Be that as it may, we perceive this world through our senses, modeling the result in our consciousness, which is inherently limited and imperfect.

Each of us has his own circle of people with whom he meets in most cases and spends the bulk of his life. Conduct this experiment: take a blank piece of paper and a pencil. Write a list of all your friends, acquaintances, relatives, co-workers with whom you communicate or at least occasionally have contact in communication. Yes, even if you are a mega pop star, I am sure that a large list will not work, at most 30-50 people. And it's all. You spend almost your entire life with these people. Naturally, someone from this list drops out, someone comes. For the rest, we, like Robinsons, wander among thousands of our own kind, who don’t care about us, and we don’t care about them either.

The question of trust in our life has always been, and will continue to be, of great importance. We trust (do not trust) not only people, but also political parties, beliefs, magical operations, diets, our own husband ... This list can be continued indefinitely. Trust or distrust is our life.

Let's try to consider this problem in more detail.
The first is trust in your loved ones, your environment. We always say: "I trust this person more, this needs to be checked, I have doubts whether to trust him or not."

When choosing our social circle, we focus on our own kind in terms of interests, intellect, temperament, etc. Trust has a different nature. It is rather a moral category, which is often tested by time and actions in current situations. Remember - "you can know a friend in trouble!", About "a pood of salt", which must be eaten together, etc.

It is difficult to define exactly what trust means. Each of us has our own definition of this concept and often more than one. In business, the criterion of trust can be, for example, how much risk-free you can lend to one or another partner. One can borrow 10 dollars without fear, another 1000, and so on. The larger the amount, the higher the trust in this partner. Very comfortably.

And if the situation is different... where trust will (may) be expressed in completely different categories, let's say moral. I think, to trust or not to trust a person, you can only study him for a certain time. And not only having studied, but having studied it in dynamics, and this is already more difficult. Everything is changing: both we and the people around us with whom we communicate. Pay attention to the fact that our environment is made up of layers, as it were: the closest ones, whom we trust the most, then the next circle, then the people with whom we communicate even less. Like planets around the sun.

But I would not say that this model is perfect. It happens that you do not trust people from the closest circle, because they often get there not by our will. Only one thing can be said - you must study your neighbors, study them in simple, everyday affairs, great deeds will not show the true character of a person, great deeds can elevate even nothingness (this is already something of the classics).

In any case, you must receive knowledge from your own experience. Only then will it be true. This does not mean that you should not listen to your colleagues, friends. Listen and analyze, but analyze only on the basis of your own experience and adjusted for time. They say that only fools learn from their experience, smart people learn from someone else's. Stupidity! You can only learn from your experience.

There is one very interesting truth: if I do the same thing as my idol (let's say), repeat exactly all his actions in order to get the same result as him, then ... in the end everything will turn out exactly the opposite! !! And all because this is HE, and this is I.

We are completely different and the situations were different and the people with whom we docked were also different. It was a different time and a different place. Therefore, the result will never be the same. We must have knowledge. Knowledge is often very diverse.

Not without reason, 10-20 years ago, our education, including higher education, was very diverse, students studied subjects that had nothing to do with this specialty. And our specialists are valued all over the world. Only knowledge that is diverse in its subject matter will lead us to the fact that the world will begin to reveal its secrets. It is not necessary to go to Tibet or somewhere else "to hell in the middle of nowhere" in order to become more sensitive and attentive to the reality around us. Everything new is what we already knew, knew at a different, deep level. You just need to pay attention to it and learn how to use it.

And it is in this sense that we will invest the statement that we need to learn how to learn. And this means - to become more sensitive and attentive, to see in yourself what you did not notice before, to see in other people what you did not pay attention to before, to put yourself in someone else's place, and to understand ...

If we consider trust even more broadly, then here we will find a lot of "pitfalls". Distrust of political parties, political leaders, often leads to even worse results. Often people fall for the "bait" to specific crooks. As a result, distrust (trust) does not lead to an improvement in our lives. Even worse results occur when the individual has a certain distrust of the religious system. Often this leads to big troubles: clarification of religious relations, and as a result, often, to the collapse of the individual.

The topic of trust is very extensive, it can be continued indefinitely, if only because it is eternal. Here and psychology, and ethics, and magic, and many other diverse sciences. But if we return to trust in simpler things, then ... Trust is the sum of knowledge and experience in our life and not only. This is our sense of the world, one might say - our degree of optimism.

When there is no trust, it is a tragedy for a person. Life practically stops, the less trust in one's environment, the worse for this person. I have seen such people. Their sheer distrust is terrifying. Distrust of everyone and everything leads to a panic fear of life. And all we need is love, happiness, friendship, faith, hope...

All this can be obtained when the degree of trust in the world around us is high. That is why we create various: "Trust Service", "Telephone Helpline", etc. who become, when we feel really bad, the most attentive listeners that we need so much. And the most important thing is an optimistic view of the world, trust in it, and "it will bend under us."

Alla Borisovna Kupreichenko

Psychology of trust and mistrust

Trust and distrust as socio-psychological phenomena

Conceptual Framework for Researching the Phenomena of Trust and Distrust

Introduction

Currently, the study of trust is one of the most sought-after areas in the social sciences. It is also one of the most characteristic interdisciplinary problems. We can say that the special demand for research on trust and mistrust, as well as the cultural and historical conditionality of these phenomena, determine a rather intensive exchange of knowledge between specialists in various scientific fields. The saturation of philosophical, sociological, economic, political science, historical and other works with psychological, social and cultural variables does not allow us to draw a clear line between the studies of trust within individual branches of knowledge. In this regard, A. L. Zhuravlev predicts the formation of such a direction of research that would deal with the psychological problems of managing moral behavior as individual person, and various communities, while noting the fundamental convergence (or integration) of psychological research and research in other branches of science. In his opinion, this rapprochement is currently taking place most intensively in the practical spheres of management, economics, business, etc. .

Many modern researchers adhere to a similar point of view. According to P. Sztompka, the logic of the development of social sciences determines the transition from "hard variables" (such as "class", "status", "technological development") to more "soft" ones (such as "symbol", "value" , "discourse"). Yu. V. Veselov notes in this regard that modern sociology relies more on sociocultural factors in explaining the development of society than on sociostructural ones. Along with the consideration of traditional objects, economic science solves such problems as business ethics, morality and the market, justice and the distribution of wealth, etc. Thus, in economics and sociology, interests are shifting into the space of relations between economic subjects, and one of the most important indicators of the quality of these relationships is trust. All this determines a high degree of openness to the exchange of knowledge and dialogue between specialists in various social sciences and has a positive impact on the development of research on trust and distrust, although it complicates the task of developing a universal theoretical model.

The proposed chapter is devoted to the analysis of the problems of trust and distrust, the most significant in the context of social psychology. Particular attention is paid to understanding the phenomena of trust and distrust, their place in the system of concepts, socio-psychological functions, types, forms and types, i.e., those issues that constitute theoretical basis to develop their own approach to their empirical research and theoretical understanding.

1.1. The main directions of research on trust and mistrust

A detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of the psychology of trust has been carried out by a number of authoritative authors in major works of recent years and special review publications. In an effort to avoid repetition, let us dwell briefly on the most significant areas of research on trust and mistrust. An in-depth analysis of research on specific issues is also presented in other chapters of the monograph, in particular, in chapters 2 and 4, an analysis of research on the content and structure of trust and distrust is carried out, in chapter 5 - trust and distrust in advertising, in chapter 6 - organizational trust and distrust, etc. d.

The problem that, perhaps, not a single researcher of trust and mistrust has ignored is the understanding of the essence and content of these phenomena. This understanding is closely related to the belonging of the authors to certain branches of social sciences and scientific directions. Throughout the entire period of research on trust and distrust, their different definitions have been formulated, specific structural elements, grounds and criteria have been identified. Historically, earlier works are devoted to the analysis of the phenomenon of trust. Distrust as a separate concept attracted the attention of researchers later, and a much smaller number of works are devoted to it. It should be noted that the views of researchers differ not only on the content of trust, but also on what class of concepts it belongs to. In various studies, trust is considered as an expectation, attitude, attitude, state, feeling, the process of social exchange and transmission of information and other significant benefits, a personal and group property, etc. Researchers also talk about a culture of trust, often trust is understood as the competence of the subject. Under certain conditions, trust or distrust can be considered as a public and group mood, climate, social situation and social problem. There is no unity not only in scientific thought, but also in ordinary ideas about trust. In a study by A. L. Zhuravlev and V. A. Sumarokova, it was found that in the implicit ideas of modern Russian entrepreneurs, there are the following types of understanding of trust: as a relationship (assessment), as a process of transferring meaningful, as real behavior, as a group state.

According to one of the most common approaches, trust is defined in terms of cognitive processes. Trust, understood in this way, is a person's awareness of his own vulnerability or risk arising from the uncertainty of the motives, intentions and expected actions of the people on whom he depends (D. Lewis and A. Weigert, S. Robinson). R. Levitsky, D. McAllister and R. Bis note that within the framework of the theory of social choices, two opposite models of trust can be distinguished. One, whose origins are found in sociological (J. Coleman), economic (O. Williamson), and political (R. Hardin) theory, explains trust in relatively rational, prudent terms. In this regard, H. Schrader notes that the tradition of considering trust as a result of rational choice and utility calculation is the most common in decision theory and game theory. Another model is more inclined towards the social and psychological foundations of choice in difficult situations (M. Deutsch).

A special place in understanding the foundations of trust is occupied by theories of social and social exchange. However, here, too, there are two fundamentally different views on the nature of the occurrence of this phenomenon. According to the first of them, trust is the result of cooperation between the parties and is based on the mutual expectation of an equivalent exchange (L. Mum and K. Cook, L. Molm, N. Takashi and G. Peterson, etc.). This type of social exchange is opposed by the so-called general (generalized) exchange; in its case, reciprocity is of a generalized nature, i.e., it does not apply directly to two interacting partners (A. Seligman, N. Takashi, N. Takashi and T. Yamagishi, F. Fukuyama).

In the traditions of E. Erickson's epigenetic approach, many authors consider a person's trust in the world as a basic social attitude of the individual. Trust and distrust are the fundamental attitudes that determine the further development of all other types of relationships of the individual to the world, to himself and others (V. P. Zinchenko, R. Levitsky, D. Macalister and R. Bis, T. P. Skripkina, etc.) . BF Porshnev called trust the initial psychological relationship between people. I. V. Antonenko understands trust as a meta-relationship, pointing out that “the meta-relationship is formed as a generalization of the experience of interaction, but from the moment it is formed, it begins to play the role of a determining factor in behavior, activity, and other relationships” . “The main features of the meta-relationship and trust as a meta-relationship are the generalization and reduction of other relationships, the absence of a specific need, the background character for other relationships, the presence of the potential for foresight, the determination of other relationships” .

Other authors understand trust as a general attitude or expectation from surrounding people, social systems, social order (B. Barber, H. Garfinkel, N. Luhmann and others). According to N. Luhmann, trust is often seen as a mechanism to reduce insecurity and risk in a complex life world. Positive expectations are the main element of many approaches to understanding the essence of trust (R. Levitsky, D. Macalister and R. Bis, D. Russo and S. Sitkin, G. Homans, L. Hosmer, etc.). L. Hosmer defines trust as an optimistic expectation of a person, group or firm in conditions of vulnerability and dependence on another person, group or firm in a situation of joint activity or exchange in order to facilitate interaction leading to mutual benefit.

Many modern researchers rightly argue that trust should be understood as a more complex, multidimensional psychological phenomenon, including emotional and motivational components (P. Bromiley and L. Cumings, R. Kramer, D. Lewis and A. Weigert, D. McAlister, T. Tyler and P. Degoy). As noted by G. Fine and L. Holyfield, cognitive models of trust reflect a necessary but insufficient idea of ​​trust. They believe that trust also includes aspects of "cultural meanings, emotional reactions and social relationships ... It is necessary not only to be aware of trust, but also to feel it." This position, which is shared by many sociologists (G. Simmel, A. Giddens), is closest to the socio-psychological understanding of trust as a psychological relationship that includes cognitive, emotional, and conative components.

A number of approaches focus on the ethical aspect of trust. In the philosophical tradition, trust is often viewed as a moral concept that expresses such an attitude of one person to another, which comes from the belief in its integrity, fidelity, responsibility, honesty, truthfulness (B. A. Rutkovsky, Ya. Yanchev). In psychological research, this approach is shared by J. Rempel and J. Holmes, P. Ring and A. Van de Ven, J. Butler and others. Integrity in trusting relationships is emphasized by J. Bradeh and R. G. Eccles, P. Bromiley and L . Cumings.

In the context of the problem of socio-psychological suggestion (V. M. Bekhterev, B. F. Porshnev, K. K. Platonov, V. S. Kravkov, V. N. Kulikov, A. S. Novoselova), trust is understood as a predisposition to suggestion and dependency on another person. Trust is also considered as a form of personal dependence by some foreign authors (B. Barber, D. Zand, D. Gambetta, etc.). In the process of studying the patterns of socio-psychological suggestion, a special form of psychological defense was empirically identified, which opposes suggestions that are undesirable for the individual - counter-suggestion (distrust) (V. N. Kulikov). In the course of experimental studies, it was found that a person is counter-suggestive, first of all, to those suggestions that diverge from his views and beliefs. Thus, the similarity or difference in value orientations is one of the conditions for the emergence of trust or distrust. Based on this, it can be assumed that trust and distrust have a value-semantic basis.

Despite the fact that there are a number of studies on the relationship between trust and distrust, the factors of occurrence and the conditions for their simultaneous coexistence, distrust is still understood in terms of content as the opposite of trust (M. Deutsch, G. Mellinger, R. Lewicki, D. McAlister and R. Bis, N. Luhmann, R. Kramer and others). It is understood as counter-suggestion (B.F. Porshnev, V.N. Kulikov and others), negative expectations (I.V. Antonenko, R. Levitsky, D. Macalister and R. Bis, V.N. Minina and others. ), etc. In Chapter 2, we will try to identify the features of the main factors, criteria for the formation, socio-psychological functions of trust and distrust, thus striving to meaningfully separate these phenomena.

Understanding the essence of trust and distrust is closely related to the problem of their place in the system of concepts. Most often, researchers dwell on the relationship of trust with such phenomena as: faith, gullibility (personal property), trust (a characteristic of relationships and communication), confidence, calculation (I. V. Antonenko, V. S. Safonov, T. P. Skripkina , A. Seligman, T. Yamagishi and M. Yamagishi, R. Lewicki and others). This analysis, supplemented by the relationship of trust and mistrust with a number of other more general phenomena (psychological distance, socio-psychological space and self-determination), is presented below in a special paragraph, as well as an analysis of various types, types and forms of trust and mistrust. It is possible to single out a number of works, the authors of which analyze specific types of trust, identified for various reasons. A special place among them is occupied by studies of self-confidence conducted by T. P. Skripkina and her students. A separate paragraph will also be devoted to another important problem - the socio-psychological functions of trust and distrust. Despite the fact that the functions of trust are considered in many modern psychological, sociological and economic works (I. V. Antonenko, V. P. Zinchenko, D. M. Dankin, V. S. Safonov, T. P. Skripkina, Yu. V. Veselov, E. Erickson and others), their socio-psychological analysis is far from complete, in particular, the functions of trust and distrust as relatively independent phenomena have not been distinguished.

Almost all researchers turn to the consideration of the consequences and effects of trust and distrust. Analyzing foreign studies R. Levitsky, D. McAlister and R. Bis note that scientists perceive trust as an important condition for the health of the individual (E. Erickson and others), as the basis for interpersonal relationships (J. Rempel, J. Holmes and M. Zanna and others), as the basis of interaction (P. Blau and others), as the basis of stability social institutions and markets (O. Williamson, L. Zucker and others). In recent years, the flow of works that consider trust as a resultant indicator of the quality of intra-organizational relations has increased (R. Kramer, R. Mayer, J. Davis and F. Schurman, S. Sitkin and N. Ros, L. Hosmer and others). The authors highlight the uncertainty, complexity, and volatility of today's rapidly evolving global economic environment and the strategic impact of trust and distrust on competitiveness (R. D'Aveni, G. Hamel and S. Prahalad et al.). Trust increases such indicators of competitiveness as speed (S. Eisenhard and B. Tabrizi) and the quality of coordinated actions in strategic initiatives (W. Schneider and D. Bowen), aimed, for example, at developing new products, improving the quality of consumer services, goods and services. Modern competitive challenges to organizational growth, globalization and the expansion of strategic alliances determine the high importance of the ability to effectively develop strategic partnerships among rivals (G. Hamel and S. Prahlad), create intercultural / interlingual alliances (T. Cox and R. Tang), and also form trusting relationships in cross-functional teams, temporary groups and other types of artificially created partnerships (B. Sheppard).

As a modern trend in understanding the consequences and effects of trust and distrust, the following should be noted. The unambiguous assessments of high trust as a positive factor in the effectiveness of joint life activity, and distrust as a negative one, are being replaced by an analysis of the ambiguous impact of these phenomena on the success of interaction. More and more works are devoted to the positive impact of moderate distrust and the undesirable consequences of excessively high trust (R. Kramer, K. Cook, R. Hardin and M. Levy, R. Levitsky, D. Macalister and R. Bis, etc.). We will pay special attention to the analysis of this problem in chapters 2 and 6.

The effectiveness of trusting and distrustful interaction is also considered in the context of the problem of the relationship of trust and distrust with various phenomena of the life of an individual and a group. Among them, friendship, communication, cooperation, solidarity, social capital, etc. were most often the subject of research. The works of A. Seligman, J. Rempel, J. Holmes and M. Zanna, R. Chaldini, D. Kenrick and S. Neuberg et al. Studies of the relationship between trust and cooperation by M. Deutsch, as well as later studies by T. Yamagishi, showed that those who highly trust others, after some time themselves show a high degree of cooperation compared to those who has low trust in others. Trust and distrust were the central themes of research on negotiation and conflict management (M. Deutsch, R. Levitsky and M. Stevenson). The general idea of ​​numerous sociological research is that trust is a basic element of social capital (D. Gambetta, A. Kovelainen, S. M. Koniordos, J. Coleman, R. Putnam, J. Sullivan and J. Transue, G. Farrell, F. Fukuyama, X . Schrader and others). In recent years, Russian researchers - economists, sociologists and social psychologists (I. E. Diskin, V. V. Radaev, T. P. Skripkina, L. V. Strelnikova, P. N. Shikhirev, etc.) have become interested in this phenomenon. A recent study by F. Welter, T. Kautonen, A. Chepurenko and E. Maleva focuses on the impact of various types of trust on the structures of inter-firm relations and on the management of social inter-firm networks in the small business sector in Germany and Russia. In our opinion, the special significance of the concept of social capital lies precisely in the fact that it considers moral and psychological phenomena (trust, support, reliability, mutual assistance, tolerance, attitude towards compliance with norms, etc.) as economic resources. Researchers of trust as a factor of favorable reputation, effective image, etc. (F. Bouari) deal with a similar problem. At the same time, the reputation of the participants in the interaction is studied as one of the conditions contributing to the emergence of trust (B. Lano, E. Chang, F. Hussein and T. Dillon, R. Shaw, etc.). Trust is also considered as one of the components of authority - a special type of value attitude (V. K. Kalinichev). Trust in status interpersonal relationships was studied by IV Balutsky.

Highly relevant is the problem of the dynamics of the phenomena of trust and distrust (including in ontogeny and phylogeny). The subject of a number of sociological and psychological studies, mostly theoretical, are the determinants and stages of the formation or destruction of trust/distrust. One of the most interesting sections of A. Seligman's book is devoted to the evolution of trust throughout the history of mankind. Similar ideas were also expressed by domestic psychologists, in particular, B. F. Porshnev. A number of studies have been devoted to the dynamics of public trust in various countries (T. Yamagishi and M. Yamagishi, P. Sztompka, Yu. V. Veselov, E. V. Kapustkina, and others). As these studies show, changes in the culture of trust in individual societies can take place in leaps and bounds. Thus, analyzing the dynamics of trust in the post-Soviet space, P. Sztompka singles out two successively existing phenomena. The first phenomenon, called “externalization” of trust, consists in the fact that “external” objects, such as imported goods, technologies, specialists, etc., become the object of trust. The second phenomenon, “internationalization”, characterizes the opposite process and denotes the attribution of positive qualities, providing high trust only to "their" (socially close, domestic) objects.

Analyzing the dynamics of interpersonal trust, P. Sztompka singles out the primary and secondary levels of this phenomenon. Initially, trust in a person is formed on the basis of the primary impulse of trust. The determining value at this stage belongs to the characteristics of appearance and behavior, including status and social role. In the future, factors such as reputation, feedback from others and recommendations are “connected”. The primary impulse of trust also depends on social perceptions, attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices against various social groups. The secondary level in the structure of trust depends on the contextual and situational factors that promote or hinder trust. Important factors are also the completeness and availability of information about the participants in the interaction, for example, a clear and precise status of another person, transparency of the structure and activities of the organization. P. Sztompka notes that the next (tertiary) level in the structure of trust will no longer be based on impressions or impulses, but on a rational assessment of the actions of an individual who justifies or does not justify trust.

Studying the dynamics of organizational trust, G. Fine and L. Holyfield conducted research on the entry of new members into the culture of trust in the organization. A special role in this is given to experienced employees who teach newcomers a sense of responsibility. Another way to build trust is through the impact of trust-promoting rules. J. March and J. Olsen note that in this case the organization acts like an "assistant director", making "cues that evoke identity in certain situations" . G. Miller offers an example of the self-reinforcing dynamics of socially created trust in an organization. When discussing the basis of cooperation at Hewlett-Packard, he notes that it is supported by an "open door" policy for employees, which not only allows engineers to access all equipment in laboratories, but also approves if they take it home for personal use.

The subject of a number of empirical studies by domestic psychologists is trust at different stages of ontogenesis and the development of subjectivity. Self-confidence as an intrapersonal education of older adolescents is the subject of research by O. V. Golub. Features of growing up with different models of trusting relationships in adolescents were studied by A. A. Chernova. Confidential relations of a person as a determinant of the perception of individuality are analyzed by S. I. Dostovalov. E. P. Krishchenko’s research is devoted to self-confidence as a condition for the formation of subjectivity at the stage of transition from school to university.

Many of the provisions formulated in theoretical works have been confirmed in the framework of applied research on trust and mistrust. Among them, several well-established areas of research can be distinguished. The first of them is economic and psychological. Empirical studies by A. L. Zhuravlev and V. A. Sumarokova, V. P. Poznyakov are devoted to the analysis of the trust of modern Russian entrepreneurs various types organizations and business partners. Trust in commercial activities and business relations studied G. A. Agureeva, I. A. Antonenko, A. Ya. Kibanov, T. A. Nestik, A. V. Filippov and V. A. Denisov, P. N. Shikhirev and others. social and economic psychologists are closely intertwined with the problems and research methods of economists and sociologists (Yu. V. Veselov, A. K. Lyasko, E. V. Kapustkina, B. Z. Milner, V. V. Radaev, M. V. Sinyutin and etc.). In particular, BZ Milner studies the role of trust in social and economic transformations in society. A number of studies are devoted to the formation of trust in mass investment behavior (V. A. Dulich, O. E. Kuzina, R. B. Perkins, etc.), as well as public confidence in the Russian banking system (N. Ermakova, D. A. Litvinov and etc.).

Similar problems are characteristic of foreign economic psychology (J. Cox, D. Cohen, J. Pixley, T. Chiles and J. McMacklin and others). At the same time, Western researchers great attention is given to the experimental study of trust and distrust using the so-called investment or trust business games(S. Barks, J. Carpenter and E. Verhoogen, N. Bachan, E. Johnson and R. Croson, J. Berg, R. Boyle and R. Bonasich, F. Ball and D. Kaehler, R. Croson and N Bachan, M. Villinger et al., J. Dickhout and K. McCab et al.). Another recognized direction is the analysis of consumer confidence (S. Goodwin, R. Morgan and S. Hunt, E. Foxman and P. Kilcoin, etc.). In connection with the development of Internet commerce and electronic databases of potential consumers, the problems of trust and confidentiality of information in this area are becoming highly relevant (E. Cadill and P. Murphy, P. Lunt, G. Milne, A. Noteberg et al., N. Olivero, F. Teng and others). A highly developed area is the study of trust / distrust of consumers of medical services - trust / distrust of patients in medical personnel and medical institutions (J. Barifut and C. Maynard, G. Washington, J. Walker et al., K. Veltston et al., D. Gibson, C. Gifid, J. Jones, A. Kao et al., D. Mechanic, L. Newcomer, R. Northhouse, D. Tom et al.). In recent years, Russian psychologists have also turned to this topic (I. V. Izyumova, D. R. Sagitova, and others). Trust in advertising is also one of the most popular and socially significant topics in economic psychology. Its analysis is carried out in Chapter 5 of this monograph. The most developed direction in foreign psychology today is organizational trust, on the analysis of the state of research of which we will dwell in more detail below, as well as in Chapter 6.

As a separate scientific direction, one can single out the study of trust as a component of political and social consciousness (V.E. Bodyul, I.K. Vladykina and S.N. Plesovskikh, V.P. Goryainov, D.M. Dankin, V.N. Dakhin, K. F. Zavershinskiy, G. L. Kertman, A. V. Komina, Yu. N. Kopylova, Yu. V. Levada, N. N. Lobanov, D. W. Lovell, V. N. Lukin, B. Z. Milner, V. N. Minina, V. A. Miroshnichenko, T. M. Mozgovaya, D. V. Olshansky, T. P. Skripkina, G. U. Soldatova, N. Yu. Tishkova, N. N. Yamko and others). In particular, the works of D. M. Dankin are devoted to the problem of political trust in international relations. The subject of analysis by Yu. N. Kopylova is the trust of the population as a factor in increasing the social status of state power. The study by A. V. Komina analyzes authority, responsibility, trust as imperatives of power. The factors of distrust in the institutions of state power and administration were studied by V. N. Minina. Trust and distrust as a public and social problem are considered by T. Govir, Yu. V. Levada, T. A. Pravorotova, A. B. Ruzanov and others. Foreign studies are also devoted to the problem of political and public trust (P. Brown, D. Lewis and A. Weigert, J. Capella and K. Jemison, D. Carnevale, S. Mitchell, S. Parks and S. Komorita, A. Seligman, F. Fukuyama, M. Hezirington, R. Abramson and others).

The formation of trust in children's groups and in the teacher-student system is the subject of research by V. A. Bormotova, N. E. Gulchevskaya, V. A. Dorofeev, S. G. Dostovalov, A. A. Kokuev, O. V. Markova, A. V. Sidorenkova, T. P. Skripkina, G. V. Tiguntseva, etc. A. V. Rozhenko studied the features of emotional, social and personal adaptation to school of children with deprivation of trusting relationships, and T. P. Skripkina and A. V. Polina - features of the mental development of preschoolers with deprivation of trust.

The study of O. G. Fathi is devoted to the problem of trust, which is relevant in modern conditions as a factor in increasing adaptive capabilities in extreme situations. I. S. Lomakovskaya and T. P. Skripkina analyze the crisis of confidence as a reason for the maladjustment of migrant high school students in their work. V. I. Lebedev studied the psychology of isolated groups and the dynamics of relations in them, including in extreme conditions. Trust in the leader and trust/distrust in team members are especially important for such groups.

Currently, studies of trust in psychotherapy and psychological counseling are in demand in practice (V. V. Kozlov, R. Kochyunas, A. N. Mokhovikov, G. N. Rakovskaya, A. V. Skvortsov, N. G. Ustinova, S. Fain, S. D. Khachaturyan and others). A feature of many modern applied works, with the exception of studies of interpersonal and organizational trust/distrust, is that most often only the level of trust or distrust (high or low) is assessed and, accordingly, the structure of these relationships is not analyzed.

It can also be said that, regardless of the scope of research, their main subject is the conditions and factors of trust and mistrust. These factors are specific to different levels and types of trust. According to the model proposed by D. McKnight, L. Cummings and N. Cervani, the initial trust of a person is formed under the influence of the following factors: 1) personal factors: the existence of a predisposition to trust, a willingness to trust (disposition to trust) in one of the participants in the interaction; 2) institutional: "institutional" trust (institution based trust); 3) cognitive: processes of categorization and illusions of control. Many researchers note the special significance of the following groups of factors: the specificity and significance of the situation of interaction, the characteristics of the object of trust, the personal characteristics of the subject of trust (I. V. Antonenko, A. I. Dontsov, V. S. Safonov, R. Hardin, etc.). Among the personal factors influencing the willingness to trust, the most studied are general installation on trust in other people and the world, as well as the level of subjective control (D. McKnight, L. Cummings and N. Cervani, K. Parks and L. Halbert, J. Rotter, M. Rosenberg, etc.). The sociability of a person, along with other personal determinants of trust, was studied by L. A. Zhuravleva. She found that the general level of trust positively correlates with sthenicity, meaningfulness, objectivity, subjectivity, sociocentricity, egocentricity, and personally significant goals. Negative associations were found between high level trust and operational difficulties in communication.

Research on the development of trust has shown that people's perception of the reliability of others and their desire to enter into trusting relationships largely depend on the experience of interaction (S. Boon and J. Holmes, M. Deutsch, S. Lindskold, M. Pilisuk and P. Skolnik, L. Solomon and others). The history of the interaction provides information that allows you to evaluate the attitudes, intentions and motives of other people. This information forms the basis for inference about the reliability of a partner and for planning behavior (R. Boyle and P. Bonasich, R. Levitsky and V. Bunker, D. Shapiro, B. Shepard, etc.). Many studies have confirmed that reciprocity in relationships increases trust, while its absence or violation weakens trust (M. Deutsch, S. Lindskold, M. Pilisuk, M. Pilisuk and P. Skolnik, etc.).

There are special studies on various factors that undermine trust, increase mistrust and suspicion in modern organizations, including dispositional and situational factors (P. Brown, P. Zimbardo, S. Insco and J. Schopler, D. Karnvale, R. Kramer and R. Tyler, R. Kramer and K. Cook, J. Nye, J. Pfeffer, G. Fine and L. Holyfield, A. Fenigstein and P. Winable, etc.). Many scientists note that it is easier to destroy trust than to create it (B. Barber, R. Janoff-Bulman, D. Meyerson). The fragility of trust is argued by the existence of a number of cognitive factors that determine the asymmetry of the processes of creation and destruction of trust (P. Slovik). First, negative (trust-destroying) events are more visible than positive (trust-building) ones. Second, trust-breaking events take on more weight in judgments. To confirm the asymmetric principle, P. Slovik assessed the impact of hypothetical events on people's trusting judgments. He found that negative events have a greater impact on trust than positive events. The asymmetry between trust and distrust can be reinforced by the fact that sources of bad news (which destroy trust) are perceived as more believable than sources of good news.

In addition to cognitive factors, researchers are interested in organizational factors that contribute to asymmetries in judgments about trust and distrust. R. Barth and M. Knez studied how the position in the structure of the organization and social dynamics affect the assessment of trust and distrust. In the same study of managers in a firm high technology they revealed the influence of third parties on the spread of mistrust. This effect was found to be particularly significant with respect to mistrust. In explaining such phenomena, R. Barth and M. Knez argue that third parties are more susceptible to negative information and are often predisposed to negative rumors. Accordingly, indirect ties increase the distrust associated with "weak" relationships more than they increase trust among "strong" relationships. R. Kramer notes that the empirical results of these studies are consistent with the points of view of such theorists as R. Hardin and D. Gambetta.

The spectrum of factors influencing trust/distrust in society, according to P. Sztompka, also includes a group of structural factors. These include: the certainty of norms, which generates trust, and the normative chaos (anomie), which generates distrust; transparency of the social organization, leading to the spread of trust, and non-transparency, secrecy of activities, leading to the spread of mistrust; the stability of the social order, which strengthens trust, and the variability of the social order, the unpredictability of change, which strengthens distrust; the accountability of the authorities, which determines the trust in it, and the arbitrariness, irresponsibility of the authorities, which determines distrust in it; legalization of rights and obligations, following the established rules of the game, which reproduce trust, and the absence of established rules of the game, helplessness, which reproduce distrust; strict observance of the assumed obligations and duties, which cause a feeling of trust, and optionality, permissiveness, which cause a feeling of distrust; recognition and protection of the dignity, inviolability and autonomy of each member of society. In turn, V. N. Minina identified the following main factors that contribute to the spread and strengthening of distrust in our society: uncertainty, ambiguity of the rules for the interaction of market agents established by the state; the spread of corruption in the public administration system; underdevelopment of democratic institutions in the public administration system; the contradiction between the formal and informal structures of relations that have historically developed in the public administration system. These studies demonstrate the importance of institutional regulators of trust/distrust, in particular, the special role of formal-dynamic (structural) characteristics of social relations that determine the atmosphere and culture of trust/distrust in contemporary Russian society.

A separate layer of research, organically associated with all of the above areas, is formed by methodical works devoted to the development of approaches, tools and techniques for assessing trust. Their analysis is presented in paragraph 4.1 of Chapter 4. It should be noted that the most important task of this area is the selection of parameters that allow us to quantify various characteristics trust/distrust of an individual and a group, as well as trust/distrust between individual or group subjects.

Some of the above scientific problems are especially important in the context of our study, so it is necessary to dwell on them in more detail.

1.2. Correlation of trust and related phenomena

The analysis of the place of trust in the system of concepts is most often limited to similar-rooted and similar in meaning, namely, the phenomena of credulity, trust, faith and confidence. Many authors note the undoubted semantic proximity of the concepts of trust and faith. In Russian, they are also close etymologically. According to T. P. Skripkina, the definitions of the concepts of "faith" and "trust", given in sensible and even philosophical dictionaries, do not allow a clear distinction between their meaning . S. L. Frankl noted that “faith is belief, the truth of which cannot be proven with irrefutable conviction.” Also, according to V. G. Galushko, “faith in a non-religious sense means subjective certainty in the absence of objective grounds for its justification, that is, without the possibility of verifying its truth. Analyzing the correlation of trust with similar concepts, M. V. Sinyutin notes that “faith, as a higher moral good than trust, does not need constant practical confirmation and requires a stronger human will. And trust is more utilitarian in nature and more sensitive to the reciprocity of relationships. Based on the works of M. Buber, T. P. Skripkina concludes that “the basis of faith is the act of acceptance, the basis of trust is a specific state (or experience) associated with the relationship that arises from the interaction (contact) of the subject and object ... Genuine faith, based on the act of acceptance, does not need experimental verification (I believe that's all). According to T. P. Skripkina, unlike faith, the most important function of trust is the correlation of the subjective and the objective.

Another pair that is close in meaning is formed by trust and confidence. I. V. Antonenko, A. Seligmen, T. P. Skripkina and others paid attention to their correlation. V. G. Romek studied the socio-psychological characteristic of the personality “self-confidence” and its relationship with trust. He notes that the results of numerous studies led the authors to the conclusion that confidence is a prerequisite and an integral part of social competence. T. P. Skripkina suggests that "self-confidence is a generalized intrapersonal correlate of confident behavior." A. Seligman believes that, unlike trust, confidence is the result of mutually reinforcing expectations. In our opinion, confidence can also be a consequence of the peculiarities of the situation, for example, take place in conditions of low uncertainty.

There are a number of other phenomena close to trust. Thus, psychological researchers agree that trust should not be confused with a calculation based on objective information that implies the ability to control the situation and reduces uncertainty and vulnerability. In addition, trust and control are different, but interacting processes, note T. Das and B. - S. Teng. And, finally, many authors (L. Hosmer, D. Sand, etc.) agree that trust should be separated from naivety, altruism, etc.

Most of the considered concepts that are close to trust can be placed in the space of two factors that describe the situation of interaction between partners: the possibility of control and the presence of uncertainty. This allows you to graphically display the place of trust in the system of concepts closest to it: faith, calculation, control and confidence (Figure 1).

The presented model does not include many other factors of the social situation that influence the formation of trust. According to most researchers, the following circumstances (mandatory conditions) are necessary for the emergence of trust:

1) the presence of a significant situation characterized by uncertainty or associated with risk;

2) the optimistic expectation of the subject regarding the outcome of the event;

3) the vulnerability of the subject and its dependence on the behavior of other participants in the interaction;

4) voluntariness of interaction;

Excerpts from the article by A. B. Kupreychenko, S. P. Tabkharova "Criteria of trust and distrust of a person in other people." Psychological Journal, No. 2, Volume 028, 2007, pp. 55-67.

The point of view on trust and distrust as relatively autonomous psychological phenomena is relatively new. The conditionality of the novelty of the approach is explained by the fact that some of its aspects were identified in the 50s - 70s. 20th century in the works of M. Deutsch, J. Mellinger, B. F. Porshnev, W. Reed and others. most interconnected. At the same time, the results of recent studies convincingly show that trust and distrust as psychological phenomena are largely independent of each other. Despite a number of published works on this topic, the signs, factors, functions, components (grounds), as well as the conditions for the emergence and existence of trust and distrust, are still not fully understood. The purpose of this study is the definition of criteria for trust and distrust of the individual in other people. Criteria are understood as the characteristics on the basis of which the subject determines his ability to trust or not trust another person.

Common signs of trust and distrust. Most researchers note that trust arises in conditions of uncertainty, vulnerability, lack of control. In addition, trust is often defined as a state of openness. However, distrust arises only in the presence of all of the above conditions. If there is no openness, vulnerability and uncertainty, then there are no fears associated with them, and, therefore, there are no grounds not only for trust, but also for mistrust. An important provision of modern research is the assertion that trust does not always bring good, and mistrust is evil. An excess of trust can sometimes cause significant harm, and an optimal level of distrust can cause significant benefit. At the same time, most researchers define trust as confidently positive or optimistic expectations about the behavior of another, and distrust as confidently negative expectations.

In our opinion, trust does not always represent positive expectations. Trusting a person, we accept from him not only positive, but also negative assessments of our own behavior, as well as unpleasant for us, but fair actions, such as punishment. Undeserved praise is more likely to shake trust than an unpleasant but well-founded remark. In turn, the good that comes from a person whom we do not trust becomes the basis for even greater suspicions. Especially if we don't deserve this. good relationship. There are wise sayings that reveal the true meaning of this "good": "Free cheese is only in a mousetrap", "Fear the Danaans who bring gifts." Thus, it is possible to single out signs that allow, more reliably than positive and negative expectations, to breed trust and distrust. These, in our opinion, are the expectation of benefit (a sign of trust), including in the form of censure, restriction or punishment (these expectations can hardly be called positive), as well as the expectation of harm (a sign of distrust), including in the form of undeserved reward, flattery, helpfulness, etc.

The closest in meaning to the dichotomy "expectation of benefit - expectation of harm" is the dichotomy "expectation of good - expectation of evil". It is no coincidence that in the philosophical tradition, moral behavior is most often one of the main signs of trust. B. A. Rutkovsky understands trust as a moral concept that expresses such an attitude of one person to another, which comes from the belief in her integrity, loyalty, responsibility, honesty, truthfulness. From this position, the opposite of trust is distrust, understood as a state in which the sincerity and honesty of a person are questioned. However, such opposition is not always justified. A person whom we do not trust may also act in accordance with moral standards, but his interests and goals of activity may conflict with ours and therefore cause legitimate fears. In this case, we are dealing with a respectable adversary.

However, mistrust also arises when the second participant in the interaction does not show or even experience hostility. He may not even be aware of the existence of a conflict of goals and interests. But if this conflict is obvious to the first subject, if he experiences envy or hostility and is ready for competition, then the expectation of an adequate reaction to such an attitude gives rise to distrust of the opposite side. Readiness for hostility or competition causes anticipatory expectation of revenge and generates "preventive" mistrust.

An attempt to define trust as an unambiguous expectation of moral (fair, honest, responsible) behavior, and distrust as an expectation of immoral behavior, turns out to be untenable for another reason. As the results of our empirical study showed, the extreme degree of manifestation of certain moral qualities (hyper-responsibility, crystal honesty, etc.) is ambiguously perceived by the respondents. Most of them consider these characteristics to be important grounds for showing trust in another person. However, for some, such uncompromising and insensitivity to the context (especially from a loved one) causes distrust, as it can lead to unpleasant consequences. For example, even a very honest person in a morally ambiguous situation is not always able to keep someone else's secret and in this case will be assessed as a "traitor". Thus, morality is not a criterion that makes it possible to unambiguously and reliably distinguish between the concepts of "trust" and "distrust". The coincidence of the signs of trust and distrust listed above brings us back to the question of what are the main differences between these phenomena.

The main features that differentiate trust and distrust. In the works of the Russian historian and social psychologist B. F. Porshnev, some grounds are proposed for breeding the content and origin of the phenomena under discussion. Rejecting the idea that trust is just the absence of distrust, BF Porshnev notes that these phenomena can coexist. Using an analogy with the law of reverse induction of excitation and inhibition in the physiology of GNI, he believes that the trust-based suggestion, the power of the direct influence of the word on the psyche, induces (although not automatically) a fence that consists of various mental mechanisms. Distrust is the first phenomenon in a series of these protective psychic anti-actions. Understanding trust as a predisposition to suggestion and dependence on another person, B. F. Porshnev notes that “dependence” (suggestion) is more primary, more material than the “inner world” of a loner. According to the scientist, distrust is an attitude that forms the inner world of a person: mental independence is achieved by counteracting addiction. Thus, the ability to distrust, along with the ability to trust, is ontogenetically and phylogenetically one of the most ancient formations.

Such a view, in our opinion, is able to expand the ideas laid down by E. Erickson and which have become traditional about the formation of basal trust in the early stages of otnogenesis. It can be hypothesized that basal trust (a sense of unity, identity with the mother) is something that is given from birth. Continuing the analogy of B. F. Porshnev, it should be assumed that it is more primary than the feeling of independence. Separation from the mother and simultaneous entry into the world (openness to it) violates the habitual comfort of the baby in the womb, causes a number of unpleasant sensations, which ultimately form a sense of physical boundaries with the mother and the outside world. Gradually, the child learns to find sources of pleasant sensations and avoid unpleasant ones, i.e. do right choice in favor of approach and unity, or in favor of avoidance and hostility. The instinct of self-preservation (the desire to protect one's own borders from destructive influences), in its essence, is a manifestation of the basic mistrust of the individual. Basal distrust - a feeling of insecurity of the world around and the desire to avoid unpleasant environmental factors arises in the early stages of ontogenesis as a natural consequence of the basal trust with which a child is born.

Thus, at the initial stage of personality development, the skills of trust and distrust of the world are formed. This combination of openness to the world and closeness from it, in our opinion, is true independence, autonomy, i.e. it is precisely the neoplasm that is formed at the first stage of the psychosocial development of the personality, called by E. Erickson "the cornerstone of the viability of the personality." The autonomy of a person, among other elements, includes his awareness of the boundaries of his own Self, his psychological space and the boundaries of the world around him. The fears associated with the intrusion of surrounding people into these boundaries, as well as the violation by the subject of the boundaries of the surrounding world and other people, are the basis of distrust. The basis of trust is the expectation of benefit (good and fair treatment) from those to whom the personality opens the boundaries of its own psychological space, or those into whose boundaries it penetrates itself.

Analysis of the origin of trust and distrust brings us close to the consideration of the functions that these phenomena perform in the life of the subject. Trust and distrust regulate the relationship of the subject with the outside world, integrate the experience of interacting with it, orient the personality in the system of relations, preserve and reproduce the socio-psychological space of the person, contribute to the development of the subject, etc. At the same time, functions specific to trust and mistrust can be distinguished. . Thanks to trust, the subject interacts with the world, cognizes and transforms it and himself. It is trust that creates the conditions for knowledge, exchange and interaction of the subject with the outside world. Distrust also contributes to the preservation and isolation of the subject and his socio-psychological space. This also shows its protective function. Thus, one of the signs that can breed trust and distrust is “orientation towards exchange and interaction - orientation towards preservation and isolation”.

The dynamic balance of trust and distrust in a person is the result of the influence of two interrelated factors: “attraction-avoidance” and “pleasant-unpleasant”. Interesting objects, when approached, cause different sensations and emotions in the child, forming an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bpleasant or unpleasant (dangerous). At the next stages of development, along with the “pleasant-unpleasant” factor, the indicators “useful-harmful”, “bad-good”, “moral-immoral” also become significant. This group of factors can be conditionally combined under the name "expectation of good-expectation of evil". The significance of each of the factors included in this group for building trust/distrust relations is determined by a whole range of personal, socio-demographic, socio-cultural, situational and other determinants.

Among the main factors of trust-distrust there are conative, cognitive and emotional formations. This allows us to consider trust and distrust as a psychological attitude with its traditional structure, which includes the listed components. Thus, distrust can be understood as a psychological attitude, including the awareness of the risks arising from the openness of the subject and the interaction partner; a sense of danger and negative assessments of a partner; alertness and tension (willingness to stop contact, respond to aggression or show anticipatory hostility). In turn, trust is an attitude that includes interest in a partner, the expectation of mutual benefit (including those associated with restriction, censure or punishment); positive emotional assessments of this person; willingness to do good deeds towards him, openness and relaxation.

It is important to note that the content and degree of fears (distrust) are, as a rule, not equivalent to the content and level of hopes (trust). Gains from the justification of trust and losses as a result of the confirmation of distrust, in most cases, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively, and, moreover, psychologically are not equivalent. If expectations of trust are not met (a situation of low satisfaction of expectations), nothing terrible will happen - we simply will not get a “win”. If the expectations of distrust are confirmed, then by letting a dangerous partner into our “territory”, we may lose something highly significant. So, for many people, the arguments in favor of marriage are expectations of understanding, love, comfort, etc. (characteristic of high confidence). Low expression of these feelings and states will reduce satisfaction family life, but most likely will not lead to a break. However, more dangerous factors, such as violence, betrayal, betrayal, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., can destroy a marriage. At the same time, the losses will be more significant than from non-confirmation of positive expectations. Faith in people, hopes for the future, social circle, social status, material wealth may be lost. Figuratively, the problem of trust-distrust can be represented as a dilemma of a mouse in front of a mousetrap. If the trust is justified, she gets a piece of cheese, but if the distrust is confirmed, she loses her life. Thus, high trust means expectation of a significant good, while low trust means low expectations. High distrust manifests itself as a fear of losing a lot. Low distrust is characterized by unexpressed fears, low subjective assessment of risks.

The ambivalence of trust and distrust. Another issue of interest is the analysis of the conditions under which the coexistence of trust and distrust in interpersonal and organizational relations is possible. Many modern researchers believe that people quite easily form an ambivalent idea about the other, including in trust-distrust relationships. This means that subjects are able to both trust and distrust each other. As a result of the analysis of the works of other authors, as well as as a result of our own research, we have determined the conditions under which trust and distrust are relatively autonomous phenomena that can exist simultaneously in relation to the same object and manifest themselves in ambivalent assessments. These conditions are, firstly, the multidimensionality and dynamism of relations between people; secondly, the interaction partner has conflicting qualities; thirdly, a high subjective assessment of the risks arising from the openness and high trust of the subject and the interaction partner; fourthly, the contradictory attitude of the subject to a number of personal properties of the person being evaluated (strength, activity, weakness, etc.).

conclusions

1. In the process of analysis, the illegitimacy of defining trust and distrust as mutually exclusive phenomena of polar valency was proved. The work defines their common features, conditions of occurrence and functions in the regulation of the subject's life. The main characteristics on which trust and distrust differ to the greatest extent are identified. In particular, a hypothesis was put forward about the formation of basal mistrust in early childhood in close connection with basal trust. The main functions of trust are knowledge, exchange and ensuring the interaction of the subject with the world. The main function of distrust is self-preservation and isolation.

2. The criteria for trusting and distrusting other people have both similarities and differences. For trust, the following characteristics of the assessed person are most significant: strength, activity, optimism, courage, morality, friendliness, reliability, openness, intelligence, education, resourcefulness, independence, organization, politeness, proximity of worldview, interests and life goals. The most significant criteria for distrust are: immorality, unreliability, aggressiveness, talkativeness, belonging to a hostile social group, conflict, competitiveness, impoliteness, secrecy, stupidity.

3. The characteristics of the assessed person are identified, the positive pole of which is highly significant for trust, and the negative pole is approximately equally significant for distrust. Such criteria of trust/distrust are, first of all: morality-immorality, reliability-unreliability, openness-secrecy, mind-stupidity, independence-dependence, non-conflict-conflict.

4. Criteria of trust and distrust for certain categories of people differ from each other. In general, most of the positive characteristics are most significant for trusting a loved one. Negative characteristics- to distrust a stranger. This reveals the features of trust functions in different systems of interpersonal and intergroup relations, in particular, the function of preserving and reproducing the socio-psychological space of the subject. Therefore, some qualities are considered by the same respondents as criteria of trust for close people and as criteria of distrust for unfamiliar and strangers.

5. Characteristics are identified that a significant part of the respondents define as criteria of trust, and another equally significant part - as criteria of mistrust. These differences are determined by individual, group or situational features of the attitude towards these characteristics of the person being evaluated, as well as features of the functions of trust and distrust. In these features of the criteria of trust and distrust, in particular, the life position of the individual is manifested or the influence of social norms specific community.

6. The identified factors of trust can be divided into two groups: factors for assessing the positive prospects for potential cooperation or interaction (interest in trust, value of trust, expectation of benefits as a result of trust); as well as factors predicting the success of building trust (predicting the possibility and ease / difficulty of the process of building trust). Similarly, distrust factors are divided into factors for assessing the negative consequences of interaction (risks of openness) and factors for predicting the success of protection from them (forecasting the possibility and ease / difficulty of protection). Factors of trust and distrust are divided into factors of subject properties, properties of a partner and characteristics of the process of interpersonal or intergroup interaction.

If you lack faith, then existence does not believe in you.

Lao Tzu

Trust is something sublime, ideal, without which life turns into a series of logical formulas. A huge number of various social phobias and fears are associated with the topic of a person’s lack of trust in the world around them, which constrain a person’s behavior and interfere with building one’s life. I reflect on the role of trust in the life of a modern person, on the loss and restoration of trust in the article.

Ushakov's dictionary defines trust as a belief in someone's honesty, decency; as faith in the sincerity and conscientiousness of someone. Trust is a state and a process, just like respect, health or love is the never-ending stream of life. The listed concepts, one way or another, come into contact with trust, are enriched by it, because trust is a condition for their development. If there is no trust, then there is something else, because energy does not disappear, but is transformed. Trust is replaced by suspicion, fear and aggression. Therefore, without the ability to trust, people are doomed to suffer.

To live means to trust, first yourself, another, then the whole world. Do we trust initially, or is it a skill bestowed by others, primarily parents? Like any human skill, trust is given to us in its infancy, but through contact with the surrounding reality, we create a developed ability. The American psychologist and psychoanalyst E. Erickson believed that the first year of a child's life, the experience of his communication with his mother, is very important for the formation of trust. It is here that the child is most open to the perception of the world. Communication with the mother lays down the law of human adaptation, which lies in the fact that the ability to take care of one's safety is formed later than the ability to trust. In the future, family relations, other conditions for the formation of a person and the upbringing of his personality lay the foundations, among which a significant place is determined for trust.

Trust is something that precedes faith, a state before faith. It’s as if they’re telling you - if you can trust, you will gain faith. Trust is a probe of faith, an intermediate state between reason and spiritual affect. A person believes what he wants to believe. Faith presupposes an increase in attention not only to a person (alive, dead or invented), but also to certain phenomena (for example, anomalous zones on earth). We place trust in a real person or group of people. Faith requires passion; trust needs experience and knowledge. Faith needs no explanation, it is dogmatic. While the answer to the question why do you trust him, causes a lot of answers in a person, and some of them will be devoted to experience, the other to beliefs. Faith arises where we are not able to understand a complex phenomenon with our mind, and then, from impotence, we are left either to passionately believe, or to go crazy from longing. Therefore, the trust of man to man is a condition of faith. Is it possible to assume the truth of a Christian confession if a person cannot trust his confessor. Only by knowing how to trust another, having a solid foundation on earth, a person can take a step towards the supernatural, turning to faith with sacred experiences.

Trust is strongly related to the mental (in terms of adapting to the world) and physical health. A person who does not trust is always tense, as he is constantly in anticipation of a dirty trick, danger. But, if, next to you, a person to whom you can open up, this is accompanied by muscle relaxation, since you are safe. Constant overexertion leads to stress, neurosis. Brain programs begin to go astray, tk. do not receive enough energy, due to constant overvoltage. As a result, a distrusting person may well become the owner of diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension and other systemic diseases. Suffering of the soul leads to torment of the body.

Since this feeling originates in the bosom of motherly love, trust allows you to be loved and love. Sometimes, people come to psychotherapy who do not know how to trust, but at the same time presenting a different problem, for example, loneliness. I always have a question, is it possible to open up without trust, to let another person into your life, if the whole surrounding space is perceived as evil. It is here that the topic of resistance in psychotherapy arises - psychological defenses, which take a lot of time to work with. Only by learning to trust at least a psychotherapist, the patient will be able to trust the world around him, which in turn will help to establish interesting relationships.

Who do we trust? As a rule, people who share our beliefs and with whom we have a positive experience. Caution is necessary in trust, but most of all it is necessary in distrust. In life, it is important to be able not to believe. For example, when they tell you that you do not have the ability, that you will not succeed, that he can, and not you. In this case, one should move away from what was said, master the art of disbelief. But, one must be careful that disbelief does not turn into pathological faith - suspicion. In other words, there are contexts where distrust of the outside world can be useful, and even saving for the integrity of a person. Thus, both pathological mistrust and excessive gullibility can limit a person.

What happens when a person believes everyone and everyone strives to trust? This practice is an inverted form of distrust of the outside world. Somewhere in the depths of the soul, there is a field where this “gullible” person will never let another go, but he will allow him to visit the artificial space, even if he later experiences loss and pain. When a person totally trusts, at the same time dooming himself to suffering, he lives the role of a victim, from which he receives unconscious benefits. No wonder there is a proverb - the prostate is worse than theft. There are many stories with illogical behavior of a person, when he gives money to “bad people” again and again. When they ask him - how is it that you gave again, and again you were deceived; he replies - I always trust everyone. To some extent, trust here serves as a bargaining chip, an entrance ticket, and the essence is the unconscious desire of a person to be a victim, and constantly suffer. Because trust means knowing something about a person, being interested in him, but, in this case, this is indifference to a particular person, criminal carelessness in relation to oneself, but not attention to another. Here a person directs aggression on himself, not knowing how to trust himself, because to trust himself is to know yourself, but this is impossible, for reasons hidden from consciousness.

The reason for the loss of confidence is disappointment. And often such disappointment is associated with the trauma inflicted on the inner child - a subpersonality that combines the ability to sincerely perceive the world, with interest and glee. In moments of disappointment inner child as if hiding in depth, the subpersonalities of an adult come to the fore, which should take care of the child, with the help of psychological defenses. But, such care is not always beneficial, often there are so many mental defenses that a person turns into a solid shell that does not have to feel, exchange energy, breathe and live.

Is it possible to restore trust in the world around us? Yes, it is possible, but at the beginning of this long journey, it is necessary for a person to recognize this problem as such. Psychological work to gain the ability to trust requires great mental concentration, new experience in communication, revealing oneself in it through the experience of emotions different strength and orientation, spiritual interest in oneself as a unique and creative being. This sincere, painstaking work is opposed to the transience of time. Over time, psychological defenses reinforce the shell of mistrust even more. Unspent emotions become the palisades of the fortress, which gradually turns into a cage where it is impossible to breathe, and the offended inner child quietly sits inside and sobs, trying to convey his pain to the right adult.

Trust is the basis of relationships

A person gradually learns to trust from childhood, observing the example of the relationship of his parents and people close to him. A pleasant homely atmosphere, harmonious and trusting relationships between family members bring up an inner core in a child, form a self-sufficient and integral personality.

Growing up in an environment of distrust and reproaches makes a person distrustful, who finds it difficult to open up and trust others.

Trust has its extreme degree of expression - it is gullibility and distrust. Too open and trusting people often become victims in relationships. After that, they are afraid that they will be deceived, trying to avoid unnecessary manifestations of feelings and emotions.

It then becomes extremely difficult for such people to create healthy relationships based on trust. They become distrustful. It is difficult to trust people who are extremely gullible, even more difficult to trust distrustful people. Therefore, it is so important to learn inner trust, which will be the key to creating correct and healthy relationships based on trust.

Trust in a relationship can be in pairs, where everyone knows how to trust not only their partner, but also themselves. Internal distrust gives rise to such negative feelings and emotions as reproaches, suspicions, and even jealousy.

Relationships without trust

When mistrust appears in a relationship, the feeling of love is often dulled, due to frequent quarrels, misunderstandings and reproaches. For strong relationships, it is necessary to identify the main causes that give rise to uncertainty and distrust.

Often people do not notice how little attention they pay to their partner, in turn demanding excessive attention from themselves. Claims contribute to the emergence of the first manifestation of distrust of the partner.

Obsessive suspicious thoughts only aggravate the situation, and eventually a conflict arises. The reason for such mistrust is the far-fetched thoughts, actions and feelings that partners attribute to each other. Therefore, you should not get hung up on trifles and do not wind yourself up.

Unjustified expectations can be another source of distrust in a relationship. This happens when love first appears not for another person, but for your own feeling of love. Often this happens in those couples in which one partner for a long time loved the other unrequitedly. Dreams and dreams about a loved one absorb a person so much that already in a relationship with him (when love for another comes), he tries to realize all his dreams. This is what leads to distrust of the authenticity of the partner's feelings.

Starting a new relationship, a person strives for harmony. Only often the euphoria of the first meetings is replaced by sadness, alienation, lack of mutual understanding, constant suspicions and doubts.

What are the true causes of doubt and mistrust?

1. The most common cause of doubt, most often, is an unsuccessful past experience. Try to forget the past, start, as they say, from scratch.
2. Dubious behavior of a partner or his superficial attitude towards you can also cause suspicion, doubt and distrust.
3. Internal complexes and lack of healthy self-esteem are fertile ground for the emergence of distrust in a partner.
4. Doubts and suspicion can also arise without a reason. If, for example, a partner suffers from pathological jealousy. The cause of which may be internal self-doubt, improper upbringing, etc.
5. Own lies, betrayals and dishonest behavior. Paradoxically, it is precisely such reasons that can make a person doubt the decency of another.

Constant nervous tension invariably leads to stress, which adversely affects the general state of health, causing insomnia and a host of other troubles. And the relationships themselves without trust end quite quickly and not always peacefully. Sometimes distrust makes a partner very difficult in everyday communication, he becomes overly suspicious, grumpy, which is also a common reason for the breakup of stable couples.

How to restore trust in a relationship?

• First, learn to trust in the little things. Stop testing your partner for honesty. Think about whether you yourself are honest to the end. Leave your partner and yourself the right to disagree.
• Understand the reasons for your distrust. Do certain behaviors of your partner annoy you? Don't like looking at a certain person? Embarrassed by late returns home? Discuss everything in a positive way with your loved one. Perhaps there is a completely objective explanation for all your doubts about the feelings of a partner.
• Understand that love is a free decision and has nothing to do with slavery.
• All troubles have their solution main principle even if the worst suspicions were confirmed.
• Talk frankly about your doubts with your partner. Probably, he will easily dispel all the accumulated suspicions.
• A positive attitude helps to find mutual understanding, and a good sense of humor will help to defuse the situation.