Why does one trust? A 360-degree perspective on the role of position power in weighting trustworthiness factors.

The purpose of the current paper is to explore the influence of the perceived trustworthiness factors of ability, benevolence and integrity on general and specific trust across supervisors, subordinates and peers with the same focal referent. This study used a 360-degree approach to examine how positional power asymmetries influence the relationship between trustworthiness and trust for a general and situation-specific referent. Data were obtained from military supervisors (N = 200), peers (N = 123), and subordinates (N = 85). Measures of trustworthiness and trust of a common military officer were obtained. Supervisors and subordinates differed in their relative weighting of trustworthiness factors (i.e. ability, benevolence, and integrity) when evaluating general and specific trust. Peers evidenced no difference in the relative weighting of trustworthiness factors. The relationship between benevolence and specific trust was stronger for subordinates than for supervisors. One implication of our findings is that trust can develop differently in bottom-up versus top-down organizational relationships. This study provides evidence that supervisors and subordinates emphasize different aspects of trustworthiness when evaluating their trust of a focal officer, and this process was different for general versus specific trust referents. The study also extends previous research by replicating previous findings across raters.

Toward a rational and ethical sociotechnical system of autonomous vehicles: A novel application of multi-criteria decision analysis.

The impacts of autonomous vehicles (AV) are widely anticipated to be socially, economically, and ethically significant. A reliable assessment of the harms and benefits of their large-scale deployment requires a multi-disciplinary approach. To that end, we employed Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to make such an assessment. We obtained opinions from 19 disciplinary experts to assess the significance of 13 potential harms and eight potential benefits that might arise under four deployments schemes. Specifically, we considered: (1) the status quo, i.e., no AVs are deployed; (2) unfettered assimilation, i.e., no regulatory control would be exercised and commercial entities would "push" the development and deployment; (3) regulated introduction, i.e., regulatory control would be applied and either private individuals or commercial fleet operators could own the AVs; and (4) fleets only, i.e., regulatory control would be applied and only commercial fleet operators could own the AVs. Our results suggest that two of these scenarios, (3) and (4), namely regulated privately-owned introduction or fleet ownership or autonomous vehicles would be less likely to cause harm than either the status quo or the unfettered options.

Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust.

Political trust is a perennially important concern and the events of the last few years have, in many ways, heightened this importance. The relevant scholarship has done much to meet this challenge but continues to struggle with definitional unclarities and an inability to provide accounts that consistently operate as expected. The current research seeks to test the potential of a classic model of trust from the organizational sciences that makes specific arguments regarding the psychological nature and mechanisms of the construct in helping to address these concerns. Using data from a national convenience sample, we provide preliminary evidence which suggests that measures and models addressing this theoretical account of psychological trust form unidimensional and reliable measures that may more precisely explain the process of political trust and outperform current measures in predicting relevant correlates. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of our work and, in so doing, lay a foundation for a new research agenda for political trust.