Attitudes of trust: experimental evidence for a morally relevant conception of trust

IF 1.4 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Sareh Pouryousefi, Caitlin C. Belfiore, Annika Hillebrandt, Jonathan Tallant
{"title":"Attitudes of trust: experimental evidence for a morally relevant conception of trust","authors":"Sareh Pouryousefi, Caitlin C. Belfiore, Annika Hillebrandt, Jonathan Tallant","doi":"10.1007/s11098-026-02553-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A multi-disciplinary body of research has long recognised trust as a pivotal feature of social and economic exchange. Empirical studies of trust by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and economists have examined different features of trust. Within this literature, the structure, components, preconditions, and implications of trust have received much attention. However, a question that has received comparatively little attention in the empirical literature is whether and to what extent trust is morally significant. Moral dimensions of trust have been discussed extensively by philosophers, who focus predominantly on interpersonal relationships involving trust. The purpose of this paper is to offer an experimental study of a dominant philosophical distinction between trust and mere reliance. Our findings suggest that the position taken in the philosophical literature is correct; there is a recognisable difference between trust and mere reliance, and, crucially, trust, but not reliance, has a moral dimension. These findings have significant implications for the existing body of empirical work on trust outside philosophy. They also help set the philosophy of trust subfield onto firm(er) foundations.","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-026-02553-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A multi-disciplinary body of research has long recognised trust as a pivotal feature of social and economic exchange. Empirical studies of trust by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and economists have examined different features of trust. Within this literature, the structure, components, preconditions, and implications of trust have received much attention. However, a question that has received comparatively little attention in the empirical literature is whether and to what extent trust is morally significant. Moral dimensions of trust have been discussed extensively by philosophers, who focus predominantly on interpersonal relationships involving trust. The purpose of this paper is to offer an experimental study of a dominant philosophical distinction between trust and mere reliance. Our findings suggest that the position taken in the philosophical literature is correct; there is a recognisable difference between trust and mere reliance, and, crucially, trust, but not reliance, has a moral dimension. These findings have significant implications for the existing body of empirical work on trust outside philosophy. They also help set the philosophy of trust subfield onto firm(er) foundations.
信任态度:与道德相关的信任概念的实验证据
一个多学科的研究机构早就认识到信任是社会和经济交流的关键特征。心理学家、社会学家、政治学家和经济学家对信任进行了实证研究,研究了信任的不同特征。在这些文献中,信任的结构、成分、前提条件和含义受到了很多关注。然而,一个在实证文献中相对较少受到关注的问题是,信任是否具有道德意义,以及在多大程度上具有道德意义。哲学家们对信任的道德维度进行了广泛的讨论,他们主要关注涉及信任的人际关系。本文的目的是对信任和单纯依赖之间的主要哲学区别进行实验研究。我们的研究结果表明,哲学文献中采取的立场是正确的;信任和单纯的依赖之间有着明显的区别,而且至关重要的是,信任(而非依赖)具有道德层面。这些发现对现有的哲学之外的信任实证工作具有重要意义。它们还有助于将信任子领域的哲学建立在公司(er)的基础上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书