The virtue of trust and the admethics group: perspectives from studies in progress.

Trust is the basis of existing social relationships at all levels, and without it, social cohesion cannot exist (Sélles, 2020). Ethical behavior within a group depends on existing trust relationships (Colquitt et al., 2007; Hardin, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995).

Trust in general is a multidisciplinary concept with a wide variety of definitions. Rousseau et al. (1998) define trust as a psychological state that comprises the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the other’s intentions or behavior. For Mayer et al. (1995), trust can be defined as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of the other based on the expectation that he will perform a certain action, regardless of the ability to monitor or control him.

In addition, there are different perspectives and philosophical approaches to this virtue. In this case, most deal with interpersonal trust, but there are studies that address trust in groups (Hawley, 2017), trust in institutions (Potter, 2002; Townley & Garfield, 2013), trust in government (Budnik, 2018), self-confidence (Govier, 1993; Potter, 2013) and trust in robots – which also includes AI (Coeckelberg, 2012; Sullins, 2020).

Among the aforementioned perspectives, Admethics is researching government trust and trust in Artificial Intelligence. Ph.D. candidate Geovane Teixeira Manoel is developing a thesis based on government trust and Ph.D. candidate Elize Jacinto Matos is researching trust related to AI.

By focusing on the context of government trust, we intend to understand how municipal public management’s transparency influences users’ perceived reliability. With regard to the virtue of trust and AI, the objective is to understand how trust with Artificial Intelligence occurs in the Military Police through the use of facial recognition cameras.

It is worth mentioning that the studies mentioned are in the initial phase, and it is intended to advance in the development of the research over the next year. It is observed that the field allows the development of other studies with new perspectives on the virtue of trust.

Finally, to learn more about the subject of Elize Jacinto Matos, just access our previous post (“Artificial Intelligence and Trust”, published on October 27, 2022) and follow the next publications that will also bring more information about the relationship between government trust and public transparency.


Budnik, Christian, 2018, “Trust, Reliance, and Democracy”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26(2): 221–239. doi:10.1080/09672559.2018.1450082

Coeckelbergh, Mark, 2012, “Can We Trust Robots?”, Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1): 53–60. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9279-1

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.

Govier 1993, “Self-Trust, Autonomy, and Self-Esteem”, Hypatia, 8(1): 99–120. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00630.x

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational   trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Potter, Nancy Nyquist, 2002, How Can I be Trusted? A Virtue Theory of Trustworthiness, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.


Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404. 

Sellés, J. F. (2020). 33 virtudes humanas según Leonardo Polo. Pamplona, EUNSA, 446 pp

Sullins, John P., 2020, “Trust in Robots”, in Simon 2020: 313–325.

Townley, Cynthia and Jay L. Garfield, 2013, “Public Trust”, in Trust: Analytic and Applied Perspectives, Pekka Makela and Cynthia Townley (eds), Amsterdam: Rodopi Press, pp. 95–107.

Back To Top