Resume Ed 087 069 Cs 500 562

Communication between persons who trust each other differs from that between those who do not. A new conceptualization of trust is offered, drawing from game theory, credibility research, sensitivity/ encounter groups, and studies of generalized expectations of trustworthiness, which makes an important distinction between the cognitive state of iiust and trusting behaviors. Trusting behavior occurs only in situations in which the trusting person perceives his outcomes to be contingent upon the behavior of the other person; has some confidence in his expectations for the other's behavior; and has available options ()I= increasing or decreasing his vulnerability to the other. The cognitive state of trust involves perceiving the other as knowing the nature of the contingency in their relationship, capable of performing the behavior he chooses and motivated to prevent unacceptably negative outcomes being conferred upon the truster. Trusting behavior consists of increasing one's vulnerability to the other, and may take many forms. Some empirical support for this conceptualization is reported and the implications of this concept for communication research are discussed. TRUST IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Several lines of research attest to the importance of trust in communication. As an antecedent condition, mediating. variable or consequent state, trust has'been demonstrated to be a concept necessary to explain some of the forms and effects of communication behavior. A better understanding of trust in interpersonal relationships will make a significant contribution to communication theory and research. Communication behavior in groups differs in significant ways depending upon the amount of trust among the participants. Gibb characterized messages occurring in a climate of distrust as evaluating others rather than accepting them, attempts to gain control of the group and strategems in the service of unannounced goals. These forms of communication are less likely when the group members are aware of reciprocated trust.' When a confederate deliberately engaged in trust-destroying behavior, Leathers observed participants in his groups communicating in a more tense, inflexible and personally antagonistic manner.2 Mellinger found that the members of a research institute who trusted each other understood the others' positions more accurately if they communicated about relevant issues. However, if they did not trust the person with whom they talked, communication did not increase accuracy. Mellinger concluded that if B is motivated to communicate with A, and if B distrusts A, then he will communicate in such a way as to conceal from A information about his own attitudes."3 The audience's trust is an important factor in determining the effect of a message. Other factors being the same, the counsel of trusted speakers is accepted and they may effectively use stylistic devices which are counterproductive for low credible speakers.4 Communication sometimes but not always enables individuals to trust each other. Deutsch found that an opportunity to communicate increased the rate of cooperation between "individualistically" motivated subjects. Without opportunity to communicate, however, "individualistically" motivated subjects cooperated no more than those who were "competitively" motivated.5 In another study, subjects .playing a matrix game who exchanged notes perceived mutual trust more often than those who did not, and levels of trust were greatest when the notes included specific information about the relationship.6 But communication may also be used to deceive, frustrate or provoke the other person rather than to build trust.? Gahagan and Tedeschi found that cooperation decreased when unbelieved promises were exchanged.8 Communication in competitive situations was judged "almost epiphenomenal" to trust by Wallace and Rothaus, who sadly concluded that "communication seemed more to serve the end of conflict and warfare than to function in the service of conflict resolution."9 These studies amply demonstrate that explaining the regularities and diversities of communication behavior demands a concept such as trust, but that the relationships between trust and communication ar9 not simple. One of the difficulties in this line of research is that, as Giffin and Pacton observed, trust has traditionally "been viewed as a somewhat mystical and intangible factor defying careful definition."" More precisely, there are several concepts of trust in the literature, none of which is fully satisfactory and the implications of which for a study of communication have not been articulated. This paper reviews four relevant literatures and presents a new conceptualization of trust. The utility of the concep is demonstrated in a discussion of one process by which mutual trust is formed :Id in a description of its implications for research. A study testing one part of this conceptualization is