This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Holzer, 2006). Also, theoretical
work aimed at clarifying antecedents and outcomes of trust has been developed (Dirks and Ferrin,
2001; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995).
Although some scholars use the terms trust and confidence interchangeably and, in some cases, as
part of mutual definitions (Barnes and Gill, 2000), others have spent a great deal of effort into
distinguishing the two concepts and their importance (Baldwin et al., 2006; Cook et al., 2005b;
Earle and Siegrist, 2006; La Porte and Metlay, 1996; Siegrist, Earle, and Gutscher, 2003;
Simonson, 1999; Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). For example, Barnes and Gill (2000, p. 1)
define trust as “the level of confidence citizens have in their government (both politicians and 3 public officials) to ‘do the right thing,’ to act appropriately and honestly on behalf of the public.”
Alternatively, La Porte and Metlay (1996, p. 342) clearly distinguish the two concepts by
defining trust as “the belief that those with whom you interact will take your interest into account
even in situations where you are not in a position to recognize, evaluate, and/or thwart a
potentially negative course of action by those trusted,” 3 and by defining confidence as “when the
party trusted is able to empathize with (know of) your interests, is competent to act on that
knowledge, and will go to considerable lengths to keep its word.” La Porte and Metlay (1996)
also propose the construct of trustworthiness as the combination or concurrent existence of both
trust and confidence. Das and Teng (1998), in their research, distinguish between trust and
control and use confidence as the element to understanding this distinction.
For the purposes of this study, we define trust in government as the public’s belief that the
government will act in the right way, and we define public confidence as the public’s belief that
the action that the government takes will produce the right outcomes. The Model
Expanding on previous work related to insider threat identification dynamics (Martinez-Moyano,
Conrad, and Andersen, 2007; Martinez-Moyano, Rich, and Conrad, 2006; Martinez-Moyano,
Rich, Conrad, and Andersen, 2006; Martinez-Moyano, Rich, Conrad, Andersen, and Stewart,
Forthcoming; Martinez-Moyano, Rich, Conrad, Stewart, and Andersen, 2006), and on work
related to identification of collaboration dynamics in interoganizational settings (MartinezMoyano, 2006), we use the system dynamics approach (Forrester, 1961; Richardson a...
View Full Document