Built-Environment

There are of course many factors impacting trust and social exchange. Here we review the impact of physical factors (especially built environment) on trust, and in later chapters review how digital infrastructure such as social networks and online marketplaces alter and complicate the dynamics of trust.

The physical environment has long been examined to impact individual behaviors in the area of environmental psychology [1] and [2]. In addition, numerous work in research in sociology has also studied the impact of places on social processes, such as inequality, power, interaction, community, crime, and trust (as reviewed in [3]). Here we first review work on how environment impacts social behavior, and then summarize how specific behaviors around trust is impacted.

We are most interested in the "built environment" -- "the humanitarian-made space in which people live, work, and recreate on a day-to-day basis" [4], as we are more interested in how changing the environment can impact people's behavior with regard to trust and social exchange.

On a theoretical level, [5] summarized five different ways that the built environment can have social functions: the built environment (1) makes possible for an "artificial ambience to be created which improves the audience's capacity for physiological and psychological functioning"; (2) provides "a range of artifacts and qualities that serve as necessary amenities" for the activity; (3) arranges users of the space to a specific spatial pattern that forms a spacial communication network -- possible arrangements lead to propinquity and/or homogeneity, which ultimately result in differences in social outcomes such as friendship [6] and group membership [7]; (4) reinforces "socially important values and goals" (e.g., a lecture hall symbolizes a university's belief in the value of the lecture method); and (5) predisposes "individuals and groups to act in a particular way through its capacity to create a mood in those who inhabit or observe it" (e.g., smaller classrooms encourage closer collaboration).

One important built-environment for the study of trust is urban public places -- where a majority of interactions among strangers take place and require trust of each other to maintain the safety and enjoyment of the built-environment. In this regard, Erving Goffman proposed a conceptual framework in [8] for thinking about interactions in public places. Among other concepts useful for reasoning about the appropriateness of behavior in public, such as unfocsed and focused interactions, one concept, "civil inattention", stood out in particular at illustrating the usefulness of the framework. Civil inattention refers to the process whereby strangers who are in close proximity demonstrate that they are aware of one another, without imposing on each other. Counterintuitive at first read, civil inattention actually enables anonymized life in big cities where space is limited. Anonymity in turn can result in many unique interactions in metropolitan areas. Simmel has discussed the mental life of metropolis and characterized the mental state of urban dwellers as on of "reserve" [9]. The fact that people don't talk to each other may appear to reduce trust in big cities, and many scholars have outcried for the decrease of social capital and trust in modern societies (e.g. Putnam [10]). The urban difference is put under the inspection lens in the face of the murder of Kitty Genovese -- neighbors failed to come to Genovese's aid, and 37 or 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack and did not call the police.

Indeed, streets can be dangerous places. Gambetta and Hamill studied the trust behavior of taxi drivers by conducting ethnographic research in two cities where driving a taxi was especially dangerous: New York City, where drivers had been the targets of frequent and violent robberies, and Belfast, Northern Ireland, a divided metropolis where drivers had been swept up in the region's sectarian violence [11]. It was found that taxi drivers pay close attention to the crime rates of neighborhoods they operate in, some even refuse to pick up or drop off in dangerous areas for fear of being robbed [11]. On the reverse side, Oscar Newman has proposed the defensible space theory [12], suggesting that architecture can encompass ideas about crime prevention and neighborhood safety.

Urbanists have discussed the importance of sidewalks in making safe, trustworthy physical environments. On the dire side, Mike Davis traced the historical issues and tensions among different communities in Los Angeles [13] as a result of city physical infrastructure. On the bright side, there are also many examples of successful urban revival and renewal -- e.g., Bryant Park, the preservation of Greenwich Village in New York. Key scholars in this tradition include William Whyte and Jane Jacobs. William Whyte used videos and images to study the use of public places, and developed into the "Street Life Project" [14], an ongoing study of pedestrian behavior and city dynamics. Using strong empirical data for the first time, Whyte uncovered many patterns of the use of sidewalks that are counterintuitive -- the actual use of urban plazas, appropriate sidewalk width, zoning and other issues. Whyte also worked closely with Project for Public Spaces on the renovation of Bryant Park in New York City, turning the drug dealer and prostitutes filled Bryant Park in the 1970s to a safe and dynamic urban park. Some key changes include removing the fences from the park, as Whyte's findings predict that people feel safer when not cut off from the city, and adding seating areas (chairs and tables that can be moved and easily configured).

In addition to Willia Whyte, Jane Jacobs further discussed the importance of sidewalks [15]. Among other things, Jane Jacobs fought to for the preservation of historic district Greenwich Village, and the prevention of Lower Manhattan Expressway, which would have passed directly through SoHo and Little Italy and demolishing the Washington Square Park. Jacobs introduced concepts such as "eyes on the street" -- the natural surveillance by neighbors and passers-by is more effective than constant police surveillance in keeping the streets safe.

We now turn into the digital space and its influence on trust.

References