The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.
Data from the Pathways to Desistance Study—a longitudinal study of 1,354 adolescents adjudicated of a serious offense followed-up for seven years—are used to address this research agenda. Results from this study offer three general conclusions. First, results show that perceptions of procedural justice are malleable, that is, they can change over time and are influenced by a number of factors. Legal socialization beliefs, however, demonstrate only marginal change over time, suggesting these beliefs to be more stable. Second, analyses indicate differing pathways and effects for direct and vicarious experiences of procedural justice. Finally, the multilevel mediation analyses reveal that within-individual changes in direct experiences of procedural justice remains a robust predictor of offending, regardless of the presence of mediating variables. Legitimacy was found to have the strongest mediation effect on between-individual differences in direct procedural justice, whereas anger partially mediated the effects of between-individual differences in vicarious procedural justice. This study concludes with a discussion of policy implications and avenues for future research.