This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: red; also, it is needed when perception of outcomes is
difficult or hard to maintain. The conceptualization of public confidence in government that is 14 used in our model is consistent with Earle and Siegrist’s (2006) trust and confidence cooperation
model and supported by empirical evidence presented by them and by Baldwin, Ramaprasad, and
Samsa (2006). Earle and Siegrist (2006) found statistically significant strong effects of trust on
confidence levels in their experimental investigation of trust and confidence on cooperation (for
details of the experimental study and results, see Earle et al., 2006).
Finally, in our unilateral-trust-in-government model, we introduce the construct public’s
assessment of government’s trustworthiness. We define the government’s trustworthiness as a
function of trust in government and confidence in government. Our conceptualization is
consistent with La Porte and Metlay’s (1996) model of institutional trustworthiness. This
conceptualization gives us the ability to have different levels of trust combined with different
levels of confidence influence the assessment of trustworthiness and, ultimately, influence the
public’s judgment of the situation that determines public action and outcomes.
In this theory, although when we combine high and low levels of trust and confidence four
possible combinations arise as shown in Table 1, we believe that individuals may fall only in one
of three of these combinations as in the presence of low trust, it is not feasible to have high
confidence, since the level of trust caps the possible level of confidence. The low-trust/highconfidence sector in Table 1, therefore, is labeled not feasible.
Level of Confidence
High Low Level of Trust in Government
Noncompliant Response Table 1 Trust-Confidence Interaction
The combination of low trust with low confidence produces a low trustworthiness scenario.
Individuals who experience this combination will, in general, behave in a noncompliant way
since their expectations and experience lead them to think that the actions recommended (or
View Full Document