  Research indicates that trust is enhanced if the parties spend time together-sharing personal values, perceptions, motives, and goals (Gabarro, 1978). But specific time must be set aside for engaging in this activity. Parties in work relationships may do this in the course of working together, while parties in personal relationships explicitly devote time to these activities. In general, parties should engage in processes that permit them to share:

  Common group membership (Brewer and Kramer, 1986)

  Common interests

  Common goals and objectives

  Similar reactions to common situations

  Situations where they stand for the same values and principles, thereby demonstrating integrity (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998)

  For example, Kramer (2001), interpreting a stream of research on the impact of common group membership on identity and trust, argues that common group and organizational membership was sufficient to solidify trust, and in a way that went significantly beyond the ability of simple reputation or calculative-based considerations for trust development. Common group membership creates actions that also have expressive and symbolic meanings: “engaging in acts of trust thus provides organizational members with an opportunity to communicate to others the symbolic value they attach to their organizational identity. From this perspective, the psychological significance of trust acts resides . . . in the social motives and affiliative needs of group members that are met through such actions” (Kramer, 2001, p. 171).

  Similarly, Rothman (1997) has proposed a four-step framework for resolving identity-based disputes. The second key step in the framework is resonance, or the process of reflexive reframing, by which parties discover common values, concerns, interests, and needs. In Rothman’s framework, effective completion of the resonance step permits individuals to establish a basis of commonality (IBT) on which to build mutually acceptable solutions to managing their dispute. Moreover, studies in organizations have indicated that one component of managers’ trust in their subordinates is the degree to which the employee demonstrates that she has the best interests of the manager or the organization (or both) at heart (Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis, 1996; Butler, 1995). If we believe that the other shares our concerns and goals, IBT is enhanced. IBT may also be increased if we observe the other reacting as we believe we would react in another context (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998); however, research on the connection between similarity and perceptions of trustworthiness has produced mixed results (see Huston and Levinger, 1978).

  It should be noted that IBT has a strong emotional component and is probably largely affective in nature (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995, 1996; McAllister, 1995). Despite our attempt to think logically about our relationships, how we respond to others often depends on our idiosyncratic, personal reactions to aspects of the other’s physical self-presentation (Chaiken, 1986), the situation and circumstances under which we meet the person (Jones and Brehm, 1976), or even our mood at the time of the encounter. Consequently, we are likely to build IBT only with others whom we feel legitimately share our goals, interests, perceptions, and values and if we meet under circumstances that facilitate our learning of that similarity.

  Strategies to Manage IBD

  If we believe that another’s values, perceptions, an
d behaviors are damaging to our own, we often find it difficult to maintain even a semblance of a working relationship. However, if we anticipate that we will have a long-term relationship with someone who invokes elements of IBD and believe we have limited alternatives, there are strategies for managing the encounter that offer both opportunities for self-protection and attainment of mutual goals. One of the most important strategies is to develop sufficient CBT so that the parties can be comfortable with the straightforward behavioral expectations that each has for the relationship.

  As we noted in the section on managing CBD, explicitly specifying and negotiating expected behaviors may be necessary to provide both parties with a comfort zone sufficient to sustain their interaction. It may also be helpful for the actors to openly acknowledge the areas of their mutual distrust. By doing so, they can explicitly talk about areas where they distrust each other and establish safeguards that anticipate distrustful behaviors and afford protection against potential consequences (Lewicki and Stevenson, 1998). For example, if the parties have strong disagreements about certain value-based issues (religious beliefs, political beliefs, personal values), they may be able to design ways to keep these issues from interfering with their ability to work together in more calculus-based transactions. If the costs and benefits of consistent action are clear to both parties, the groundwork for CBT may be established. This enables them to interact in future encounters with some confidence that despite deep-seated differences, they will not be fundamentally disadvantaged or harmed in the relationship.