This process although subtle in most cases can be

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: r growing or declining expectations over time. This process, although subtle in most cases, can be extremely powerful in explaining the process by which expectations and perception get locked in certain conditions over time. The expanded government-public model provides a richer conceptualization of the determinants of perception of outcomes and the learning processes associated with finding adequate levels of decision thresholds. However, it still does not explain the links to public trust in its effects. To address these links, we propose the unilateral-trust-in-government model shown in Figure 7. Because “trust is based, at least in part, on a simple performance evaluation” (Keele, 2007, p. 243), our unilateral-trust-in-government model links the public’s memory of perceived outcomes (experience of performance) to its trust in government (see Figure 7). Positive performance increases trust because it is evidence of the ability to perform, and poor performance decreases trust because it is evidence of the inability to perform. In addition, in our unilateral-trust-ingovernment model, we conceptualize the public’s trust in government as a function of the level of 12 the public’s expectations of outcomes (expectations). We agree with Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998, p. 395) in that “trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another,” and we use this link to capture the effect that expectations, when paired with the memory of perceived outcomes, have on trust formation (Chanley, 2002; Goold, 2002; Ho et al., 2005; Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies, 1998; Mishler and Rose, 1997). With this characterization of trust, we recognize that outcomes alone are not sufficient to explain changes in trust over time, as found in Keele’s (2005) work on party control and trust in government and in Gershtenson, Ladewig, and Plane’s (2006) work on changes in political environment, among others. Keele (2005) found that although outcomes observed are important predictors of trust, they are not sufficient to explain trust variations ove...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online