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.

Eyewitness misidentification is one of the leading ways people get wrongly imprisoned and later exonerated by DNA evidence (The Innocence Project, 2023). It can develop at the very first stages of the investigation and it can continue throughout the case. Eyewitness testimony is impactful in a courtroom to say the least, so when it has been handled improperly and there are biases then it can become detrimental to the Criminal Justice System. In order to address the issue as a whole, there needs to be further dissection as to where and what can cause eyewitness bias and faulty memory. Causes of eyewitness misidentification can be seen through police procedures such as lineups and interviews, as well as previous bias that the eyewitness holds (Laney & Loftus, 2023). Though there is training that police officers receive about eyewitness identifications, the study by the Police Executive Research Forum gave evidence that the majority of departments and agencies do not have strict guidelines or even written procedures on methods of identification (Police Executive Research Forum, 2014). The qualitative research conducted had three people with different levels of involvement with the Criminal Justice System answering questions about eyewitness misidentification. From those interviews, it could be concluded that police officers do receive training and they do understand there are certain ways they can mitigate their influence over the eyewitness. However, it was gathered that there must be a miscommunication and lack of education being given to police officers. Though they are trained to act a certain way with eyewitnesses, they do not know why and it makes them complacent. Education is a large part of reform, as well as using more reliable identification methods.

Eyewitness identification has been one of the most crucial components in identifying perpetrators in criminal cases. Misidentification of a suspect often has detrimental effects, with many innocent individuals being wrongfully convicted. In order to fully understand the causes of misidentification, a proper understanding of the process of eyewitness identification must be understood in order to ensure that fewer individuals are falsely imprisoned.