Principals mitigate distrust by hoarding wealth, self-sufficiency, or acquiring expertise.

Evidence

Principals cope with these potential risks and uncertainties in a number of ways. Some avoid or limit their participation in agency relationships. A proverbial few keep their money in mattresses-, literally and figuratively-fearful of futures transactions and cautious about transforming their tangible property into a symbolic share of collectivized wealth. Some forgo the benefits of a rich division of labor, delegating little responsibility or property to others and becoming jacks-of-all-trades. Others develop selected expertise to reduce their reliance on agents-becoming lay doctors, mechanics, financial planners, “jailhouse lawyers,” and art experts (Molino 1984)-or, at least, seek out second opinions. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 35

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Trust is structurally precarious because agents control symbolic wealth at a distance from principals. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 35

Related

• Trust is structurally precarious because agents control symbolic wealth at a distance from principals. (similarity 0.86)
• Trust is structurally vulnerable because agents can exploit principals’ ignorance and distance. (similarity 0.85)
• People respond to trust risks by reducing reliance on agents, at great cost. (similarity 0.84)
• Impersonal trust persists despite agency tensions and varies greatly across conditions. (similarity 0.80)
• Trust control is a specialized occupation that sidelines ordinary actors (similarity 0.80)
• The very mechanisms that enable trust also enable its abuse. (similarity 0.80)
• Impersonal trust emerges where face-to-face control mechanisms are unavailable (similarity 0.80)
• Impersonal trust emerges where principals lose direct power to regulate agents. (similarity 0.79)
• Mechanisms for controlling impersonal trust themselves create new opportunities for abuse (similarity 0.79)
• Principals collectivize trust oversight to gain leverage through embedded ties. (similarity 0.79)
• The same features enabling trust also enable agent abuse. (similarity 0.78)