Free associations of trust based on level of vulnerability.

Abstract

Trust and the notion of trust had been widely discussed not only in the field of psychology but also across many other disciplines. Our research was mainly focused on the vulnerability and the meaning of the word "trust". The goal was to compare two groups of participants (with the highest and lowest scores of vulnerability) and their free associations to the stimulus word "trust". A total of 600 participants was reduced by calculating the average score obtained by the Psychological Vulnerability Scale (PVS). The group of low vulnerability scores (LV, n= 78) and high vulnerability scores (HV, n= 83) was defined by the average score and standard deviation. Five primary domains, twelve categories, and two subcategories emerged from the analysis. The findings imply that participants higher in vulnerability associated trust mainly in terms of positive affectivity and with their close family. Also, people with higher vulnerability scores tended to perceive trust within the form of traits like kindness, tenderheartedness, care, and favor, which did not occur in the low-vulnerability group. The phenomenon of trust is still not examined sufficiently especially as far as qualitative research is concerned. Therefore, our study offers an insight into what people associate with trust and how they differ based on their level of vulnerability.

Full text

199
Free associations of trust based on level of vulnerability
Mgr. Jana Tencerová, PhD.
Institute of Experimental Psychology, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak
Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Email: jana.koroniova@savba.sk
Mgr. Zuzana Kaššaiová, PhD.
Institute of Experimental Psychology, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak
Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Email: zuzana.kassaiova@savba.sk
Mgr. Branislav Uhrecký, PhD.
Institute of Experimental Psychology, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak
Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Email: branislav.uhrecky@savba.sk
Funding: VEGA grant n. 2/0035/20 - Kognitívne a osobnostné prediktory budovania dôvery
Abstract: Trust and the notion of trust had been widely discussed not only in the field of
psychology but also across many other disciplines. Our research was mainly focused on the
vulnerability and the meaning of the word "trust". The goal was to compare two groups of
participants (with the highest and lowest scores of vulnerability) and their free associations to the
stimulus word "trust". A total of 600 participants was reduced by calculating the average score
obtained by the Psychological Vulnerability Scale (PVS). The group of low vulnerability scores
(LV, n= 78) and high vulnerability scores (HV, n= 83) was defined by the average score and
standard deviation. Five primary domains, twelve categories, and two subcategories emerged
from the analysis. The findings imply that participants higher in vulnerability associated trust
mainly in terms of positive affectivity and with their close family. Also, people with higher
vulnerability scores tended to perceive trust within the form of traits like kindness,
tenderheartedness, care, and favor, which did not occur in the low-vulnerability group. The

200
phenomenon of trust is still not examined sufficiently especially as far as qualitative research is
concerned. Therefore, our study offers an insight into what people associate with trust and how
they differ based on their level of vulnerability.
Keywords: trust, vulnerability, associations
Introduction
The notion of trust has been widely discussed across different scientific disciplines.
Despite the joint theory still missing, it seems that trust is a key in all kinds of relationships. The
way we trust determines whether our romantic relationships evolve and endure, but it also
influences the level of reliance on institutions and politics. As we can see, trust can potentially
inweave our experiences with people who we meet every day but even those we may never meet
in person.
The problem of trust theory has been there for decades and varied greatly across
different domains of science which resulted in a huge variety of perspectives. The theories
themselves illustrate how widely notions of trust can differ from one another. Some authors
claim that trust is very difficult to conceptualize, simply because it connotes different meanings,
refers to different objects and everyday situations (McKnight & Chervany, 1996). Trust can be
defined as an intention, belief, and also an expectation (McKnight & Chervany, 1996), stable
propensity (Uslaner, 2016), or probability assessment (Gambetta, 1988). One of the most popular
theories of trust states that trust is a willingness to accept vulnerability which means to transfer
some kind of power to a trustee and put oneself in a situation of risk (e.g., Deutsch, 1960; Baier,
1992). Similarly, Baier (1986) stresses that we need to distinguish between trust and mere
reliance on somebody even though these two concepts are very much alike. Her claim is that if
we trust somebody, it is characterized by giving them a certain amount of power over us which
demonstrates accepting vulnerability. But there is always a risk that the person who has been
given power will not act ethically toward us. In other words, if we trust somebody, we are at risk
of being betrayed by this person rather than just being frustrated and disappointed by not
fulfilling our goals. The cause of vulnerability itself then represents the potential imperilment of
our social attachments and eventually our sense of belonging present from early childhood
(Baghramian et al., 2020). Kirton (2020) explains that vulnerability in relationships comes from

201
a concern whether we matter non-instrumentally to others and this concern drives us to seek for
and form secure social attachment. We are vulnerable, because the way people act can
demonstrate the lack of affection and worth towards us. When we trust somebody and the person
betrays this trust, we are not only disappointed, but the relationship itself is shaken. Kirton then
concludes that in this light, trust and also distrust are reactions to the kind of vulnerability we
possess as social beings in need of close relationships.
Some authors (e.g., Deutsch, 1973) perceived vulnerability in terms of objective trust. In
this understanding, something needs to be at stake for the trustor because trusting somebody
always includes the transfer of control. Then vulnerability increases with the proportion of
maximal gain (Heimer, 1999). In contrast, other authors belaud subjective perception of
vulnerability and subjective experience of the trust representing the internal response to incentive
structure. In this perspective (e.g., Lewicki et al., 2006), trust is a set of positive expectations
based on the behavior of another person (we believe other people would take steps to meet our
needs rather than violate them). In other words, even though we realize that we are being
vulnerable (in the form of uncertainty) we choose a risky action. Although, there is evidence for
vulnerability being outside of the trustor's awareness and it is not fully realized until trust is
broken. Therefore, vulnerability needs to be linked to distrust, not trust primarily (Schul et al.,
2008).
Research on trust and vulnerability mainly focuses on trust in the work environment (e.g.,
leader-member or doctor-patient relationship). For instance, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)
explored relational vulnerability in leader-member exchange. According to their results, the
aspect of vulnerability to trust violation is still present even in high quality exchanges, because
trust-building processes showed to be unstable in time. Plomp and Ballast (2010) aimed to
explore the link between vulnerability and trust in the doctor-patient relationship to find out what
contributes to and reduces trustworthiness. Trust was increased in highly vulnerable patients with
poor health and a high workload. On the other hand, non-work overload was characteristic for a
low-vulnerability group. Also, highly vulnerable people tended to show greater patient-doctor
trust explained by a greater need for support. The study mentioned above also examined
qualitative aspects of trust and vulnerability. The results implied that highly vulnerable
participants described their doctor as empathic, supportive and felt understood by him/her. On
the other hand, non-vulnerable patients did not report that much trust towards their doctor for

202
two reasons. They did not have any severe medical issues and were not concerned, and if they
did, they expected a full recovery soon. Another look at the linkage of vulnerability and trust
offers Wiesemann (2017, as cited in Straehle, 2016) when talking about so-called “moral
vulnerability”. Moral vulnerability means, in short, that in order to achieve something necessary
and good for us, we will depend on somebody else's help at some point. Vulnerability is then
something not characteristic for only some groups, but ultimately for all people and it occurs
situationally in relation to other people (e.g., Mackenzie, 2014). In this proportion, Wiesemann
sees vulnerability in trust as something good and essential to create trusting relationships,
because it can strengthen social and moral interaction. Qualitative studies in the field of trust are
rather rare in comparison with the number of quantitative ones. The qualitative perspective was
examined also by Carter and Weber (1997, 1998) and the main focus was on review trust in
terms of everyday experience. In the earlier research (1997), the goal was to identify what is
characteristic of the trust construction process. The analysis of ten in-depth interviews showed
that there were three main components: time, self-disclosure, and perspective-taking. Later on
(1998) the authors tried to outline the process of how trust is regained once it is violated. The
results showed that the process of trust construction consists of three components as well: time,
self-disclosure, and affirmation. In accordance with other studies the findings imply that trust is a
multidimensional construct. The social experience of trust is, in this case, formed by cognitive,
affective, and behavioral dimensions, which develop under specific structural conditions (e.g.,,
McAllister, 1995). Similarly, Lewis and Weigert (1985) define trust as a combination of three
dimensions: cognitive (represents the decision to trust), emotional (powerful emotions triggered
by trusting but also by trust violation), and behavioral (represent the behavior predicted by the
certainty of others).
Aim
The aim of our study was to examine how people associate the word “trust” and how (if
so) the associations differ based on level of vulnerability. The concept of vulnerability is clearly
related to trust and distrust (Baghramian et al., 2020), but the current studies do not deal with the
qualitative aspect of trust and vulnerability. A great amount of studies focus on the quantitative
aspect of trust rather than the qualitative one.

203
Methods
Sample
Participants were recruited by a participants recruitment agency and consisted of 600
participants (300 men and 300 women) from 18 to 78 years of age (AM=45.19, SD=14.82). All
participants received and signed an online informed consent form. Eight participants were
excluded from the sample since they did not write any association. Subsequently, we determined
the two groups of participants (high and low vulnerability scores) by calculating the average
score and standard deviation of Psychological Vulnerability Scale for each participant and then
average score and standard deviation for the whole sample (M = 3.0992; SD = 0.76678).
Participants with scores lower than 2.332 (3.0992-0.76678) were put in the group of low
vulnerability (n=78). Participants with scores higher than 3.866 (3,0992+0,76678) were put in
the group of high vulnerability (n=83). The rest was excluded. The total number of 161
participants produced 483 associations altogether and 23 associations needed to be excluded
because participants either were not able to come up with any association or the association was
too vague to interpret (kitchen flower, yes, no, etc.).
Materials
To produce free associations participants were asked to write down the first three
associations to a word trust. More concretely, the instruction was formulated like this: “Please,
without much thinking, write down the first three associations that occur to you with the word
"trust.”. The Psychological Vulnerability Scale (Sinclair & Wallston, 1999) was used to
determine the score of vulnerability by answering six questions on Likert scale (1-Does not
describe me at all, 5-Describes me very well). The six-item questionnaire measures a set of
cognitions that promote harmful reactions to stress (e.g., “If I don’t achieve my goals, I feel like
a failure as a person.”). The original questionnaire was translated from english to slovak
language by a team of researchers and the translation was checked by a professional translator.
Original questionnaire consisted of 7 items, but the item mentioning pain („My pain frequently
enable s me to escape obligations I’d rather not deal with“) was later excluded due to
questionned reliability. The validation study (of 6-item questionnaire) showed good reliability of
PVS (ranged from .71 to .86). The concurrent and construct validity od PVS scale was
established by correlating PVS scores with measures of personal coping resources, psychological
well-being, social support, and pain copping behavior. For all samples bivariate correlational

204
analyses revealed a consistent pattern of theoretically predictable correlations between PVS
measures mentioned above (e.g. Sinclair, Kenneth & Watson, 1999). The PVS score was
calculated through raw score where 1 (Does not describe me at all) represented the lowest
possible score and 5 (Describes me very well) represented the highest possible score. Then, the
lowest possible score was 6 (meaning that the level of vulnerability is extremely low) and the
highest possible score was 36 (meaning that the level of vulnerability is extremely high).
Determining thematic areas
The Consensual Qualitative Research (Hill et al., 1997) method was used for analysis of
qualitative data from participants because its benefits: taking multiple perspectives and avoiding
subjective distortions in analysis, data are categorized by more assessors and after the consensus
upon categories, data categorization is discussed with auditor and changes are implemented to
the final categorization after group discussion. The core team for creating categories from data
consisted of two assessors. The data were analyzed by a team of researchers consisting of
assessors and an auditor. The assessors attempt to sort the raw data into domains, categories, and
subcategories. Each assessor received raw data in the form of participants' answers to the
questions about trust associations. The categorization was then checked by the auditor. The
results were discussed among the team members and the final results were agreed upon through
team discussion and unanimity. After a number of group meetings and discussions (online and
in-person) the final categories and subcategories were established.
Results
The coded statements created five domains and thirteen categories. The category of
affectivity needed to be additionally divided into positive (e.g love, safety, joy, empathy) and
negative (betrayal) subcategories, but the subcategory of negative affective states was reported
only by respondents low in vulnerability. The first domain of Relational level contained four
categories: significant others, relationships, prosocial behavior, and others. The second category,
the Institutional level, also reflected two categories: government and politics, and state and
private services. The third domain of Individual level was reflected in four categories: affectivity,
cognition, personality traits, and intention. The domain of Values was further divided into three
categories of sanctity, abstract and practical. The last category of Risk was the least numerous of
all.

205
The domain of Relationship level is followed by Individual level and Institutional level.
On the other hand, the least numerous were Values and Risk. Various domains and categories are
presented in individual tables due to better clarity. More specifically, for each domain and
category, we are listing a set of representative items to declare what kind of associations were
included in mentioned domains and categories.
The relational level contained all the associations related to relationships with other
people. The category of significant others reflected concrete family members and close friends.
Relationships mirrored associations that mentioned relationships and their qualities, but not
specific people. The category of prosocial behavior represented trust associations projected into
behavior focused on other people. All the associations that clearly represented relationships, but
did not fit the previous two subcategories were placed in the category of Others. The institutional
level represented not only specific public and private institutions (government, insurance
company) but also their representatives (politics, physician etc.). The domain of individual level
represented specific and individual predispositions characteristic for a person itself. Affectivity
was the only category further divided because of the need to distinguish between positive and
negative emotions in trust. All the associations that represented mental and thought content were
gathered in the category of cognitions. All the associations referring to some kind of attribute
boosting trust and helping us to perceive someone as worthy of trust were summed in a category
of traits. Associations in the last subcategory of intention mirrored willingness and readiness to
trust. In other words-probability, that the person will be trusting. Values constituted moral
principles and contained three categories: sanctity, abstract and practical. The last category of
uncertainty represented negative experience and hurt in situations of trust.

206
Table 1. Domains and categories in the group of highly vulnerable
Domain Category Representative Item
Individual level (n=113) Affectivity love, certainty, safety, calmness,
empathy, compassion
Traits honesty, reliability, kindness, care,
tender heartedness
Cognitions comprehension, secret, important
Intention to believe, rely on, to confide
Relational level (n=86) Significant others family, spouse, friend, mother
Relationships faithfulness, relation, friendship
Prosocial behavior support, help, understanding
Other society, men, dog, boss
Values (n=20) Sanctity faith, home, background
Abstract freedom, freedom of speech, justice
Practical work, health
Institutional level (n=18) Public & Private services insurance company
Government & Politics parliament
Uncertainty (n=6) vulnerability, betrayal, deceit
Highly vulnerable people associated trust mostly with positive affective states not
mentioning any negative emotion. Love was the most frequent association followed by the
category of Traits and Cognitions. The least frequent was the category of Intention. The majority
of associations connected trust to the emotion of love, while following emotions were
represented only by a few associations. The domain of Relational level showed a relatively
balanced number of associations in the category of Significant other and Relationships (n=74)
leaving the category of Prosocial behavior and Other quite poor in the number of associations.

207
The domain of values was further divided into three categories, but the most numerous was the
category of sanctity representing mainly faith and God. The results of the group of highly
vulnerable people in our sample was finished by a least numerous domain of Uncertainty without
any following categories.
Table 2. Domains and categories in the group of low vulnerable
Domain Category Representative Item
Relational level (n=92) Significant others family, friend, spouse, children
Relationships faithfulness, friendship, relation
Prosocial behavior help, acceptance, cooperation
Other dog, boss, acquaintance, chief
Individual level (n=72) Affectivity calmness, certainty, love
betrayal
Traits reliability, honesty, fairness, strength
Cognitions comprehension, transparency
Intention to believe, rely on, dedicate
Values (n=22) Sanctity faith, virtue, virgin Mary
Abstract truth, peace, rarity
Practical work, health
Institutional level (n=21) Public & Private services insurance company
Government & Politics parliament
Uncertainty (n=10) nobody, test, fragile
Obviously, the domains and categories were the same for both groups, but the difference
was in their content and countability. While in the high vulnerability group (HV) the most
frequent was the domain of Relational level, the low vulnerability group (LV) produced the most
associations at Individual level. The category of traits is common for both groups, but the

208
associations were slightly different (except for help reported in both groups). HV reported
support and understanding, but LV reported behaviors like cooperation or acceptance. Another
difference could be seen in the category of Affectivity because HV associated trust mostly with
love, but LV mentioned calmness and certainty and only then love. Additionally, LV showed
negative emotions in the form of betrayal. In the other group, no such effect was visible.
Similarly, in case of uncertainty LV reported it in more cases than HV (see the tables). As
mentioned above love was often pronounced in both groups, but while NV reported it (n=6) only
after calmness and certainty for the HV love was the most common (n=20). Besides, HV also
reported emotions like compassion, empathy and sympathy. These types of affective states were
not present in LV. A similar effect emerged in the case of Traits. Traits like responsibility,
reliability and honesty were present in both groups, but in HV there were also traits like
kindness, care or tenderheartedness. In the rest of the domains and categories, the number and
denotation were as near as the same.
Discussion
The aim of our study was to elicit how people associate the word “trust” and how the
associations alter based on the level of vulnerability. It turned out that people perceived trust
multidimensionally, with the most numerous category of Relationships and Individual level.
Besides that, the associations also mirrored Institutions, Values, and Uncertainty. Some authors
contributing to the theory of trust also point out that trust needs to be perceived
multidimensionally and not as an isolated construct. Rousseau et al., (1998) present the concept
of trust as a conjunction of accepting vulnerability and positive expectations about the other
person's behavior.
Obviously, people in our sample tended to associate trust mainly with close people and
relationships as such, but also positive emotions. More specifically the focus was especially on
family and close friends (probably present for the majority of our lifespan) but also on positive
emotions of love, safety and certainty, which seems to arise genuinely from this kind of close
relationships. HV associated trust mainly with individual characteristics, in the form of positive
emotions, LV though assigned them mainly to relationships. Relational trust is considered to be
one of the trust types and it is defined as something naturally arising from social relationships
(especially close ones) strongly characteristic of goodwill, honesty, and benevolence of other
people (Bromiley & Harris, 2006). It stems from a belief that a person will be trustworthy

209
(Hardin, 2002) and it is rooted in prior experiences with other people (Paxton & Glanwille,
2015). This knowledge is consistent with our data because it turned out that the HV reported
different associations in the category of Traits. Traits like kindness, tenderheartedness, care, and
favor were not mentioned in the LV group. Similarly, in the case of emotions, we could see that
HV reported mainly love, certainty and safety, but also emotions like sympathy, compassion, or
empathy, which again, were not reported in the LV group. These differences might hint that
people high in vulnerability associate trust particularly with people they have a strong bond with,
but also with emotions and traits characteristic for these close people. This suggests that close
people, emotions and traits bound to them represent some kind of assurance and safety that
highly vulnerable people naturally need because in such cases the risk of violating one's trust is
lower. On the other hand, people low in vulnerability have associated not only family but also
friends and in a few cases even boss or captain. In the category of emotions, we could see mainly
calmness, certainty, and love (the number of associations was relatively alike), but in this case,
also negative emotions arised (in the form of betrayal). The similar effect was visible in the
category of Uncertainty, which was more frequent in the LV group. These results suggest that
people low in vulnerability demonstrated a stronger willingness to accept uncertainty and risk by
reflecting it through associations and eventually negative emotions connected to trust violation.
Participants low in vulnerability ascribed trust to a wider social group of people, equal amount of
emotions types and the traits they have reported were more general - they could be attributed also
to people outside the closest family and friends (for example colleagues). Another important
attribute shown by our data was abundance of emotions. The prevalence was significant in both
groups, which might show that emotions play an important role in our decision to trust and
preserve trust. The research of trust mainly focuses on cognitive aspects of trust (e.g., Rompf,
2014) and the emotional aspect was rather overlooked (Lewicki et al., 2006). Clore (1992, as
cited in Martin and Tesser, 1992) claimed that the cognitive aspect is important to understand the
phenomena of trust, but it is not sufficient enough, because as human beings we not only think
trust, but also feel trust. Consistently, Lahno (2001) presents that a close relationship represents a
specific form of trust that is essentially emotional. Genuine trust is then an emotional attitude or
essentially contains such attitude in any social relationship. According to Lahno, if the emotional
attitude is missing we cannot really talk about trust, but rather about pure reliance.

210
Conclusion
Our data showed that when people associate trust they most likely think about their
closest ones and emotions, characteristics and traits connected to them. It seems that there are
differences between people high and low in vulnerability, but overall both groups associated the
same domains and categories only the content was slightly different. It is the content that showed
that associations of highly vulnerable people pointed to reassurance and certainty. In contrast,
associations of people low in vulnerability implied the better ability to accept uncertainty and
negative emotions connected to (violation of) trust.
Strengths, limitations and future research
Talking about the strengths of the study we see an advantage in the high number of
participants in our sample, all the more it is a qualitative research. Due to the high number of
participants we were able to create two extreme groups based on the score of vulnerability
resulting in 161 participants and 483 associations. Also, our sample covered a wide age range.
Next, the research of trust still focuses on quantitative research leaving the gap in qualitative
approach. Our study partially fills this gap, especially in Slovakia where this kind of research is
rather limited. The last strength is introduced by using the method of Consensual Qualitative
Research, which reduces the risk of subjective distortions by using multiple assessors and an
auditor. The final categorization was preceded by several meetings and discussions between
members of the research team.
The method of free associations was undemanding to time and enabled us to collect a
relatively wide amount of data, but at the same time, the method shows a limited reporting value.
The number of associations were limited to three, and there was no opportunity to ask
participants for further details (e.g., Halamová et al., 2018). Secondly, we used the Psychological
Vulnerability Scale to determine the level of psychological vulnerability. The questionnaire
consists only of six items, and in future research we strongly recommend to use more methods to
measure vulnerability.
The future research should be focused on qualitative methods where it is possible to ask
the participants for further details in order to make a clearer sense of their statements. Also,
future research should focus attention on an emotional aspect of trust, because this aspect seems
to be important in trust theory (e.g., Lahno, 2001) but the majority of studies in the field of trust
is still focused on the cognitive aspect of trust.

211
References
Baghramian, M., Petherbridge, D., & Stout, R. (2020). Vulnerability and trust: An introduction.
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(5), 575–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2020.1855814
Baier, A. C. (1992). Trusting people. Philosophical Perspectives, 6, 137.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2214242
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745
Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. In L.
L. Martin, & A. Tesser. (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133-163).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict. Amsterdam University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1960). Trust, trustworthiness, and the F scale. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 61(1), 138–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046501
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Blackwell.
Halamová, J., Baránková, M., Strnádelová, B., & Koróniová, J. (2018). Consensual qualitative
research on free associations for compassion and self-compassion. Human Affairs, 28(3),
253–270. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2018-0021
Heimer, C. A. (1999). Solving the problem of trust. American Bar Foundation.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual
qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517-572.
doi:10.1177/0011000097254001
Kirton, A. (2020). Matters of trust as matters of attachment security. International Journal of
Philosophical Studies, 28(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2020.1802971
Lahno, B., (2001). On the emotional character of trust. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4,
171-189.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal
of Management, 32(6), 991–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294405
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601

212
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1992). The construction of social judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mackenzie, C. (2014). Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford
University Press.
Mcallister, D. J. (1995). Affect - and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
doi:10.5465/256727
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (1996). The meanings of trust. Carlson School of
Management, Univ. of Minnesota.
Paxton, P., & Glanville, J. L. (2015). Is trust rigid or malleable? A laboratory experiment. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515582177
Plomp, H. N., & Ballast, N. (2010). Trust and vulnerability in doctor-patient relations in
occupational health. Occupational Medicine, 60(4), 261–269.
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq067
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader—member exchange. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 101–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808320986
Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the Psychological
vulnerability scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research 23(2), 119-129.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S.,& Cramerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 394 -404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Rompf, S. A. (2014). Trust and Rationality: An Integrative Framework for Trust Research.
Springer VS.
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2008). The value of distrust. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44(5), 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.003
Straehle, C. (2016). Vulnerability, autonomy, and applied ethics (1st Edition). Routledge.
Uslaner, E. M. (2016). Who do you trust? In E. Shockley, T.M.S. Neal, L. M. PytlikZilig & B.
H. Bornstein (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust (pp. 71–83). Springer, Cham.

213
Weber, L. R., & Carter, A. (1998). On constructing trust: temporality, self‐disclosure, and
perspective‐taking. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 18(1), 7–26.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443339810788290
Weber, L. R., & Carter, A. (1997). On reconstructing trust: Time, intention, and forgiveness.
Clinical Sociology Review, 15(1), 24-39.
https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr/vol15/iss1/5