Thick relationships are one source of trust knowledge, not its definition

Evidence

The correct way to see the role of thick relationships, however, is as one possible source of knowledge for the truster about the trustworthiness of another and one possible source of incentives to the trusted to be trustworthy. The first of these is essentially an epistemological role. Obviously, however, thick relationships yield only a part of the knowledge we have of others. Our understanding should not stop with only the thick-relationship class of epistemological considerations. In practice, this class may often have priority among our sources in our face-to-face interactions, but this descriptive fact does not give it conceptual or theoretical priority. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 142

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

• XREF: This directly engages Luhmann, whom the reader is integrating — Luhmann sees thick relationships as definitive of trust; Hardin demotes them to one epistemological source.

Related

• Trust depends on relationship history, not on personal character (similarity 0.84)
• Trust reduces to knowledge while trustworthiness is motivational (similarity 0.84)
• Trust is a kind of knowledge grounded in trustworthy evidence (similarity 0.84)
• Thick-relationship trust is a special case of encapsulated interest (similarity 0.84)
• Reputational incentives, not only reciprocity, make thick relationships foster trust (similarity 0.84)
• Thick trust requires face-to-face mutual knowledge, impossible at modern scales (similarity 0.84)
• Overlapping relationships in close communities generate both knowledge and incentives for trust. (similarity 0.83)
• Most theories of trust rest on four assumptions irreconcilable with encapsulated interest (similarity 0.83)
• Noncognitive accounts of trust reduce it to a one-part relation without expectations (similarity 0.82)
• Luhmann aimed his trust theory at empirical application (similarity 0.82)
• Defining trust requires grounding it in mutual dependency relations (similarity 0.82)
• Trust is an over-flexible concept that demands precise definition. (similarity 0.82)
• Trust is rational expectation about the trusted party’s self-interest (similarity 0.82)
• Explaining trust is epistemic, explaining trustworthiness is motivational (similarity 0.82)
• Understanding trustworthiness must precede understanding trust itself (similarity 0.81)