The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Linking Trust to Trustworthiness
Abstract
Trust is valuable when placed in trustworthy agents and activities, but damaging or costly when (mis)placed in untrustworthy agents and activities. So it is puzzling that much contemporary work on trust – such as that based on polling evidence – studies generic attitudes of trust in types of agent, institution or activity in complete abstraction from any account of trustworthiness. Information about others’ generic attitudes of trust or mistrust that take no account of evidence whether those attitudes are well or ill placed can offer little or no help for those who aim to place or refuse trust well. Information about attitudes is evidently useful to those who aim to influence those who hold them, which explains why polls about attitudes are popular with political parties, advertisers and other campaigning organisations. But where we aim not to influence others, but to place and refuse trust intelligently we must link trust to trustworthiness, and must focus on evidence of honesty, competence and reliability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media
Sunstein, C. R. (2017) · doi:10.1515/9781400884711 · Cited by 1,153
Cited by
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633
Lockyer, B., Islam, S., Rahman, A., Dickerson, J., Pickett, K., Sheldon, T., Wright, J., McEachan, R., Sheard, L., & the Bradford Institute for Health Research Covid‐19 Scientific Advisory Group (2021) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13240 · Cited by 281
Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels
Sendak, M. P., Gao, M., Brajer, N., & Balu, S. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0253-3 · Cited by 279
How trust, mistrust and distrust shape the governance of the COVID-19 crisis
Jennings, W., Stoker, G., Valgarðsson, V., Devine, D., & Gaskell, J. (2021) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501763.2021.1942151 · Cited by 237
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- O’Neill, O.
- Venue
- International Journal of Philosophical Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 293-300
- ISSN
- 0967-2559 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4542
- OpenAlex
- W2802697040
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 86.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Linking Trust to Trustworthiness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09672559.2018.1454637
- The paper
- O’Neill, O. (2018). Linking Trust to Trustworthiness. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2018.1454637
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
