Welcome to the archived web site of
Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D. Psychologist (1950-2013)
California License No. PSY 10092
Specializing in Presence-Centered Therapy
balancing mind and heart, body and spirit
Now in memoriam - This website is no longer being updated
Articles by Dr. Friedman (except where noted otherwise)
TRUST is a Key to Well BeingFour Research Findings
2011 by Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!"
in Allah, but tie up your camel."
every man, but always cut the cards."
God we trust. All others pay cash."
Just as Aretha Franklin spelled out R-E-S-P-E-C-T in a song, so I propose to spell out T-R-U-S-T in this writing in regard the roots of this word and what a consensus of research shows to date. To know the roots of a principle often illuminate it's real meaning. With trust this is especially true. The English language authority, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, says this Middle English noun derived from the Old Norse traust meaning firmness. 1 This originated from the reconstructed Indo-European base or 13th century hypothetical character meaning a tree + standing or true + to stand.
Thus, the taking of a true stand, like a true standing tree, undergirds the definition of trust meaning a confidence or firm belief in the reliability, integrity, truth and honesty of a person or thing. The verb to trust derived similarly as the noun in Middle English and goes back to the Old Norse treysta meaning "to trust, confide". As a verb, to trust is to have faith, be confidant, to confide, and place reliance.
Building on these definitions, what is critical for our purposes is the application or investing of trust. Trust is a two-way street because there are two sides to trust: being trusting or trustful, that is, the bringing of one's trust to have the ability to confide, be faithful and full of or exercising trust; and being deserving of trust or trustworthy, that is, being a person who is reliable, dependable and worthy of your confidence.
Integrity, the state of being that expresses honesty, sound moral principle and sincerity, is a synonym for trustworthiness. Author Stephen L. Carter offers three criteria for qualifying as a person of integrity: ". . . (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong." 2 The first demands the ability to pause and morally reflect, the second requires the ability to keep commitments and the third speaks to having resolved any guilt or shame so you are freed to do the moral, ethical thing. Author Warren Bennis endorses this view, particularly for developing leaders: "Integrity is the basis of trust, which is not as much an ingredient of leadership as it is a product. It is the one quality that cannot be acquired, but must be earned." 3
Alternatively, the opposites can be present: being distrusting or mistrustful; as well as being undeserving and unworthy of trust, that is, untrustworthy and showing no integrity. It might be the untrustworthy bully acting superior to mask his fear of being taken advantage of, lack of personal power and inferiority. Or it could be the sheltered, trusting soul in anguish being eaten alive by the world's predators. In our encounters in the world, it is trust that is the critical operating issue that rips or sustains the fabric of our social order. In all encounters with other living things, without fail, the continuum of trust is present making a difference.
The preeminent, trailblazing researcher of trust is Julian B. Rotter. He defines interpersonal trust ". . . as a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, oral or written statement of another individual or group can be relied on." 4 He distinguishes this definition as different from basic trust, as used by developmental theoretician Erik Erickson, meaning the belief in the goodness of others or the healthy personality. Basic trust is the focus of the first stage of psychosocial development from birth to age one. Theorists are in agreement that an essential component during this first stage is the attachment figure's (i.e., caregiver's) responsiveness to an infant's needs. 5
Social psychologists have generated evidence that generalized social trust, that is, trust in people in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is both a stable feature within an individual's personality (dispositional) as well as a cognitive response to a changing environment and context (situational). One researcher found support for the level of behavioral trust being highest towards intimates (targets of small social distance) and lowest toward stangers (targets of large social distance). 6 Another researcher previously had found the same result along with acquaintances being trusted at a level between intimates and strangers. 7 It was found that the level of trust was higher in situations of low risk and uncertainty in contrast to ones of high risk and uncertainty. 8
Here are four social research findings regarding trust in the United States:
LEVELS OF TRUST HAVE BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES
Princeton sociologist Robert Putnam cited a broad range of data that pointed to a precipitous decline of sociability and community in America. One telling example of the loss of "social capital" was a longitudinal survey showing that the number of Americans who felt "most people" could be trusted fell from 58% in 1960 to a mere 37% in 1993. 9 Putnam attributed the decline in social trust since the 1960's to "generational succession," that is, each succeeding generation or cohort trusted people less on the average, even with each generational cohort remaining nearly as trusting as it ever was. 10
The American National Election Studies, a biannual survey of voters' attitudes about political officeholders conducted since 1952 by the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor found that respondents' trust in government fell to historic lows by 1994. In 1959 the survey first asked "are government officials crooked?" 24% of those polled said "quite a lot," while in 1994, 51% held this view. When the survey asked, "Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all people?," 64% said the government ran for the benefit of all in 1965-only 19% in 1994. 11
from surveys support declining trust levels. A Gallop poll in 1994 reported 69%
of Americans agreed: "these days a person doesn't really know whom he can count
on." 12 In an annual survey conducted at the University
of Michigan, American high school seniors reported a steady decline from 35% to
less than 20% in agreeing that "most people can be trusted" combined with a steady
increase from 40% to nearly 60% agreeing that "you can't be too careful in dealing
with people" between 1975 and 1992. 13
Political science professor Darrel West further documents decreasing trust. He stated that "the rising level of mistrust is the most profound change in public opinion over the last three decades. If you go back to the 1950's, about 70% trusted the government in Washington to do the right thing. Today about 70% mistrust the government. There is no other change that is that dramatic." One can wonder whether the loss of faith in the ability of governments to govern honestly and effectively is pivotal in the loss of faith in almost all institutions in modern America.
Social psychology researchers show unequivocally and clearly that college students' trust of others has fallen consistently from 1964 through 1971. The six-year study of 4,605 students showed a statistically significant drop in mean trust scores each year on Rotter's Interpersonal Trust Scale. The items that dropped sharpest were in the areas of politics, communications and peace keeping. 14
Research corroborated these findings in a study showing that the majority of the drop in trust had occurred in the realm of political figures and other powerful people in our society. 15 Other researchers investigated attitudes toward various occupational groups and found professionals to be rated high and for people often regarded as powerful, such as political leaders, business executives, labor union officials and U.S. Army generals, to be rated low. 16
Economist Francis Fukuyama distinguishes low- and high-trust societies, noting that the United States' historically high-trust levels have progressively fallen in recent years. He suggests that this trend bodes poorly for successful societies of the future in competing in the emerging global economy that demands a high degree of social trust. 17
Couple these findings with the developing consensus of social observers that the major institutions of American society, including the government, school, religion, business and the family, are in abject disrepair. Less than 50% of registered voters decided the most recent presidential election, 18 about a quarter of all families consist of natural parents and offspring, 19 and 50% in the first seven years and 67% over forty years of marriages end in divorce. 20 In a 1990 survey, American Psychological Association members identified "the decline of the nuclear family" as today's number one threat to mental health. 21
Social psychologist David G. Myers provides extensive factual support for his observation of an eroding pattern of human connection in the decline of marriage, waning human networks, loss of family integrity and collapse of civility. He concludes that just as the crumbling of communism indicates the failure of extreme collectivism, so the American social recession shows the failure of extreme individualism. 22
Myers summarizes numerous surveys that corroborate that moral values in the United States have fallen precipitously. A 1996 Gallop survey showed that 78% of Americans rated the current state of today's moral values as "somewhat weak" or "very weak." Copying homework, cheating on exams, and stealing from stores among our "emerging adults" are relevant indicators that have been studied.
Forty percent of a recent national sample of high-achieving seniors in high school admitted to cheating on a quiz or test, and two-thirds confessed to copying someone else's homework. In an even larger national sample of 10,000 high school students surveyed in 1998 by the Josephson Institute for Ethics, 47 percent acknowledged stealing from a store in the previous year and 70 percent admitted to cheating on an exam.
Additional surveys of high school seniors reported that the proportion those have used a cheat sheet on a test increased from 1 in 3 in 1969 to 2 in 3 in 1989. A 1995 survey of 4,300 students at selective colleges showed nearly two-thirds confessed to "serious" cheating on a test or written assignment. 23
Fukuyama forwards the view that Americans are progressively joining the ranks of such traditionally low-trusting societies as China, France and Italy. He believes that a country's greatness is constructed on the unspoken contract of social trust expressed in the strength of its communities and cohesiveness of its civil institutions. 24 The modern motto, as exemplified by the hit television and movie "The X-Files", to "trust no one" certainly grew out of a deep vein of mistrust.
RESEARCH PROVIDES A CLEAR PORTRAIT OF THE DISTRUSTER
Within this context of growing mistrust, what light can social research provide in understanding trust and trustworthiness? There is considerable support for a generalized expectancy for trust of others-whether or not to believe the other person-which he views as a fairly stable personality characteristic. 25 A number of studies help form a picture of those who distrust. Rotter further states that high intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to distrust and several researchers have consistently shown that people with high scholastic scores or high college aptitude scores are no less trustful than people with low scores. 26
Rotter summarizes demographic data concerning his Interpersonal Trust Scale (ITS) in regard to distrust. He reported that college students who described themselves as agnostics and atheists were significantly less trusting than others. 27 College students perceiving their parents as believing in two different religions were less trusting than those who saw both parents as believing in either the same religion or lack of religion. Decreasing socioeconomic levels was consistently linked to a decrease in trust. 28
The construct of locus of control is reflective of people's beliefs that events in their lives are related to what is under their control and by their effort (internals) or are determined by outside factors (externals). Having an internal locus of control has consistently been reported to be positively associated with Rotter's trust scale. 29 Using the Internal-External Locus of Control scale, Rotter reported that alienation, in the form of powerlessness, was significantly related to his trust scale, that is, those who felt less ability to control scored lower in trust. 30
This researcher shows that there is a clearly established correlation between low trust as measured by the ITS and maladjustment as measured by the Incomplete Sentences Blank, with a higher relationship for females in most samples. Another study investigated trust of physicians and automobile mechanics, showing that arrogance lowered the ratings of trustworthiness in both groups. 31
College students who scored low in trust on the ITS were selected most often by their peers as lowest in trust of others and less trustworthy. 32 Low trusters are more likely than others to behave in an untrustworthy fashion when they believed they would not be discovered. 33 There is also an association between low trust and actual thefts. Female low trusters reported greater shoplifting than did female high trusters, with low trusters of both genders being more likely to believe that people in the community distrusted students. 34
It would be a grievous oversight to not address how innumerable people seemingly become distrusting-'history' and experience. Professor Robert D. Putnam cites the research-based conclusion that the "have-nots" of all societies are less trusting than the "haves," he immediately notes the greater likelihood that the "haves" were treated by other people with greater respect and more honesty. He mentions the recurring pattern of lower trust of African-Americans than Caucasians, survivors of crime and divorce than those not having had these experiences, and large-city than small-town dwellers. Their reporting how most people cannot be trusted is simply reporting their life experiences and reflecting the social norms inside those circumstances. 35
HEALTH AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS COME FROM HIGH TRUSTING
On the more affirmative subject of what distinguishes high trusters, several studies strongly indicate that children that have experienced a higher proportion of promises kept in the past by parents and authority figures have a higher expectancy for trust from other authority figures. 36 In a study of child-raising behaviors, Into reported that parents of high-trusting college students were more trusting to their children, more trustworthy, directly taught trust and trustworthiness, and trusted outsiders more. This strong modeling effect was significant for both mothers and fathers, although a little stronger for fathers. 37 Another study also found support for fathers of high-trusting sons having significantly higher trust than fathers of low-trusting sons. 38
To bring interpersonal or general social trust is beneficial as demonstrated in numerous positive personal consequences. Data showed fairly strong correlations or associations between trust and altruism as well as between trust and competence. 39 Rotter summarizes many studies in formulating a picture of high trusters as less likely to be maladjusted, conflicted, or unhappy as well as being more liked and sought out as friends more often by low- and high-trusting others. 40
The scientific evidence suggests that high trusters are more likeable, more dependable and better adjusted psychologically than others. 41 Several studies support the conclusion that high trust is associated with high self-esteem. 42 Researchers account for this result by the person with high self-esteem, as shown by high intrinsic motivation, being more willing to take emotional risks. Having faith in a person reflects emotional security, thus being more likely to think well of others. 43
Similarly, several sources show that trustful people enjoy enhanced physical and psychological health than mistrustful ones. 44 Another researcher reported that trustful people tend to be in better physical health than mistrustful people. 45 Trustful people were found to be less anxious and have less psychological distress than mistrustful ones. 46
If social connectedness and cohesion is a valid expression of trust, then numerous studies do support trusting social ties being strongly correlated with health outcomes. 47 One investigation found that the lower the trust between citizens, the higher the average mortality rate. 48 Another finding across twenty years and better than a dozen studies in the United States, Japan, and Scandinavia demonstrated that socially disconnected individuals are between two and five times more likely to die from all causes, when compared with matched people who experience close connection with family, friends, and community. 49
Research supports high trusters being "do-gooders" in that they are frequently engaged in traditional good works and prosocial behavior. They also tend to be more conventional and moralistic. 50 Moreover, contrary to the myth that trustful people are less perceptive than mistrustful people of what other people are actually feeling, a study team concluded that high trusters were in fact better than low trusters at interpreting their spouse's nonverbal cues and emotions. 51 If you can accurately perceive other peoples' feelings, you can trust them; if you can't read other people well, then it's easier to be suspicious of them. 52
Gullibility or foolish trust, defined as "naive and easily fooled in contrast to sophisticated, experienced, etc.," and dependency have been shown to be negatively related to trust. Thus, gullibility can be understood as trust in the presence of evidence to the contrary. High trusters are not regarded as someone who is easily tricked or is naive, and does not trust out of a need to have another person take care of him or her. After reviewing many studies on this subject, Rotter concludes that in none of the studies did he find any evidence that high trusters behaved in a more gullible manner when compared with low trusters. 53
There is growing evidence from several sources that when trust, social cohesion, and social networks are present, there is enhanced economic prosperity on the level of individuals, companies, communities, and nations. 54 Economic enhancement is seen in everything from social adaptability to business transactions, from finding employment to real estate appreciation, and from enabling private sector innovation to developing trade and business policies at a governmental level. 55 Trust greases the wheels of life.
HIGH TRUSTERS ARE HIGHLY TRUSTWORTHY AND VICE VERSA
Most importantly, social research strongly supports the finding that people who can trust others can be trusted more than those who are mistrustful. People who are high trusters are most often regarded as highly trustworthy. 56 In other words, if you are more able to give trust, then you are more worthy of receiving trust, and vice versa. Another researcher found that low trusters cheated significantly more often than high trusters, 57 while it was found that low trusters were more likely to invade an experimenter's privacy by sneaking a look into their folders than were high trusters. 58 The ancient Greek Theognis (570?-490?) said, "He who mistrusts most should be trusted least," while Montaigne astutely observed, "Confidence in others' honesty is no light testimony to one's own integrity."
Rotter helps to illuminate the relationship between low trust and untrustworthy behavior: "If low trusters truly feel that other people cannot be trusted, then there is less moral pressure on them to tell the truth. They may also feel that lying, cheating, and similar behaviors are necessary under some circumstances for defensive reasons"because everybody else is doing it." 59
reviewing Lajoy's study on trust and arrogance, 60 Rotter
deduced that high trusters were able to discriminate who was trustworthy from
who was not trustworthy on the basis of specific cues. He reported having no evidence
for whether they differentiated any better or worse than did low trusters, although
he suggested that high and low trusters might be employing different cues in their
1. "Trust" in Lesley Brown (Ed.), The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2 Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1993, page 3411.
2. Stephen L. Carter, Integrity. New York: Basic Books / HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1996, page 7.
3. Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1989), page 41
4. Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7, quote: page 1.
5. Erik E. Erikson, "Growth and Crises of the "Healthy Personality." In C. Kluckhohn and H. Murray (Eds.), Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. (Second Edition). New York: Knopf, 1953.
6. Sharon G. Goto, "To Trust or Not to Trust: Situational and Dispositional Determinants," Social Behavior and Personality, 24 (2), pages 119-132.
7. Jianxin Zhang, Target-based Interpersonal Trust: A Model and Cross-cultural Comparison. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong).
8. John G. Holmes, "Trust and the Appraisal Process in Close Relationships." In Warren H. Jones and Daniel Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Volume 2. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1991, pages 57-104, reference to page 59.
9. Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), January, 1995, pages 65-78; Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
10. Generational succession: Robert D. Putnam, 2000, ibid., pages 140-142.
11. American National Election Studies, cited in Verne Gay, "Is Walter Cronkite the Last Trustworthy Man in America," Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 21, 1996, pages 9-11, 34.
12. Gallup Poll Monthly. (1994). Gallup poll (July), page 35.
13. U.S. high school seniors survey: University of Michigan's annual Monitoring the Future Survey as reported in U. Bronfenbrenner, P. McClelland, E. Wethington, P. Moen, and S. J. Ceci, The State of Americans. New York: Free Press/Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1996, page 2.
14. D. J. Hochreich, and J. D. Rotter, "Have College Students Become Less Trusting," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, pages 211-214.
15. M. D. Roberts, Changing Patterns of College Student Trust. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1971.
16. Julian B. Rotter and Donald K. Stein, "Public Attitudes Toward the Trustworthiness, Competence, and Altruism of Twenty Selected Occupations," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 (4), 1971, pages 334-343.
17. Francis Fukuyama, Trust. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
18. Almanac, US Elections, www.infoplease.com, 49.1% of registered voters voted in the 1996 Presidential election.
19. 1992 statistic of 25.5% of "Married-couple family" and "With own children under 18": "Household composition, by Presence of Own Children Under 18: 1992, 1990, 1980, and 1970," U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,P20-467, Table A, P. vii.; In Statistical Record of Children, Linda Schmittroth, Ed. Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research Inc.,1994, pages 101-102.
20. John Gottman, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1999, page 4.
21. American Psychological Association members: Survey of American Psychological Association Members. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1990.
22. David G. Myers, "Close Relationships and Quality of Life." In Daniel Kahneman, Ed Diener, and Norbert Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999, pages 374-391, Reference: pages 382-387.
23. Surveys: David G. Myers, The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2000); 1996 Gallup survey: "'Values in the Coming Election," Emerging Trends. Princeton Religion Research Center, October 1996, page 1; "Cheating: 24th Annual Survey of High Achievers by Who's Who Among American High School Students." Associated Press, Grand Rapids Press, October 20, 1993); Josephson Institute of Ethics Survey: www.josephsoninstitute.org /98-Survey/98survey.htm; also see Karen Thomas, "Teen Ethics: More Cheating and Lying," USA Today, October 18, 1998; Cheat sheet: F. Schab, "Schooling Without Learning: Thirty Years of Cheating in High School," Adolescence 26, 1991, pages 839-847; College cheating: Survey by Rutgers University professor Don McCabe, reported in Dennis Kelly, "Cheating Up on Campuses with Honor Codes," USA Today, March 11, 1996.
24. Francis Fukuyama, Trust. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
25. Julian B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust," American Psychologist, 26, 1971, pages 443-452.
26. Julian Rotter, "Trust and Gullibility," Psychology Today, 13 (10), October 1980b, reprinted in Psychology Today: The Best of 25 Years, Spring, 1993, pages 75-80; Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10.
27. Julian B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust," American Psychologist, 26, 1971, pages 443-452; Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7, quote: page 1.
28. J. D. Geller, Some Personal and Situational Determinants of Interpersonal Trust, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1966; Julian B. Rotter, "A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust," Journal of Personality, 35, 1967, 651-665.
29. Ronald M. Sabatelli, Ross Buck, and Albert Dreyer, "Locus of Control, Interpersonal Trust, and Nonverbal Communication Accuracy," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 1983, pages 399-409.
30. Julian B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust," American Psychologist, 26, 1971, pages 443-452
31. R. J. Lajoy, The Effects of Arrogance and Expertise on the Communications of Physicians and Auto Repairmen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1975.
32. Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7, quote: page 1.
33. Daniel R. Boroto, The Mosher Forced Choice Inventory as a Predictor of Resistance to Temptation. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Connecticut, 1970.
34. T. L. Wright, and A. Kirmani, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Shoplifting in High School," Psychological Reports, 41, 1977, 1165-1166.
35. Distrust and "have-nots": Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000, pages 138-139.
36. R. R. Mahrer, "The Role of Expectancy in Delaying Reinforcement," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 1956, 101-105; W. Mischel, "Preference for Delayed Reinforcement and Social Responsibility," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 62, 1961, pages 1-7; W. Mischel, "Father-absence and Delay of Gratification: Cross-cultural Comparisons," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 63, 1961, pages 116-124.
37. E. C. Into, Some Possible Childrearing Antecedents of Interpersonal Trust. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Connecticut, 1969.
38. H. A. Katz, and J. B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust Scores of College Students and their Parents," Child Development, 40, 1969, 657-661.
39. Julian B. Rotter and Donald K. Stein, "Public Attitudes Toward the Trustworthiness, Competence, and Altruism of Twenty Selected Occupations," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 (4), 1971, pages 334-343.
40. Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7, quote: page 1.
41. Julian Rotter, "Trust and Gullibility," Psychology Today, 13 (10), October 1980b, reprinted in Psychology Today: The Best of 25 Years, Spring, 1993, pages 75-80.
42. Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10.
43. John K. Rempel, John G. Holmes, and Mark P. Zanna, "Trust in Close Relationships," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1), 1985, pages 95-112.
44. Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10.
45. Judith Hibbard, "Social ties and Health Status: An Examination of Moderating Factors," Health Education Quarterly, 12 (1), Spring, 1985, pages 23-34.
46. Heretick research reported in Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10; Donna Heretick, "Gender-specific relationships between trust-suspicion, locus of control, and psychological distress," Journal of Psychology, 108 (2), July 1981, pages 267-274.
47. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000, pages 326-335.
48. Trust and mortality: Ichiro Kawachi, Bruce P. Kennedy, and Kimberly Lochner, "Long Live Community: Social Capital as Public Health," The American Prospect, 35, November December 1997, pages 56-59.
49. Lisa Berkman, and Thomas Glass, "Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health." In Lisa F. Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi (Eds.), Social Epidemiology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pages 137-174.
50. Julian Rotter, "Trust and Gullibility," Psychology Today, 13 (10), October 1980b, reprinted in Psychology Today: The Best of 25 Years, Spring, 1993, pages 75-80.
51. Sabatelli research reported in Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10.; Ronald M. Sabatelli, Ross Buck, and Albert Dreyer, "Locus of Control, Interpersonal Trust, and Nonverbal Communication Accuracy," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 1983, pages 399-409
52. Morton Hunt, "Are you Too Trustful?", Parade Magazine, March 6, 1988, page 10.
53. Julian B. Rotter, "A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust," Journal of Personality, 35, 1967, 651-665.
54. Economic benefits: Francis Fukuyama, Trust. New York: The Free Press, 1995; Stephen Knack, and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-country Investigation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4), November, 1997, pages 1251-1288.
55. Broad economic influences: Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000, pages 319-325; Stephen Knack, and Philip Keefer, , "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-country Investigation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4), November, 1997, pages 1251-1288.
56. G. D. Mellinger, "Interpersonal Trust as a Factor in Communication," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 1956, 304-309; J. L. Loomis, "Communication, the development of trust, and Cooperative Behavior," Human Relations, 12, 1959, 305-315; M. Deutsch, "Trust, Trustworthiness, and the F Scale," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 61, 1960, 138-140; H. Kelly, and K. Ring, "Some Effects of "Suspiciousness" versus "Trusting" Training Schedules," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 63, 1961, 294-301; Julian B. Rotter, "A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust," Journal of Personality, 35, 1967, 651-665, 1967, Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7.
57. Geraldine D. Steinke, The Prediction of Untrustworthy Behavior and the Interpersonal Trust Scale. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1975.
58. Daniel R. Boroto, The Mosher Forced Choice Inventory as a Predictor of Resistance to Temptation. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Connecticut, 1970.
59. Julian B. Rotter, "Trust and Gullibility," Psychology Today, 13 (10), October 1980b, reprinted in Psychology Today: The Best of 25 Years, Spring, 1993, pages 75-80.
60. R. J. Lajoy, The Effects of Arrogance and Expertise on the Communications of Physicians and Auto Repairmen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1975.
Julian B. Rotter, "Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility," American
Psychologist, 35 (1), January, 1980a, pages 1-7.
© Copyright 2013 by Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D.
Wills Perspective on Practicing Psychology: Dr.
Friedman's Practice | Dr.
Friedman's Approach | Therapeutic
Purposes | Credentials
| Experience | Brochures
| Interview | Events
and Workshops | Website Disclaimer