Доверие в обществе, бизнесе и организации


                TRUST IN SOCIETY, BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATION





Proceedings of the Conference “Business. Society. Human” (October 30-31, 2013, Moscow)



Editors
N. I. Dryakhlov, A. Ishikawa, A. B. Kupreychenko, M. Sasaki, Zh. T. Toshchenko, V. D. Shadrikov










NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

TRUST IN SOCIETY, BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATION

            TRUST IN SOCIETY, BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATION


Proceedings of the Conference “Business. Society. Human” (October 30-31, 2013, Moscow)

Editors
N. I. Dryakhlov, A. Ishikawa, A. B. Kupreychenko, M. Sasaki, Zh. T. Toshchenko, V. D. Shadrikov














Moscow - 2013

National Research University - Higher School of Economics Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences The Institute of Social and Economic Studies of Population of Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Socio-Political Research of Russian Academy of Sciences Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian State University for the Humanities Saint-Petersburg State University Kursk State University Tver State University Chuo University (Tokyo)
The Association of Business Psychologists (GB) International Russian-Japanese Center for comparative studies of corporate culture in Russia, Eastern and Western countries



Trust in society, business and organization: Proceedings of the Conference “Business. Society. Human” (October 30-31, 2013, Moscow) / N. I. Dryakhlov, A. Ishikawa, A. B. Kupreychenko, M. Sasaki, Zh. T. Toshchenko, V. D. Shadrikov (Eds). - Moscow: Cogito-Centre-IPRAS Publishing House, 2013. - 320 p.

The book includes proceedings of the conference “Business. Society. Human” (October 30-31, 2013, Moscow) organized by National Research University Higher School of Economics. The purpose of the conference: interdisciplinary analysis of actual problems of studying business in the social sciences: the relationship between business and society; social capital and trust; business and corporate culture; individual, group and organization in business; problems and prospects of business education and business consulting, etc. The book present the results of researches of trust and social capital carried out in various countries in Europe, Asia and in Russia. Authors are well-known sociologists, psychologists and economists. The results of these researches were presented at the conference. The papers are published as they were submitted by the author.


Published with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project № НР(г) 13-06-06074/13)

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY


© National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 2013

ISBN 978-5-89353-409-2
ISBN 978-5-9270-0271

        CONTENTS






THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS

Masamichi Sasaki
Parental socialization and experiences of betrayal: a cross-national analysis of trust.......................................... 9
Akihiro Ishikawa
The sense of trust in Japanese and Russian contexts: like and unlike....... 31
Nikolay Dryakhlov, Sayana Mitupova, Viktor Popov
Trust: development of a new social paradigm in contemporary Russia and Japan . . . 39
Alla Kupreychenko Dialectics of social trust and distrust ................................... 53
Tatiana Skripkina
Concept of trust relationships of an individual ........................... 70
Irina Antonenko
The dynamic content of trust............................................... 79
Yuri Veselov
Trust in the transition in the modern world ............................... 84
Alla Kupreychenko, Irina Mersiyanova
Problem of measuring social trust - Can you trust most people?.............104

TRUST IN ECONOMY, BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATION
Zhan Toshchenko
Trust as an indicator of economic consciousness and behavior in Russia ... 123
Satoko Yasuno
Trust and social capital in Japan ........................................ 133

Vladimir Davydenko, Anna Tarasova
Reproduction of social capital, trust and enterprise networks:
by way of example the empirical studies of the firms’
small and middle business in the Ural Federal District (Russia) .......... 150

Alexander Tatarko, Peter Schmidt Relation between social capital and monetary attitudes ...................... 163
Irina Mersiyanova
Charitable practices in Russian civil society: trust and distrus as factors of involvement ................................. 179
Liubov Lebedintceva, Victor Popov Institute of intellectual property and trust problem ........................ 193
Shin Oguma
Trustful relationship at work: the present state of Japanese organization ... 205

SOCIAL AND INTERPERSONAL TRUST IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURE
Ryozo Yoshino
Trust of nations on cultural manifold analysis (CULMAN) - sense of trust in our longitudinal and cross-national surveys of national character......... 213
Tatiana Skripkina Attitudes of tolerance, trust and xenophobia of the Russian youth ........... 251
Fumi Hayashi
The feeling of interpersonal trust and the view of religious mind -an international comparison...................................................258
Roman Anisimov
Interpersonal, local, and institutional trust (experience of comparative analysis) . .266
Olga Kitaitseva, Anna Kuchenkova
Social and interpersonal trust in the context of value orientations of young people in Russia and Eastern Europe ................................ 277
Evgenyia Kogay, Alexei Kogay
Dynamics of social well-being and trust of the Central Russia region’s population. .289
Miroslava Tsapko
Social trust and the social behavior of youth in contemporary Russia .........299

Summaries (in Russian)........................................................309

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS

    PARENTAL SOCIALIZATION AND EXPERIENCES OF BETRAYAL: A CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF TRUST

Masamichi Sasaki
Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

Numerous trust scholars have pointed out that what is considered trust in one culture may not be so in another and by the same token, what is considered trustworthy in one culture may be considered untrustworthy in another (cf. Dietz, Gillespie & Chao, 2010). Dietz, Gillespie and Chao (2010, p. 23) emphasize that empirical work and consequent theoretical models are sorely needed to attempt to bridge cross-cultural gaps in understanding the dynamics of social trust (also cf. Barber, 1983; Luhmann, 1980). Since then, a number of cross-national studies of trust have been carried out (e. g., Delhey & Newton, 2003; Paxton, 2007; Gheorghiu, Vignoles & Smith, 2009; Sasaki & Marsh, 2012).
    The present study addresses the following: (a) how parental socialization on trust/dis-trust significantly impacts their children’s trust/distrust when they become adults, (b) how varying levels of parents keeping promises to their children relates to parental socialization of trust/distrust in childhood, (c) how experiences of betrayal relate to trust in adulthood, and (d) whether experiences of betrayal more significantly impact trust/dis-trust in adulthood than does parental socialization on trust/distrust. We now turn to a brief discussion of previous work in these areas.

Parental Socialization
Recognizing the parental role in issues related to the socialization of trust arose from the early work of Erikson (1950/1963). Indeed, it can be said that “a conflict of basic trust versus basic mistrust emerges during infancy” (Rotenberg, 1995, p. 714). As Rotenberg further pointed out: “According to Erikson, if parents serve as reliable and nurturing caretakers, their infants will view the world as fair and dependable and therefore adopt a trusting orientation toward people” (1995, p. 714). And the converse of this is presumed to be true. Infants, with their utter dependence upon their caretakers, slowly gain a sense of confidence (or lack thereof) that they will be attended to in a timely and caring fashion. Thus infants come to trust the people (and by inference, the world)


1 The author would like to thank Tatsuzo Suzuki for his helpful comments on a previous draft of this article.


9

around them. They slowly gain expectations about their caretakers and the outside world. They begin to trust the people around them and by extension the world around them.
    Of course, the opposite can be said for those infants not well cared for, and, again by extension, there is a range of caretaker environments which will yield degrees of infant trust (to distrust) of the people and the world around them. At the best end of this range, the infant gains trust, i. e. confidence in the continuing reliability of the infant’s environment. The infant’s caregivers hence become trustworthy; they become models of trusting behaviors which are imbued into the infant (or not in the case of faulty care-giving environments).
    Early infant learning from parents about trust vs mistrust is recognized as a very important part of child development (cf. Barber, 1983; Baier, 1986; Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Rotenberg, 1991; Bernath & Feshbach, 1995; Newton 1997; Uslaner, 2002; Sztompka, 1999; Rotenberg et al., 2004; Bussey, 2010). As Jesuino (2008, p. 186) points out: “...from the very first beginning humans develop a sense of trust vs mistrust conveyed through socialization. Socialization practices, however, are not universal, but always socially and culturally embedded”. Aside from the essential nature of parental influence on the socialization process, Merton (1968, p. 212, emphasis added) points out that “the child is exposed to social prototypes in the witnessed daily behavior and casual conversations of parents”.
    All this has been posed as a socialization hypothesis “that postulates, to a large extent, one’s basic values reflect the conditions that prevailed during one’s pre-adult years” (Inglehart, 1985, p. 103; also cf. Abramson & Inglehart, 1995, p. 25). And here we must keep in mind that there is presumably some greater or lesser degree of societal and cultural variation in the parental socialization process.
    As the infant matures, the development of trust broadens, as the child gains cognitive comprehension of ever more sophisticated nuances associated with the trust-distrust and trust-mistrust dimensions. And here we recognize a key element: balance. As Smetana (2010, p. 223) reminds us: in “Erikson’s (1950/1963) developmental theory, developing an appropriate balance of trust vs mistrust in early childhood is one of the normative crises that must be resolved during the lifespan and is central to how later developmental crises, especially the development of identity in adolescence, is resolved”.
    During the socialization process, children, and adolescents, learn, for instance, about promises. Caregivers may, to a greater or lesser extent, actually begin to teach children explicitly about trust, mistrust, distrust, and trustworthiness (cf. Uslaner, 1999, 2000). All this, in turn, impacts the child’s and adolescent’s future views of other people.

Parental Promises
Promises kept naturally breed confidence in the trustworthiness and reliability of persons and situations in the future, which forms basic attitudes toward future expectations in general. Parental (or significant others’) promises not kept will undermine a child’s confidence in the future trustworthiness and reliability of other people and the surrounding world. With this unfolding comprehension of expectations comes emerging knowledge about value, something often seen as children begin to interact with peers. If a child lends something of value to a peer, will it be returned? If a child does something of value for a peer, will something of value be done in return? Is it reasonable, a child may learn, to expect reciprocity in such exchanges (i. e. promises kept versus promises not kept)? Do peers “play fair”? Are peers loyal to one another? All these ethical and

10

moral lessons about promises, too, contribute to the childhood development of socialization about trust (cf. Rotenberg, 2010; also cf. Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Mikulincer, 1998; Miller & Rempel, 2004).
    In fact, there is a paucity of empirical research in the area of the socialization of trust as related to promises. Promises, with their inherent element of reciprocity, speak to the reliability of others, to the trustworthiness of others (cf. Bussey, 2010; Randall et al., 2010; Rotenberg, 2010). In a situation where promises are not kept (i. e. trust is violated), there is an inherent danger that the child will “withdraw from social contact and fail to attain or achieve, for example, social skills, social support, peer group relationships, close relationships, academic achievement...” (Rotenberg, 2010, p. 13). Such events suggest that the child also would tend to feel less inclined to keep his/her own promises and could feel a sense of betrayal. And promises in particular have a temporal quality in that the results of promises kept or not kept are typically grounded in one’s history and directly impact one’s future expectations.

Betrayal
Betrayal is the affective state brought on by trust violation. As Weber and Carter (2003, p. 80) put it:
    “Trust creates the opportunity for violation. When we trust another, we inherently believe that we are not at risk; however, it is the orientation of selves that create risk, regardless of its acknowledgement by those same selves. At the most basic level, trust that leads to the self-devastation typical of violation is a trust that has failed to recognize its morally dynamic basis. The moral code of the community that binds self to other in trust relationships is the fundamental basis for the experience of violation”.
    Several scholars have pointed to betrayal as especially difficult to overcome, as carrying much greater weight in terms of influencing the potential for the re-establishment of trust in relationships (cf. Karamer & Cook, 2004; Six, 2005). And of course betrayal has a broader impact on trust in that instances of betrayal, of violations of otherwise trusting relationships, will spill over into one’s overall sense of trust about others and the world around them. Violations of trust can be extended, as Jones, Couch and Scott (1997, p. 475) describe: “We conceptualize betrayal as any violation of trust and allegiance as well as other forms of intrigue, treachery, and harm-doing in the context of established and ongoing relationships”. Betrayal, too, has a temporal quality in that betrayal in the past can “significantly shape. dispositions toward trust in the present” (Potter 2002, p. 23).
    Indeed, the literature on violations of trust or the betrayal of trust is quite limited (cf. Jones, Couch & Scott, 1997; Weber & Carter, 2003). Nonetheless, it can be seen that trust violations carry with them the means to elicit reactions characterized by a sense of betrayal. Such reactions are an extension of the whole of idea of promises not kept and thus have implications for the socialization of trust in general.

Data
The data for the present study were collected based on nationwide attitudinal surveys of social trust conducted among eight nations: the United States, Russia, Finland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Japan, and Taiwan. These eight nations were selected based on their overall trust indices in the World Values Surveys conducted between 1995 and


11

(see ASEP/JDS 2010 for the survey information on interpersonal trust scores). They form four groups (with the indices shown in parentheses): High Trust: Finland (117.5); Relatively High Trust: Japan (79.6), the U. S. (78.8), Germany (75.8) and Taiwan (70.0); Middle Trust: Russia (55.4) and the Czech Republic (48.8); and Low Trust: Turkey (10.2).
     The surveys (financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS, #19203026)) were carried out among persons aged twenty years and older between November 2008 and May 2012. The surveys used personal (face-to-face) interviews of subjects obtained utilizing quota sampling and random sampling methods (see Appendix).
     The present study addresses parental socialization of trust in childhood (Question 1: “When you were a child, did your parent(s) teach you that you can trust most people, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?”); parents’ keeping of promises in childhood (Question 2: “When you were a child, would your parent(s) usually keep their promises about what they said they would do for you?”); experiences of betrayal (Question 3: “Have you ever been betrayed by others?); and adult trust (Question 4: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?”).
     Did individuals in these eight nations interpret these questions in the same way? This, of course, is a crucial issue. The present study, using pretest samples in each nation, utilized the back translation technique to confirm nearly equivocal interpretation of the questions in all eight nations.

Research Findings
The present study addresses the four purposes (a through d) described at the beginning of this paper. To do so, we depict the relationships among the four questions (except that between Questions 1 and 3, due to lack of relevance) for each of the eight nations. In so doing we can determine the characteristic response patterns for each nation, followed by a determination of the relationships among the four questions (again except that between Questions 1 and 3) using the combined data for all eight nations. This combining approach, using data for nations previously classified at three different levels of trust (high, medium and low), facilitates determination of common characteristics of response patterns toward understanding the common impact of trust on people’s lives within the context of a globalizing world, because it is vital to determine if globalization leads to a gradual loss of trust’s heretofore unique elements.
     Cross-tabulations and correspondence analyses were conducted. The four questions examined by the present study appear in Table 1. Tables 2 through 5 show the cross-tabulations for Questions 1 through 4, respectively, for the eight nations. Table 6 shows the correlations of the four questions for the eight nations combined.
     The present study utilized correspondence analysis, which is a statistical technique especially useful for those who collect categorical data; for example, data collected in social surveys. The method is particularly useful in analyzing cross-tabulation data in the form of numerical frequencies, and results in elegant but simple graphic displays in Euclidean space, thereby facilitating holistic understanding of the data (cf. Greenacre & Blasius, 1994). Before performing correspondence analysis, it is necessary to have roughly even sample sizes for all eight nations; consequently the sample size for Russia was weighted at 65%, making that sample 1066 for the present analysis. Also, with a few exceptions, response categories which were chosen by an average of fewer than 10% of the respondents across all eight nations were eliminated from the analysis. The excep-12