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.
When in the Sub-Halfin-Whitt regime, the sufficient conditions are established such that any load balancing algorithm that satisfies the conditions have both asymptotic zero waiting time and zero waiting probability. Furthermore, the number of servers with more than one jobs is o(1), in other words, the system collapses to a one-dimensional space. The result is proven using Stein’s method and state space collapse (SSC), which are powerful mathematical tools for steady-state analysis of load balancing algorithms. The second system is in even “heavier” traffic regime, and an iterative refined procedure is proposed to obtain the steady-state metrics. Again, asymptotic zero delay and waiting are established for a set of load balancing algorithms. Different from the first system, the system collapses to a two-dimensional state-space instead of one-dimensional state-space. The third system is more challenging because of “non-monotonicity” with Coxian-2 service time, and an iterative state space collapse is proposed to tackle the “non-monotonicity” challenge. For these three systems, a set of load balancing algorithms is established, respectively, under which the probability that an incoming job is routed to an idle server is one asymptotically at steady-state. The set of load balancing algorithms includes join-the-shortest-queue (JSQ), idle-one-first(I1F), join-the-idle-queue (JIQ), and power-of-d-choices (Pod) with a carefully-chosen d.