Trust implies vulnerability, as stated by various scholars across disciplines (Baier, Citation1986; Bigley & Pearce, Citation1998; Lewis & Weigert, Citation1985). Some of the most cited definitions (e.g. Mayer et al. (Citation1995) and Rousseau et al., Citation1998) contain the crucial idea that the essence of trust is an acceptance of vulnerability based on positive expectations. As Bigley and Pearce (Citation1998, p. 407), reviewing earlier work, observe: ‘When the terms “trust” and “distrust” have been evoked in the social sciences, they almost always have been associated with the idea of actor vulnerability.’ Scholars in other disciplines such as philosophy (e.g. Baghramian et al., Citation2020), economics (e.g. James, Citation2002), education (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, Citation1998), medicine (Barnard, Citation2016), and theology (Bruni, Citation2021) also define trust in the light of vulnerability. Finally, behavioural conceptualizations of trust imply risk-taking and thereby incurring vulnerability, as trusting might not be reciprocated or even allows the other party to do harm (Dasgupta, Citation1988; Luhmann, Citation1979).
While vulnerability is recognised as a conceptual cornerstone in trust research, few authors delve into detailed explanations of how they specifically utilise and qualify the concept. To further complicate, fundamental controversies concerning vulnerability in trust research remain unresolved. Some researchers, for instance, view vulnerability as a deliberate decision influenced by factors like perceived trustworthiness (e.g. Mayer et al., Citation1995), while others, following Deutsch (Citation1958), see vulnerability as an existential awareness of the inherent risks in relationships, which is essential for the subsequent development of trust. In this vein, the acknowledgment of ‘being at somebody’s mercy’ is a prerequisite for trust to emerge.
Hence, whether we perceive vulnerability as an existential condition or as a deliberate state, its relationship with trust—whether it precedes or follows trust—should significantly influence the way we advocate for trust, model it, and measure it. However, this matter has received limited attention. With our fundamental criticism, we of course acknowledge the few notable exceptions. For instance, Misztal (Citation2011) examines vulnerability as both a condition and outcome for trust proposing three types of vulnerability. Nienaber et al. (Citation2015) distinguish between active vulnerability and passive vulnerability, and Weibel et al. (Citation2023) explore vulnerability as a condition for trust and differentiate various types of active trusting based on the specific vulnerability involved. While these studies offer valuable insights, much of the existing trust research tends to be superficial in qualifying vulnerability, and at worst, it opens itself to fundamental critique. It begs the question: What is the value of trust research if it fails to address the core underlying issue of vulnerability with greater precision and depth?
In addition to lacking more sophisticated conceptualizations, mainstream trust research has poorly addressed the empirical experience of vulnerability and how individuals succeed or fail to accept it within the context of trust. Only a few studies have specifically examined the perception and management of vulnerability and relational risk in practical settings (Searle et al., Citation2016; Siegrist, Citation2021; Tsui-Auch & Möllering, Citation2010). Incorporating insights from fields that are often overlooked in trust research would provide much-needed additional understanding. For example, psychodynamics offers a comprehensive exploration of vulnerability, development, and trust through rich phenomenological studies (e.g. Corlett et al., Citation2021). Furthermore, studies adopting a practice/processual perspective on feeling vulnerable and trusting can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon (e.g. Dumitru, Citation2021).
With this special issue, we believe that now is the time to explore various conceptualizations and empirical experiences of vulnerability and their impact on our understanding of trust development, transformation, sustainability, rupture, diminishment, and repair. A deeper understanding of vulnerability can also provide valuable insights into the emergence and reversal of suspicion and distrust. By doing so, we aim to incorporate the multifaceted aspects of vulnerability into trust research, similar to the achievements of Baghramian and colleagues (Citation2020) in the field of philosophy.
For this JTR Special Issue, we invite conceptual/theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative empirical research, normative and descriptive, from the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. We are looking for contributions on the nature of vulnerability and its relationship to trust, including its emergence, interplay with various variables, and manifestation in different contexts. We welcome a broad range of submissions spanning disciplines such as ethics, theology, sociology, psychology, psychodynamics, economics, management & organisation, and more. Contributions can employ diverse methodologies, including historical analysis, ethnomethodology, experimentation, as well as theoretical reflections on vulnerability and trust. Additionally, we strongly encourage interdisciplinary approaches that illuminate the multifaceted aspects of trust and vulnerability. To inspire potential submissions, we formulate the following questions as avenues for exploration:
(1) Phenomenology of vulnerability
How does trusting differ depending on whether vulnerability manifests as a trait, a state, or a ‘self-accustomed fate’?
How does it feel to be vulnerable, when and why is vulnerability salient?
What are ways to enact and cope with vulnerability and how are they linked to trusting?
How do we come to learn to qualify vulnerability (as a means to make trust performing)?
(2) Taxonomy of vulnerability
What are salient ways and types of vulnerability in trust relationships?
How do these variants of vulnerability link with trust, distrust, confidence, and suspicion?
What do vulnerability dynamics look like?
(3) Ethics of vulnerability
What is the ‘philosophical content’ of vulnerability?
How does vulnerability allow trust research to better connect with moral theories, care, or virtue ethics?
How do vulnerability and trust/trustworthiness link as a moral obligation?
Can, and if yes, how should we qualify the volitional aspect of vulnerability when it comes to trusting?
How do vulnerability, faith, and trust relate and in what ways do they link grace, mercy, dignity, and solidarity?
(4) Broadening the lenses to understand vulnerability
What is the role of vulnerability and trust in theology, psychodynamics, complexity theory, and systems theory?
How do humans cope with vulnerability in a world with or without transcendence?
How can we understand vulnerability and trust from different ontologies (e.g. from a relational ontology)?
How are vulnerability and trust related to non-human trust referents?
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. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745
- Barnard, D. (2016). Vulnerability and trustworthiness: Polestars of professionalism in healthcare. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000596
- Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/259286
- Bruni, L. (2021). The Samaritan's Trust Game. Journal of Economics, Theology and Religion, 1(2), 117–135.
- Corlett, S., Ruane, M., & Mavin, S. (2021). Learning (not) to be different: The value of vulnerability in trusted and safe identity workspaces. Management Learning, 52(4), 424–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507621995816
- Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). Basil Blackwell.
- Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200401
- Dumitru, C. (2021). Building virtual teams: Trust, culture, and remote working. Routledge.
- James, Jr., H. S. (2002). The trust paradox: A survey of economic inquiries into the nature of trust and trustworthiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 47(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00214-1
- Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601
- Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Polity Press, Cambridge.
- Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
- Misztal, B. (2011). The challenges of vulnerability: In search of strategies for a less vulnerable social life. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
- Nienaber, A.-M., Hofeditz, M., & Romeike, P. D. (2015). Vulnerability and trust in leader-follower relationships. Personnel Review, 44(4), 567–591. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2013-0162
- Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617
- Searle, R., Nienaber, A.-M., Weibel, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2016). Trust Processes in the Eye of the Storm: How Do We Cope with Salient Vulnerability? Paper presented at 32nd EGOS colloquium, July 7th-9th, Naples, Italy.
- Siegrist, M. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325
- Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810211518
- Tsui-Auch, L. S., & Möllering, G. (2010). Wary managers: Unfavorable environments, perceived vulnerability, and the development of trust in foreign enterprises in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(6), 1016–1035. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.28
- Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., & van der Werff, L. (2023). Smart tech is all around us – Bridging employee vulnerability with organizational active trust-building. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12940.