Trust and distrust are asymmetric when interests visibly conflict

Evidence

A system-rational increase in the effectiveness of trust will depend on all the aspects of trust formation which we have treated in the course of our inquiry and cannot catalogue once again here. Nevertheless, perhaps the decisive question remains open as to whether and how it is possible for trust and distrust to be co-ordinated through the creation of systems, and so increased in tandem. For reasons of general systems theory which cannot be adequately developed here, two closely connected processes ought to be decisive. These are the differentiation of the system from its environment, i.e. the drawing of boundaries, and the inner differentiation of the system, i.e. the functional specification of its subsystems and mechanisms. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Distrust, however, is not just the opposite of trust; as such, it is also a functional equivalent for trust. For this reason one can (and must) make a choice between trust and distrust. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 262 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Trust and distrust shift asymmetrically across behavioral thresholds — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 961; Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other; Reducing distrust is different from generating trust (+5 more)

Related

• Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. (similarity 0.89)
• Reducing distrust is different from generating trust (similarity 0.88)
• Distrust functions as an equivalent alternative to trust (similarity 0.87)
• Trust and distrust are asymmetric in motivation and epistemology, not mirror images (similarity 0.86)
• Trust and distrust shift asymmetrically across behavioral thresholds (similarity 0.86)
• Binary schematization makes trust and distrust reversible opposites, easing transition between them. (similarity 0.84)
• Systems that need distrust must also neutralize it to survive. (similarity 0.83)
• Trust and distrust both reduce uncertainty but shape action differently (similarity 0.82)
• Trust and law evolved from a common root into differentiated mechanisms (similarity 0.82)
• Generalized distrust is more rational than generalized trust. (similarity 0.82)
• Organizations require the truster to retain a modicum of distrust (similarity 0.81)
• Member selection raises internal trust while formalizing specific distrust as supervisory duty. (similarity 0.81)
• Trust only arises where opportunistic behavior is genuinely possible (similarity 0.81)
• Trust and trustworthiness are asymmetrical because only trusting carries significant risk of exploitation (similarity 0.81)
• Differences in trust are epistemological, not psychological or irrational. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Mere incentive compatibility is insufficient for trust as encapsulated interest #expands (0.80)
• Trust and distrust can increase together within differentiated systems. #contradicts (0.78) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 313
• Trust and distrust can be institutionally interlocked without undermining each other #qualifies (0.75)
• Reducing distrust is different from generating trust #complicates (0.75)
• Distrust functions as an equivalent alternative to trust #qualifies (0.75) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 262
• Trust and trustworthiness are asymmetrical because only trusting carries significant risk of exploitation #qualifies (0.72)