28. Psychology of trust
As I argue
in my philosophy blog (http://philosophyonthemove.blogspot.nl),
people have an instinct for self-interest and survival as well as an instinct
for altruism, at least within the groups to which one feels oneself to belong.
According to work in social psychology this is reflected in two opposing mind
frames that people have, a frame of defence and mistrust, in protecting
one’s interests (self-interest) and a frame of trust, in solidarity
with the group (altruism).
A mind
frame operates as a mental framework in which observation, sense making and
interpretation take place, plus a repertoire of responses. This may be compared
with my earlier analysis of scripts (in item 13 of this blog): what is observed
is fitted into scripts and that triggers response, again according to scripts.
In the defensive frame one will be inclined to scrutinize observed conduct for
signs of danger and threat, taking untrustworthiness as the default: one
mistrusts until contrary evidence arises. In the solidarity frame one will take
trustworthiness as the default.
The default
of trust rather than distrust is to be recommended. With mistrust, the trustee
has to prove trustworthiness and that is as impossible as proving that a theory
is true. And distrust blocks the opportunity for a relationship to develop and
demonstrate trustworthiness. With trust as the default, when adverse conduct is
experienced one can narrow the room for trust and tighten controls.
The main
point now is that one cannot be in two frames at the same time, but the other
frame hovers in the background. Being in one frame one may switch to the other,
depending on evidence, experience and emotions. The more robust a frame
is, the less easily one will switch. When one feels threatened the solidarity
frame may switch into the protective frame, and once that happens the reverse
switch tends to be difficult. There is a saying that ‘trust comes on foot and
departs on horseback’. The solidarity frame often is less robust than the
protective frame.
The
adoption of one frame or another depends on relational signalling: one
treats observed conduct as a signal that indicates the frame the other person
is in. That observation is fitted into scripts corresponding with the present
frame. The trustee should be aware that what he/she does or says has that
effect, and when being in the solidarity frame he/she should prevent doubt and
ambiguity. Having received an e-mail message one should always respond to it,
lest the sender wonders whether the massage was received and is getting
attention, or the receiver is not interested.
This
analysis further emphasizes the importance of openness discussed in the
previous item of this blog. I add here that when one is in the solidarity frame
one should make sure that this is reflected in what one says and does:
demonstrating commitment, competence, and fair play. It is also important not
to create too high expectations that can only lead to the disappointment that
may trigger the partner’s switch to the self-interested frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment