Trust networks

Inspector Eric Berry, Community Safety Officer for the Blue Mountains, brings us the first instalment of a three-part series posted over three weeks, looking at how we can use trust networks in community engagement.

Part One: Networks and how people receive information
Part Two: How to create and maintain a trust network
Part Three: Achieving action through your trust network 

How trusted are you?

We all trust people. Some of us trust more than others and some of us are more selective on who we trust. Often this is based on the relationship we have with that person, their history of reliability and how disposed we are to their beliefs, thoughts and opinions. We are also automatically distrustful of some groups. This might be because of their history, their position or role in our community, or because their opinions are at odds with our own.

When we hear some important news, we will usually seek out the opinions of those we trust – our “trust networks”. We’re seeking to validate the external information, check with our peers to see how they rate it, and then use that rating to inform and prioritise any further belief, reaction or lack thereof. In a nutshell, if our “trust network” validate the information, we are far more likely to act on it, with the reverse being true if they place little or no stock in it.

What is a network?

In this context we are discussing social networks rather than IT networks, although for those of you with a tech fetish you will see that there are some similarities. For our purpose, we use the definition of a network as:

“…individuals or organisations which are tied together by friendship, common interest or beliefs, family or societal links etc…”[1].

A Trust Network is a social evolution of this, extending the definition to:

A group of connected people who rely on each other to identify or validate information, news, actions or opinions, regardless of whether their information or opinion is reliable.

The density of these networks and social relationships indicate a society’s resilience and ability to collectively resist external threats[2], especially those that are unexpected.

Let me give you a couple of hypothetical examples.

We usually trust our family. We’ve known them for a long time, they’ve (usually) been truthful with us and have our best interests in mind. Generally we might also share some of the same beliefs and opinions on things that we believe are important, such as religion or politics.

We usually trust our best friends – after all they wouldn’t be our best friends if we didn’t trust them. Once again we have a long-term relationship with them, share common thoughts and interests, and know we can turn to each other both for advice and in times of crisis (indeed this is often when you find out just how good a friend someone is).

We usually don’t trust politicians. In our community we see them as remote, because we generally don’t have a relationship with them, and we expect that all politicians will at some time tell a fib, or go back on their word. Statistically speaking, we also distrust journalists, car salesmen, and telemarketers.

These same statistics tell us that we do trust paramedics, firefighters, nurses and those in other professions who may help us when there is trouble[3].

Here is where we have a double-edged sword for emergency services and, especially, fire agencies.

How people receive information

Whilst our message is good, great, or even of life-and-death importance, we are seen through a filter of mistrusting the messenger.

We rely on journalists to relay our information to the public. Once the information leaves the Rural Fire Service we have little control on how it is used, or if it is used at all.

A broadcast warning through traditional media channels, even when backed up by the reporting of its origin being with the fire services, may create awareness but may not result in informed, life-saving decisions and action.

Language is also important. Messages need to be, timely, interesting, with adequate detail,  and easy to understand.



Our communities will hear our message, but may not act on it until they have validated it within their trust networks. Often we will hear afterwards that, upon hearing a warning message, people will contact others within their trust network, such as a neighbour or family member, to discuss the warning and what, if anything, they should do about it. They might do this up to four times before acting, even if the message conveys an urgent warning.



Telephone tree: http://www.artfulcare.com/communication/telephone-tree



Additionally, they might also “look for themselves” to gain the desired level of validation. This can include activities as varied as looking out a window (if I can’t see smoke the fire isn’t going to trouble me) or contacting a local fire station or fire service website. This is advantageous, as they can still see the fire services as a trusted party, however if this takes time, or is unavailable, then precious time can be lost before action is taken or indeed none taken at all (due to lack of validation).

Thus when we ‘go to war’, our message loses a lot of its impact.

Join us next week for part two of this blog about trust networks, and find out how to build and maintain a trust network.

References:

[1] Berry, 2011.
[2] The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia by Jim Scott
[3] Australia's Most Trusted Professions 2010 (Readers Digest) http://www.readersdigest.com.au/most-trusted-professions-2010-press/