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.
Here, I show that a Noonan Syndrome-linked gain-of-function mutation Raf1L613V, drives modest changes in astrocyte and oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) density in the mouse cortex and hippocampus. Raf1L613V mutant mice exhibited enhanced performance in hippocampal-dependent spatial reference and working memory and amygdala-dependent fear learning tasks. However, we observed normal perineuronal net (PNN) accumulation around mutant parvalbumin-expressing (PV) interneurons. Though PV-interneurons were minimally affected by the Raf1L613V mutation, other RASopathy mutations converge on aberrant GABAergic development as a mediator of neurological dysfunction.
I therefore hypothesized interneuron expression of the constitutively active Mek1S217/221E (caMek1) mutation would be sufficient to perturb GABAergic circuit development. Interestingly, the caMek1 mutation selectively disrupted crucial PV-interneuron developmental processes. During embryogenesis, I detected expression of cleaved-caspase 3 (CC3) in the medial ganglionic eminence (MGE). Interestingly, adult mutant cortices displayed a selective 50% reduction in PV-expressing interneurons, but not other interneuron subtypes. PV-interneuron loss was associated with seizure-like activity in mutants and coincided with reduced perisomatic synapses. Mature mutant PV-interneurons exhibited somal hypertrophy and a substantial increase in PNN accumulation. Aberrant GABAergic development culminated in reduced behavioral response inhibition, a process linked to ADHD-like behaviors. Collectively, these data provide insight into the mechanistic underpinnings of RASopathy neuropathology and suggest that modulation of GABAergic circuits may be an effective therapeutic option for RASopathy individuals.