Reasons for trust and distrust related to Oregon marine reserves.

A research summary by Brian Erickson.

Summary: Trust and distrust shape natural resource management. We set out to examine a debate about
trust: whether trust and distrust are antonyms, points on a spectrum, or separate but connected concepts.
We also explored whether the reasons for trusting and distrusting others were similar or distinct. We
hypothesized that we would find unique reasons for distrust that did not apply to trust. We were surprised
to find that trust and distrust in others were based on similar considerations. We did not find any unique
reasons for distrust.

Takeaways: Our findings indicated that distrust and trust shared common foundations. This suggested a
model for addressing trust issues. To build or repair trust, focus on reducing others’ vulnerability, identify
shared values, demonstrate concern for interests that conflict with yours, avoid deception, fulfill
commitments, and gain accurate, complete knowledge. Fulfilling commitments can quickly build trust
because it demonstrates care, sincerity, and competence.

Additional findings: Trust and distrust depended on several factors:

1. The disposition, vulnerability, and past experiences or a person (Party A).

2. The perceived trustworthiness of the other person or group (Party B).
3. The quality of the relationship, including liking, familiarity, and whether the person felt trusted by
the other person or group.
4. Situational factors that reduced vulnerability or promoted trustworthy behavior.

Our findings align with previous research on perceived trustworthiness. This research emphasizes
qualities like care, morality, reliability, and competence are key determinants of whether someone is seen
as trustworthy. Importantly, we found that distrust emerged when these same qualities were considered
but the other party was found to be untrustworthy.

Methods: These findings are based on interviews completed between August 2021 and January 2022. We
asked fifty-three people currently or previously engaged with Oregon marine reserves about their trust
and distrust in different groups including commercial, charter, and recreational fishers; environmental
organizations; natural and social scientists, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. We asked them
to rate and explain their reasons for trust and distrust in each group.

1
 ADDITIONAL DETAILED FINDINGS
1. Characteristics of the Participant

Party A’s disposition and their perceived vulnerability influenced their trust or distrust in others.

Disposition refers to a general tendency to trust or distrust others. Many people claimed to trust others
until they were given a reason to think otherwise. They tended to report high levels of trust across most
groups, indicating dispositional trust. Others said people needed to earn and demonstrate their
trustworthiness. These folks reported lower trust or more distrust in others.

Vulnerability was influenced by people’s current life situation and past experiences. A sense of
vulnerability depended on several factors: (1) whether one’s needs, wants, and goals were being
supported or blocked, (2) the potential impacts of marine reserves, (3) whether one could cope with the
impacts, and (4) how events aligned with one’s sense of right and wrong and how people should behave.

Some people mentioned personal vulnerability such as threats to one’s livelihood or job. Personal
vulnerability focused on the current reserves as well as the possibility that the reserves would expand or
go away in the future. Professional fishers often described themselves as having the most to lose. Some
people described vulnerability to climate change, sea level rise, and environmental degradation. Other
people described promoting marine reserves and encountering aggressive and threatening behavior from
others. Many people said either the reserves or the environment were vulnerable. Thus, vulnerability
related to marine reserves focused on current and future impacts to human and non-human individuals
and communities. In general, there was distrust in others who were perceived as contributing to one’s
vulnerability.

2. Four Dimensions of Trustworthiness

We found that trust and distrust were rooted in evaluations of four qualities of Party B: benevolence,
integrity, ability, and reliability. This finding aligns with previous trust research. Fundamentally, trust is
based on the belief that Party B has good intentions and the ability to follow through on those intentions.

2
Distrust was based on negative assessments of these same four qualities. This confirmed that trust and
distrust are built on shared foundations and similar considerations.

Benevolence emerges when Party B cares for both their own and Party A’s wellbeing. Party B was trusted
when they shared similar values, listened to others, maintained objectivity, and demonstrated good
intentions. Distrust arose if Party B seemed to hold conflicting values, prioritized self-interest at others’
expense, acted selfishly or with short-term thinking, or appeared to have a hidden agenda or ill intent.

Integrity deals with being honest and ethical. Party B was trusted when they told the truth, showed
kindness, followed the rules, or displayed good character. This included the truthfulness of their
statements and the consistency between their words, thoughts, values, and actions. Distrust arose when
Party B was deceitful, aggressive, broke rules, or revealed negative character traits. Deception ranged
from outright lying to subtler tactics such as spinning, exaggerating, omitting information, or selectively
presenting favorable details.

Ability involved having the knowledge and skills to meaningfully contribute. Party B was trusted if they
had relevant and accurate knowledge, whether acquired through scientific methods or practical
experience. Additionally, trust was based on party B’s ability to make decisions based on sound reasoning
and evidence. Open-mindedness and a willingness to reconsider new information led to trust. Distrust
arose when Party B’s knowledge was deemed lacking, incomplete, biased, one-sided, or irrelevant. It also
emerged when Party B appeared to be influenced by political or emotional considerations, or when they
appeared closed-minded or resistant to updating their beliefs in response to new evidence.

Reliability focused on keeping promises and commitments. Party B was trusted when they tried hard, did
good work, and followed through. Many ODFW field biologists were described as doing their best with
available resources, suggesting individual trustworthiness was separate from institutional constraints.
Distrust arose when Party B broke commitments, did not meet expectations, or could have done more.
Frequently discussed reliability lapses included lack of follow through on promised funding, investment,
and scientific research, and/or limited communication of research results. Notably, being unreliable could
be seen as a lack of integrity (one never meant to keep a promise), lack of ability (one was incapable of
keeping a promise), lack of effort (one did not try hard enough), or lack of a supportive environment (not
enough resources).

3. Characteristics of the Relationship

Whether parties A and B knew and liked each other influenced trust and distrust. When Party A liked
Party B, they tended to trust them. However, liking did not overcome context-specific trustworthiness
concerns. For example, someone who was liked still might be suspected of interpreting evidence in a
biased manner. Several people mentioned liking ODFW field biologists but noted they lacked power to

3
change things, suggesting distrust in the larger organization despite this affection. Disliking others was
either irrelevant to trust-related judgements or led to some distrust.

Familiarity led to both trust and distrust depending on what was learned through repeated interactions.
Often, forming relationships built trust. However, at times getting to know others provided evidence of
untrustworthiness. In such instances, familiarity led to distrust instead.

When Party A was unfamiliar with Party B, two patterns emerged. At times, Party A reported moderate
to high trust or distrust in Party B based on generalities or group stereotypes. At other times, Party A
withheld judgment until more evidence of Party B’s trustworthiness could be gathered. In such instances,
Party A reported slight trust or distrust in Party B.

Thus, familiarity was not a direct reason for trust. Instead, it indicated the amount of evidence available
to assess the other party’s trustworthiness. Notably, even though we asked about trust or distrust in
specific groups (like commercial fishers or natural scientists), many people said their trust or distrust
depended on the individual and did not extend to the entire group. As such, trust and distrust were
relationship, context, and action specific.

4. Situational Factors Influencing Trust and Distrust

Situational factors beyond considerations of Parties A and B also influenced trust. For example, some
people thought rule enforcement, a high chance of detection, and the penalties of getting caught deterred
illegal fishing. This increased trust in fishers. Others thought the chance of detection of illegal behavior
was low and penalties were too minor to discourage rule breaking. This increased distrust in fishers.
Similarly, the scientific process, peer review, and norms of objectivity were mentioned as reasons to trust
scientists. In contrast, news reports of unethical peer review practices by esteemed scientists were cited
as evidence of a flawed or imperfect system, justifying lower trust or distrust in scientists.

For more on this study, visit https://brianderickson.weebly.com/marine-reserves.html.