{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020642201834862386, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.577889447236181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Trust upset: Redefining the terms of trust in maintaining exchange relations

In contractual relations, malfeasance is subject to sanction by formal institutions. Trust is widely held to be an informal basis of non-contractual exchange, in which breaches of trust lead to exposure, resulting in the perpetrator’s loss of reputation and likely exclusion from future exchanges. The present article, on the other hand, shows that breaches of trust may lead to neither of these outcomes. Interview data reported here show that individuals who experience violations of agreement may develop coping strategies that do not include exposure of betrayal, confronting the trust-breaker, or retaliation. A contribution of the present article is to show that these differences can be conceptualized as involving two possible strategies by the betrayed party: one involving retaliation, directed to public disclosure of the betrayer’s unreliability and possible expulsion from future exchanges; the other is self-management, in which betrayal leads to the betrayed modifying their expectations and behaviour. A second contribution is to show how trust may be sociologically understood as a continuous process, requiring renegotiation, rearticulation, and even redefinition, rather than as a resolved and final commitment.