Close this search box.

Trust and trustworthiness An aspect of the relational dimension of social capital

Trust and trustworthiness are commonly mentioned as an element of the relational dimension of social capital. The other dimensions of social capital being the structural and cognitive dimensions. This conceptualisation, distinguishing between structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions, is one of the major approaches to social capital. This approach was systematically explored and elucidated by Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998)[1] building on Granovetter’s (1992)[2] discussion of structural and relational embeddedness. Trust is essential for the existence of social capital[3] and most authors agree that trust and trustworthiness are at the core of social capital[4][5]. Trust is often mentioned specifically in definitions of social capital, for example, “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them”[6]. Some authors even equate trust with social capital, such as Francis Fukuyama[7][8][9]. Trust is vital for any form of social interaction or exchange and trustworthiness ‘lubricates social life’[10].
Social interaction and exchange without trust would be virtually impossible
Effective collective action requires high levels of trust and perceptions of trustworthiness. Trust makes it possible to maintain peaceful and stable social relations that are the basis for collective behaviour and productive cooperation[11]. Social interaction and exchange without trust would be virtually impossible and all economic activity requires at least a minimum level of trust. Without trust actors would not have the confidence that others would uphold their expectations and obligations and would be unwilling to participate with others. Trust is complex and multifaceted, extensive discussion of trust and social capital is beyond the scope of this article. For detailed discussion see Fukuyama, 1995[7]; Glaeser et al., 2000[12]; Newton, 2001[11]; Nooteboom, 2006[13]; Son & Feng, 2019[14]; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998[15].
Trust exists between people who know each other well, and between strangers
Trust can be built within relationships, on a personal basis, but it may also arise outside relationships, more impersonally, on the basis of socialisation and within the context of coordinating institutions[13]. A simplified distinction is trust between people who know each other well, and trust between strangers[16]. The former is based on reputation and experience and is often called “particularised”, “personalised”, “situated”, “relational”, or “thick” trust and the latter is based on beliefs and predispositions and is often called “generalised”, “social”, or “thin” trust[17][18][19]. When talking about the trustworthiness of an individual we are referring to their reputation, their track record of fulfilling on promises and obligations, being fair, and not being exploitive. When talking about trustworthiness of others – not a specific person – we are referring to norms and shared understandings. However, in both cases we cannot discount the influence of the personal experiences of the observer, i.e. their lifeworld. Depending on the conceptual approach to social capital and the level of interest (micro to macro), one or both types of trust may be relevant. At the micro or meso level when the focus is on individual social capital or it has private good qualities, relational trust is clearly important. Generally, social trust should not be ignored since there is evidence that social trust influences relational trust[20]. At the meso and macro levels where social capital has public good qualities, social trust is most important. Social trust is normative and related to morals and faith in others rather than information and experience with specific individuals[21]. Social trust is also related to the human instinctual disposition to trust and be trustworthy[22][23].
Trust could be considered the acceptance of risk and vulnerability
From some theoretical perspectives trust could be considered the acceptance of risk and vulnerability related to the actions of others and an expectation that the other will not exploit this vulnerability[24]. This view is popular in ration-choice approaches that tend to treat trust as a probability and therefore a rational calculation. As stated by Gambetta (1988), “when we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial…is high enough for us to consider in engaging in some form of cooperation with him.”[25] However, rationality is only part of the explanation for trust and trustworthiness since people trust more than is rationally appropriate out of a sense of moral attachment[26]. Institutions can play an important role in perceptions of trust and trustworthiness. Institutions of all types can facilitate the development of shared norms and shared cognitive understandings that provide the foundation for perceptions of trust and trustworthiness. Institutions can mitigate many perceived vulnerabilities, creating confidence in the degree of trustworthiness. These institutional structures help to create and recreate norms and shared understandings.

Are trust and trustworthiness aspects of the relational or cognitive dimension of social capital?

From the discussion above we could conclude that relational trust is part of the relational since it relates to the specific characteristics of social relationships. However, social trust is cognitive since it relates to more general perceptions and beliefs that do not relate to specific individuals. Trustworthiness relates to reputation in the context of relational trust, and to norms and shared understandings in the context of social trust. Trust is a calculation and predisposition that is socially and culturally situated, so has an element of intersubjectivity, and is grounded in subjective experience.


  1. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242 ^
  2. Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 25–56). Harvard Business School Press ^
  3. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press ^
  4. Paxton, P. (2002). Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277 ^
  5. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–25 ^
  6. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster: p.19 ^
  7. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust : the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Hamish Hamilton ^
  8. Fukuyama, F. (1997). Social capital and the modern capitalist economy: Creating a high trust workplace. Stern Business Magazine, 4(1) ^
  9. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Social capital and development: The coming agenda. SAIS Review, 22(1), 23–37 ^
  10. Cherti, M. (2008). Paradoxes of Social Capital: A Multi-Generational Study of Moroccans in London. Amsterdam University Press ^
  11. Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22(2), 201–214 ^
  12. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846 ^
  13. Nooteboom, B. (2006). Social Capital, Institutions and Trust. CentER Discussion Paper, 200635 ^
  14. Son, J., & Feng, Q. (2019). In Social Capital We Trust? Social Indicators Research, 144(1), 167–189 ^
  15. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476 ^
  16. Scrivens, K. (2013). Four Interpretations of Social Capital: An Agenda for Measurement. OECD Publishing ^
  17. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2010). Civic Capital as the Missing Link. ^
  18. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster ^
  19. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press ^
  20. Robbins, B. G. (2016). From the general to the specific: How social trust motivates relational trust. Social Science Research, 55, 16–30 ^
  21. Patulny, R. V., & Lind Haase Svendsen, G. (2007). Exploring the social capital grid: bonding, bridging, qualitative, quantitative. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(1/2), 32–51 ^
  22. Moobela, C., Price, A., Taylor, P. J., & Mathur, V. N. (2007). Determinants of social capital: prioritising issues for holistic urban sustainability assessments. In M. Horner, C. Hardcastle, A. Price, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Loughborough University ^
  23. OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations : the role of human and social capital. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ^
  24. Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood Governance: Leadership, Trust and Social Capital. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211–2224 ^
  25. Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Vol. 52, Issue 4). Blackwell ^
  26. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Altruistic trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and Trust (pp. 290–309). Cambridge University Press cited in Patulny, R. V., & Lind Haase Svendsen, G. (2007). Exploring the social capital grid: bonding, bridging, qualitative, quantitative. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(1/2), 32–51. ^

About the Author

More Articles

Lindon Robison

The High Cost of Cheap Social Capital

This paper briefly reviews the theory of social, negative, and cheap social capital and then explains the popularity and the high cost of cheap social capital. Next, this paper points out that our voluntary exchanges (which are enabled by prospects of mutual gain) and the high cost of involuntary exchanges (which are entered into in response to threats and defensive and destructive acts) both reflect our responses to the same physical and socio-emotional needs. Therefore, what differentiates our responses to similar needs are the relationships we have with others—whether they are social, negative, or cheap. Finally, this paper offers some suggestions for avoiding the high cost of cheap social capital.

Read More »
Lindon Robison

The Cheap Side of Social Capital

Earned, inherited, and covenant commonalities enable persons and groups of people to develop sympathy and empathy for each other. The sympathy and empathy that one person or group has for another person or group is defined here as social capital. The absence of commonalities often results in relationships of apathy and antipathy that one person or group has for another person or group, defined here as negative social capital. People and groups that share negative social capital for the same person or group can form cheap social capital relationships characterized by the couplet—the enemy of my enemy is my strange bedfellow.

Read More »
Tristan Claridge

Introduction to Social Capital for Researchers

Webinar This session provides a foundation for understanding what social capital is, where it comes from, and what it does as well as some of the challenges of reading the literature and conducting research on social capital. The session is

Read More »
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get occasional updates about social capital related events and publications.