Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Abstract

worthiness and capabilities become realistically defined, they can be integrated together" and that the models presented by Hosmer and Jones would both be enhanced by a model that "integrates capabilities with trust." Although Tinsley's commentary uses trust and trustworthiness interchangeably, the integration he describes (called source credibility) is what we collectively call characteristics of the trustee. We believe that trust also should include a consideration of characteristics of the trustor (i.e., propensity). Both Tinsley's and Wekselberg's proposed redefinitions of trust also ignore the role of risk, an important component in a model of trust, which is captured in our definition of trust through vulnerability. We do not agree with Tinsley's characterization of our model as one that sees "trust as a reliance upon ethical behavior by others." Instead, our model allows for the possibility of "trust between thieves," a situation where benevolence and ability are the critical antecedents. Adherence to any commonly accepted, normative ethical rules for conduct is not essential to our concept of trust. We are, however, in complete agreement with Tinsley that the model of trust needs to be extended to the group and organization levels of analysis. The importance of workgroups trusting each other and organizations that are in supplier-customer relationships developing a level of trust cannot be overstated. In the development of our model of dyadic trust, we were very conscious of this needed extension and attempted to develop a model that would form the basis for such extensions.