The Journal of Trust Research (JTR) is growing. Across indicators such as articles handled, downloaded and cited, the rate of growth is around 15% per year according to the Publisher’s Report of January 2019. Beyond plain numbers, which could be even better but are encouraging nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the journal increasingly fulfils its mission to be a truly interdisciplinary forum (Möllering, 2017). Submissions and, indeed, published articles come from an ever wider range of disciplines. Whilst in its founding years JTR relied very much on research coming out of management and organization studies, the journal now also connects strongly with sociology, political science, economics, international relations, communication studies, education research and other fields. This represents a challenge for the JTR Editorial Team in doing justice to the highly diverse submissions received, but it is through the editorial process that we can also encourage authors to integrate insights from other fields, thus to ensure that JTR is not merely multidisciplinary but interor, ideally, transdisciplinary in the new knowledge on trust developed. The current issue, JTR 9(1), is a regular issue in the sense that the articles were not specifically curated around a predefined theme but are simply the next ones in line in our publication pipeline. Nevertheless, as Editor, one looks at the collection and wonders to what extent the new articles presented this time are indicative of some overarching theme that seems to be, or should be, on trust researchers’ minds at the present time. Without claiming a perfect match for every paper included, the topic of power stands out this time. “Power” is probably even more elusive than “trust”, but – if we are prepared to take the additional headaches – it is time to connect the two concepts (again). Research explicitly connecting trust and power is surprisingly rare. Fox (1974), Zand (1997) or Bachmann (2001) can be noted as prominent exceptions. Perhaps in our preoccupation with the relationship between trust and control we have presumed that the latter, control, already includes power, but it is not as simple as that. Trust and power can be seen, for example, as contexts for each other, as functional equivalents (substitutes, supplements) or as an inseparable duality. What about the “constraining prejudice” (Simmel, 1906, p. 473; also translated as “compulsory power”, Simmel 1950, p. 348) of trust? What about the power-infused politics, façades and entrapments of trust (e.g. Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 1998; Möllering & Sydow, 2019; Skinner, Dietz & Weibel, 2014)? In return, all the way from Max Weber to current thinking in fields as diverse as leadership and international politics, it is recognized that power in practice requires elements of trust (e.g. in line with relational conceptions of power such as Giddens, 1984). Like trust (e.g. Fulmer & Dirks, 2018), power is a multilevel phenomenon and thus there is an opportunity to not only study their relationship at different levels but also across levels, for example, looking at how power at one level shapes trust at another. The contributions to the current JTR issue support this new interest in power. In particular, the study by Sebastien Brion, Ruo Mo and Robert Lount Jr. (2019) focuses on a very interesting effect that the Wall Street Journal (Shellenbarger, 2019) has picked up and boiled down to the notion that being promoted at work might mean losing some friends. More specifically, Brion et al. (2019) show in their longitudinal study of individuals working in teams that trust increases (or decreases) as a function of how much power individuals gain (or lose) over time. Notably,

中文翻译：

---

连接信任和力量

信任研究杂志（JTR）不断增长。根据发布商2019年1月的报告，在诸如已处理，下载和引用的文章等各种指标中，增长率每年约为15％。除了纯数字，这可能会更好，但仍令人鼓舞，我很高兴看到该杂志越来越多地履行其成为真正的跨学科论坛的使命（Möllering，2017）。提交的文章以及确实发表的文章来自越来越多的学科。JTR在成立之初就非常依赖于管理和组织研究方面的研究，而现在它也与社会学，政治学，经济学，国际关系，传播学，教育研究和其他领域紧密地联系在一起。这代表了JTR编辑团队在公正对待收到的高度多样化的意见书方面面临的挑战，但是通过编辑过程，我们还可以鼓励作者整合其他领域的见解，从而确保JTR不仅是跨学科的，而且是相互交叉的，理想情况下，跨学科地发展了关于信任的新知识。当前的问题JTR 9（1）是常规问题，因为这些文章不是围绕预定义的主题专门策划的，而仅仅是我们发布渠道中排在第二的文章。不过，作为编辑，人们会看一看该集合，并想知道这次发表的新文章在多大程度上表明了目前看来似乎或应该在信任研究人员心目中的某个总体主题。在没有要求每篇论文都完美匹配的情况下，这次的权力主题非常突出。“权力”可能比“信任”更加难以捉摸，但是-如果我们准备承担更多的麻烦，那么现在是再次将这两个概念联系起来的时候了。明确地将信任和力量联系在一起的研究非常罕见。福克斯（1974），赞德（1997）或巴赫曼（2001）是最明显的例外。也许在我们对信任与控制之间的关系的关注中，我们已经假定控制（即控制）已经包含了权力，但事实并非如此简单。信任和权力可以看作是彼此之间的上下文，可以看作是功能上的等价物（替代品，补充品），也可以看作是密不可分的对偶。关于“限制偏见”（Simmel，1906年，第473页；又译为“强制性权力”，Simmel，1950年，第47页）。348）信任吗？权力注入的政治，立面和信任陷阱又如何呢（例如，Hardy，Phillips和Lawrence，1998年；Möllering和Sydow，2019年； Skinner，Dietz和Weibel，2014年）？作为回报，从马克斯·韦伯到领导和国际政治等各个领域的当前思想，人们认识到权力实际上需要信任的要素（例如，与权力的相关概念相一致，例如吉登斯，1984）。就像信任一样（例如，Fulmer＆Dirks，2018年），权力是一个多层次的现象，因此不仅有机会研究不同层次的关系，而且还可以跨层次研究，例如，研究一个层次的权力如何塑造对另一个层次的信任。 。对当前JTR问题的贡献支持了这种对权力的新兴趣。特别是塞巴斯蒂安·布里昂（Sebastien Brion）的研究，Ruo Mo和Robert Lount Jr.（2019）专注于一个非常有趣的效果，《华尔街日报》（Shellenbarger，2019）提起并归结为一种观念，即在工作中得到晋升可能意味着失去一些朋友。更具体地说，Brion等。（2019）在他们对团队中工作的个人的纵向研究中显示，信任随着个人随时间获得（或失去）多少力量而增加（或减少）。值得注意的是 （2019）在他们对团队中工作的个人的纵向研究中显示，信任随着个人随时间获得（或失去）多少力量而增加（或减少）。值得注意的是 （2019）在他们对团队中工作的个人的纵向研究中显示，信任随着个人随时间获得（或失去）多少力量而增加（或减少）。值得注意的是