The confidence-trust distinction is a historical product, hinging on perceived personal causality.

Evidence

The distinction between confidence and trust depends on our ability to distinguish between dangers and risks, whether remote or a matter of immediate concern. The distinction does not refer to questions of probability or improbability. The point is whether or not the possibility of disappointment depends on your own previous behaviour. Since ‘risk’ is a relatively new word, spreading from whatever sources into European languages via Italy and Spain only after the invention of the printing press, we may suppose that the possibility of making this distinction is likewise a result of social and cultural development. The degree to which our own behaviour, in spite of social dependencies, is thought to have an impact on our future state, has varied considerably in the course of history. Whereas in the Bible, for instance, the Last Judgement comes as a surprise, the late Middle Ages began — under the influence of the confessional — to represent it as the predicted outcome of risky behaviour. In committing sins you risk the salvation of your soul, which thereby becomes a matter not of church practice but of individual lifestyle and effort. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1382

Categorization

• XREF: Central to the reader’s Hardin/Luhmann synthesis: the confidence-trust distinction (whether disappointment depends on one’s own behavior) maps directly to Hardin’s observability requirement and Saramago’s Hobbesian collapse where no one’s behavior can be observed or influenced.
• DEFINE: Defines the load-bearing difference between confidence and trust as one of attribution, not probability.
• QUESTION: The claim that ‘risk’ entered European languages only after the printing press is historically checkable — worth verifying timing and route.