One important reason why trust and trustworthiness should not be confounded (e.g. Hardin, 2002) is that the latter focuses our attention mainly on the trustee and away from the trustor. Even when we are careful to talk about ‘perceived trustworthiness’ (e.g. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 715, Figure 1, emphasis added) – which should convey that it is up to trustors to interpret any cues of trustworthiness – there is a tendency to see trust mainly as a result of the trustees’ given characteristics, especially the likelihood they will honour trust. Similarly, the ‘standard’ survey question used by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists and others (see, e.g. Uslaner, 2015) to the present day asks respondents, if they think ‘most people can be trusted’. The question is thus phrased with reference to the trustee side, instead of checking the trustor side and probing, for example, if ‘most people are willing to trust’ or at least the respondents themselves are ‘mostly willing to trust’. Somewhat paradoxically, answers to the widely used ‘standard’ question are actually supposed to tell us something about the trustors answering (their propensity to trust, see also the comments on Patent & Searle, 2019 below) rather than about the actual trustworthiness of all those potential trustees out there. Who are ‘most people’ supposed to be in the first place (see Delhey, Newton, & Welzel, 2011 on the ‘radius of trust’ problem)? Still, the trustors’ (propensity to) trust is framed primarily as a matter of trustee trustworthiness, obscuring any other factors that might influence the trustors’ trustfulness and actual trusting actions. Trustworthiness and trustfulness go together, of course, especially if we do not merely see them as static dispositions but as dynamic accomplishments in trusting relationships. However, researchers tend to be preoccupied with trustworthiness. This has not always been so and it may well be the case that early trust research focused too much on trustors and individual traits that would explain their willingness to trust (Rotter, 1967; Wrightsman, 1966) so that later trust research went the other way and examined mainly the trustees’ incentives or inclinations to be trustworthy. Jones and Shah (2016) provide a very helpful analysis of how the ‘locus of trust’ may shift from trustor to trustee to dyadic influences, which unfortunately still refers mainly to the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness as the dependent variables instead of also devising a model of the trustor’s trustfulness. In this vein, Lu, Kong, Ferrin, and Dirks (2017) present evidence that trustor attributes, along with shared attributes but not trustee attributes, influence trust in negotiations. Hence I am glad to announce that the current issue of Journal of Trust Research (JTR) contains articles that put a spotlight on the trustor again. For sure they do a lot more than this and they all contribute various valuable insights beyond this one aspect that I have chosen to point out here, but I am confident that all authors will agree that their particular stories revolve especially around trustors, not only trustees. Before showcasing their contributions in more detail below, there is good news on behalf of the Editorial Team. JTR is now included in the revised Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List (https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/). The application for inclusion was filed and signed by our Australia-based colleagues Tyler Okimoto, Nicole Gillespie, Matthew Hornsey, Bart de Jong, Steven Lui, Bo Bernhard Nielsen, Natalia Nikolova and Michael Rosemann. Powerful endorsements were also provided by the following leading

中文翻译：

---

关注信任研究中的委托人

信任和可信赖不应混淆的一个重要原因（例如，Hardin，2002）是后者将我们的注意力主要集中在受托人身上，而远离委托人。即使我们小心翼翼地谈论“感知的可信度”（例如 Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 715, 图 1，强调添加）——这应该传达出由信任者来解释任何可信度线索——人们倾向于将信任主要视为受托人的特定特征，尤其是他们尊重信任的可能性。同样，迄今为止，心理学家、社会学家、政治学家、经济学家和其他人（参见 Uslaner，2015 年）使用的“标准”调查问题询问受访者是否认为“大多数人都可以信任”。因此，该问题是针对受托人方提出的，而不是检查委托方并探究，例如，如果“大多数人愿意信任”，或者至少受访者自己“大多愿意信任”。有点自相矛盾的是，对广泛使用的“标准”问题的回答实际上应该告诉我们一些关于委托人回答的信息（他们的信任倾向，另见下面关于 Patent & Searle 的评论，2019 年），而不是关于所有这些人的实际可信度潜在的受托人在那里。谁应该是“大多数人”（参见 Delhey、Newton 和 Welzel，2011 年关于“信任半径”问题）？尽管如此，委托人的（倾向于）信任主要被视为受托人的可信度问题，掩盖了可能影响委托人的可信度和实际信任行为的任何其他因素。当然，可信赖性和可信赖性是相辅相成的，尤其是如果我们不仅将它们视为静态的倾向，而且将它们视为信任关系中的动态成就。然而，研究人员往往全神贯注于可信度。情况并非总是如此，早期的信任研究很可能过于关注可以解释信任意愿的信任者和个人特征（Rotter，1967；Wrightsman，1966），因此后来的信任研究走向了另一个方向。并主要检查受托人的动机或值得信赖的倾向。Jones 和 Shah (2016) 对“信任点”如何从委托人到受托人再到二元影响提供了非常有用的分析，不幸的是，这仍然主要将感知可信度的维度作为因变量，而不是设计一个信任者的可信度模型。在这方面，Lu、Kong、Ferrin 和 Dirks（2017 年）提出证据表明，委托人属性以及共享属性而非受托人属性会影响谈判中的信任。因此，我很高兴地宣布，最新一期的《Journal of Trust Research》（JTR）包含再次聚焦委托人的文章。当然，他们所做的远不止这些，而且他们都提供了超出我选择在这里指出的这一方面的各种有价值的见解，但我相信所有作者都会同意，他们的特定故事尤其围绕着委托人，而不仅仅是受托人. 在下面更详细地展示他们的贡献之前，代表编辑团队有好消息。JTR 现在包含在修订后的澳大利亚商业院长委员会 (ABDC) 期刊质量列表 (https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-list/) 中。我们的澳大利亚同事 Tyler Okimoto、Nicole Gillespie、Matthew Hornsey、Bart de Jong、Steven Lui、Bo Bernhard Nielsen、Natalia Nikolova 和 Michael Rosemann 提交并签署了纳入申请。以下领军人物也给予了有力的背书 娜塔莉亚·尼科洛娃和迈克尔·罗斯曼。以下领军人物也给予了有力的背书 娜塔莉亚·尼科洛娃和迈克尔·罗斯曼。以下领军人物也给予了有力的背书