Trust in impartial institutions substitutes for supernatural monitoring of strangers.

Evidence

The richest and most intricate agency relationships arise from collectivization. Principals often entrust their property to strangers, having recognized the value of aggregating their assets with those of others to enjoy economies of scale and to spread risk. By joining a money market fund, they command higher rates of interest for their meager savings than are otherwise available. By entrusting funds to an insurance company, they enjoy considerable protection at relatively small cost … These collective forms of agency frequently expand the temporal frame of social exchange, systematically anticipating and exploiting future contingencies. Principals transfer money or property to organizational agents in the expectation of some future payoff in the form of interest, dividends, pensions, inheritance, insurance benefits, or better health. … These “futures transactions” require even more resilient agency relationships than those that delegate property or responsibility to employees, experts, data collectors, or brokers. They demand that commitment be conferred far in advance of payoff without any necessary confirmation during the interim that the return on investment will eventually be honored. Agency arrangements serve as a temporal conduit, connecting relevant past events and future contingencies with present resources. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 29 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Supernatural agents’ minimal counterintuitiveness explains their cultural advantage; Moralizing supernatural agents help sustain cooperation at scales beyond natural limits; Language and gossip created evolutionary pressure for supernatural surveillance beliefs (+9 more)

Related

• Impersonal trust emerges where face-to-face control mechanisms are unavailable (similarity 0.83)
• Collective agency shifts trust from persons to future-dated impersonal systems (similarity 0.83)
• Secular institutions substitute for supernatural monitoring by enabling trust in strangers. (similarity 0.81)
• Large anonymous groups need supernatural monitoring to avoid splintering (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived accountability to supernatural monitors extends trust beyond one’s own religious community (similarity 0.79)
• Impersonal trust emerges where principals lose direct power to regulate agents. (similarity 0.79)
• Trusted agents face a dense lattice of institutional surveillance. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Institutions substitute for the need to trust in risky interactions #corroborates (0.85)
• Collective agency shifts trust from persons to future-dated impersonal systems #corroborates (0.85) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 29
• Perceived accountability to supernatural monitors extends trust beyond one’s own religious community #expands (0.80)
• Institutions substitute for trust by securing trustworthiness coercively. #expands (0.80)
• Supernatural monitoring beliefs drive atheist distrust even without ingroup membership #expands (0.78) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 296
• Impersonal trust emerges where face-to-face control mechanisms are unavailable #corroborates (0.75)