e Authenticity and the reflection of a context to describe things as they ‘really are’ is a point of concern.

Several participants raised the need for the film to represent what they understood as ‘the truth’, and highlighted the importance of an authentic testimony making an impact. The link between trust and authenticity is central to several researchers including Bacharach and Gambetta (2000), and Riegelsberger et al. (2005). Trustors automatically sort and synthesise evidence, deciphering whether it is genuine or not. Authenticity is an embedded dimension of trust, associated with the credibility of information, which is also affected by judgments about the expertise, believability, and depth of a message. It is difficult to pin-point what is at risk or lost when one is duped, as the event moves beyond rational explanations (Möllering 2008).

In the domain of co-located people who have shared an event, authenticity is judged as the match between testimony and ‘what really happened’. To introduce

the final version of the film, one of the directors of the project took the film to the houses of those who had testimonies included. Some of the comments provided by other participants reflect the importance of authenticity:

All the stories (in the documentary) have a connection in the way it goes around here. The guys think that are on the fly. They think they can get away with it. But you can’t (Project Participant 7).

Sam has come off in a very positive light. Considering…He’s always been a really nice guy. But he always had an edge to him. So for someone who was such a risk taker that could have come off a lot worse. You could write a thesis on Sam’s history of stupidity. The film was really gentle (Project Participant 6).

I went to school from grade 2 onwards. We hang out a lot. He was the only kid around Smithton with a pushbike with a sidecar. He used to take [me] from my place to school on it. The funny thing about Lincoln, we used to tell big fibs about the things we did from a young age about driving cars. He had the most outrageous stories and then when people bothered to go to his 21st _{birthday party they}

found out the stories were true (Project Participant 6, reflecting on Lincoln, who was accused of lying during the project construction).

These three participants reflect on how the documentary has depicted the reality of those existing in the community.

8.6. Conclusion to chapter 8

Trust in a highly emotional domain – in this case, the making of a documentary about road trauma – has been the focus of this chapter. To accompany a documentary, a commentary was recorded within which ten project participants reflected on their experiences. For the purposes of this research, insights into the processes of trust were inferred from these recordings. The highly emotional domain amplified the processes of trust and also reflected how complicated, interconnected and layered trust is. Cook and Cooper (2003, p. 235) argue that more micro-detail is needed in the theory of trust to provide robust understandings

of trust. This research attempts to provide some insights into how the processes of trust work in situ.

The documentary itself is an example of shared context; those involved are trying to make a film that convinces people, in particular young men, not to drink drive or speed. This project was an opportunity to study what makes an effective shared context. What helps to convince others of an idea and becomes a trusted testimony? Also under consideration were the underlying tensions when creating a project in a highly emotional domain. In this context, it is clear that high levels of emotional ‘charge’ indicate a serious possibility of mistrust. Those involved are very aware of the effect of their actions or information disclosures on others; the link between trust and information disclosure was paramount. Participants maintain that trust is a negotiation process and those who are in a position of trust need to understand the repercussions of information disclosure if they are to act ethically. Anticipating how others will perceive the distribution of information, either to protect or convince them, was a key process. The authenticity of information, the accuracy of a testimony to reflect what ‘really happened’, was also an important element for both the creation of shared context and also the engendering of trust.

I gained several insights into how design can enable trust. Those creating or establishing a shared context need to know how to communicate with target audiences by considering the needs and motivations of that group. Participants need to be given tools to work towards their own conclusions. The subject of what those tools might constitute is pursued in part 3. A shared context works as a whole, not disparate parts, and participants should be given both macro and micro views of the overall environment if understanding is to be facilitated. Understanding the perspectives of others, perhaps even experiencing it to a certain extent, is part of the familiarity process, and should be built into the design of a shared context. Utilising a shared connection, or drawing attention to what those involved might have in common, is a tool to convince and motivate.