(a) Posting notice (including, by electronic form where available) to each Adult Registered Member shown on the roll of beneficiaries maintained by the Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board as entitled to vote at the election. If notice to an electronic address fails, and the Trustees are aware of the failure, then the notice must be sent to the Adult Registered Member’s last known physical address;
emotional responses elicited by the respective experimental tasks to ensure that these sufficiently activate the attachment system. Fourth, it is also important to consider that the trust game may not elicit the same social processes as face-to-face contacts, which are influenced by a range of factors such as gender, age or looks; or experimental paradigms that probe intimate social interactions (Kéri et al., 2009, Kiss et al., 2011). However, to date few studies investigated the role of attachment during anonymous social interactions (Bartz et al., 2011b, McClure et al., 2013, Van Lange et al., 1997). f With regard to the anonymous nature of the trust game it is important to consider that attachment has mostly been viewed as important for relationship phenomena that involve significant others. However, this and previous investigations on
(5) The creation and development fee and estimated organization costs per Unit will be deducted from the assets of the Trust at the end of the initial offer- ing period. If Units are redeemed prior to the close of the initial offering period, these fees will not be deducted from the redemption proceeds. See “Redeeming Your Units.”
(6) We base our estimate of the dividends the Trust will receive from the Securities by annualizing the most recent dividends declared by the issuers of the Securities (such figure adjusted to reflect any change in dividend policy announced subsequent to the most recently declared dividend). There is no guarantee that the issuers of the Securities will declare dividends in the future or that if declared they will either remain at current levels or increase over time. Due to this, and various other factors, actual dividends received from the Securities may be less than their most recent annualized dividends. In this case, the actual net annual distribution you receive will be less than the estimated amount set forth above. The actual net annual distribution per Unit you receive will also vary from that set forth above with changes in the Trust’s fees and expenses, currency exchange rates, foreign withholding and with the sale of Securities. See “Fee Table,” “Risk Factors” and “Expenses and Charges.” The Trustee will distribute money from the Income and Capital Accounts, as determined at the semi-annual Record Date, semi-annually on the twenty-fifth day of each June and December to Unit holders of record on the tenth day of such months. However, the Trustee will only distribute money in the Capital Account if the amount available for distribution from that account equals at least $1.00 per 100 Units. In any case, the Trustee will distribute any funds in the Capital Account in December of each year and as part of the final liquidation distribution. See “Income and Capital Distributions.”
As a focal governance supporting interfirm exchanges, trust has distinct forms (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer, 1998). With calculative trust, managers believe the costs and benefits of complying with the business agreement will outweigh those associated with self-interested, opportunistic actions (Parkhe, 1993; Srinivasan and Brush, 2006; Williamson, 1993). In contrast, relational trust arises from social relationships when there are strong beliefs about the goodwill, honesty, and good-faith efforts of others, which mitigate risk by aligning core values (Bromiley and Harris, 2006; Ring, 1996; Zaheer and Harris, 2005). However, whereas calculative trust and relational trust co-exist and characterize most business relationships (Lewicki, Tomlinson, and Gillespie, 2006; Rousseau et al., 1998), empirical work treats trust as an aggregate construct (Handley and Angst, 2014; Zaheer and Harris, 2005; but see Saparito, Chen and Sapienza, 2004).
Hoffman, Novak, and Peralta (1999) pointed out that the reason more people have yet to shop online or even provide information to Web providers in exchange for access to information is the fundamental lack of faith between most businesses and consumers on the Web. Almost 95% of Web users have declined to provide personal information to Web sites when asked because they are not clear how the personal data will be used and they feel there is no way for them to control over secondary use of their personal information (Hoffman, Novak, and Peralta, 1999). In addition, differently from traditional commerce, uncertainty about product quality, i.e. information asymmetry is always a problem for consumers in an online environment (Ba and Pavlou, 2002). Lack of consumer trust is a critical impediment to the success of e-commerce. Ultimately, the most effective way for commercial Web providers to develop profitable exchange relationships with online customers is to earn their trust. Trust thus becomes a vital factor influencing the final success of e-commerce.
On this process of trust repair, trustee can prove his/her innocence through a variety of ways. These methods can be divided into two tangible and intangible categories. The tangible way is trustee provides specific and ef- fective evidence while and intangible way is trustee’s oral denials. For the other side of the bilateral model trus- tor are not just passively judge and evaluate the trustee’s repair behavior and the degree of effort. The former’s behavior and attitude can largely affect the degree of trustee’s repair effort, and sometimes even force trustee to give up the will and efforts to restore trust. As mentioned above, in order to successfully repair trust, trust repair effort of trustee must be greater than trustor’s resistance of this effort. In other words, successful trust repair de- pends on the “net effort” of the trust repair behavior of both turstor and trustee. If trustee failed to confirm
The rapid growth, adoption of the digital technology, particularly in smart phone users and other handheld gadgets become the principal way for the great unwashed to start out online. The recent statistic from the ITU World Telecommunication Report (2013) disclosed that there are nearly as many mobile cellular subscriptions as people in the world, with more than half in the Asia-Pacific region (3.5 billion total subscriptions). While the mobile-cellular penetration rates stand at 96 per cent globally, 128 per cent in developing countries and 89 per cent in developing nations. In Malaysia the total penetration rate for the mobile banking user is still in the minority. A few researchers have been studies on the factors of diffusion in mobile banking adoption. One of the most popular studies is the aspect of trust. Trust is a prerequisite of social behavior, especially regarding important decisions. Granting to the trustees literature, trust and risk are two important determinants of intention behavior of people to carry out body processes that involve risk (Gefen, 2000).
For providing management services, each Fund pays First Trust an annual Fund management fee of 0.60% of average daily net assets. Each Fund is responsible for all of its expenses, including the investment advisory fees, costs of transfer agency, custody, fund administration, legal, audit and other services, interest, taxes, brokerage commissions and other expenses connected with the execution of portfolio transactions, distribution and service fees pursuant to a 12b-1 plan, if any, acquired fund fees and/or expenses, and extraordinary expenses. First Trust has agreed to waive fees and/or pay Fund expenses to the extent necessary to prevent the annual operating expenses of the Class I shares and Class II shares (excluding interest expense, brokerage commissions and other trading expenses, acquired fund fees and expenses, if any, taxes, and extraordinary expenses) from exceeding 1.20% and 0.95%, respectively, (the “Expense Caps”) at least until May 1, 2017. Expenses borne and fees waived by First Trust are subject to reimbursement by the Fund up to three years from the date the fee or expense was incurred by a Fund, but no reimbursement payment will be made by such Fund at any time if it would result in a Class’s expenses (excluding interest expense, brokerage commissions and other trading expenses, acquired fund fees and expenses, if any, taxes and extraordinary expenses) exceeding its Expense Cap. Pursuant to a contractual agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the First Trust Multi Income Allocation Portfolio, and First Trust, First Trust will waive management fees in the amount of 0.37% of the Fund’s average daily net assets until May 1, 2017. The agreement may be terminated by the Board on behalf of the Fund at any time and by First Trust only after May 1, 2017 upon 60 days’ written notice. Information regarding the Board’s approval of the continuation of the investment management agreement for First Trust/Dow Jones Dividend & Income Allocation Portfolio and the Board’s approval of the investment management and sub-advisory agreements for First Trust Multi Income Allocation Portfolio is available in the Funds’ Semi-Annual Report to Shareholders for the period ended June 30, 2015.
An Staff Action Group should be set up to implement the Board-approved Sustainability Action Plan/actions arising from this Policy, comprising ‘champions’ (as above); Staff Side Environmental Representatives; Management representatives and other interested parties The Trust will consider including responsibility for sustainability and carbon governance on all job descriptions, including Chief Executive and Director level posts
Behavioral economists have come to recognize that reciprocity, the interaction of trust and trustworthiness, is a distinct and economically relevant component of individual preferences alongside selfishness and altruism. This recognition is principally due to observed decisions in experimental “trust games”. However, recent research has cast doubt on the explanatory power of trust as a determinant of those decisions, suggesting that altruism may explain much of what “looks like” trust. Moreover, empirical tests for alternative behavioral determinants can be sensitive to experimental bias due to differences in protocols and framing. Therefore, we propose discriminatory tests for altruism and trust that can be based on within-treatment and within-subject comparisons, and we control for group attributes of experimental subjects. Our results support trust (i.e. expected reciprocation) as the dominant motivation for “trust like” decisions.
Clouds. It certifies and assures the compliance of Cloud provider security practices to consumers. Notwithstanding this, such assurance (and associated trustmarks) have been subject to criticism for being (i) largely reliant on human intervention (with limited capacity), (ii) limited in scope, (iii) passive, periodical and retrospective, (iv) lacking warranties and (v) subject to co-optation risk . More recently, CSA STAR is working to integrate continuous monitoring in an effort to alleviate some of those criticisms and to automate the certification process. This shows the importance of flex- ible monitoring for such systems and it clearly relates to our operationalisation approach in this paper for the trust label system, which covers a broader spectrum of Cloud service metrics other than security. The CSA CloudTrust Protocol (CTP) presents a similar mechanism for managing Cloud service security to improve consumer trust. However, security controls are only one part of the wider fabric that makes up trust and thus a security-oriented perspectives does not capture the wider complexity of how trust is formed, maintained or lost. The CTP API can be integrated with the trust label system to push security measurements to the label interface. However, further work would be needed to explore those security measurements and validate whether they in fact either build trust or contribute to trust and at what level. At the moment, there is an open question on how CTP could be consumed by consumers and enterprise buyers. We argue that it can be made consumable by integrating it with the trust label system.
Runlian Zhang, Bing Zeng  presents the trust assessment demonstrate in view of the confirmation hypothesis and sliding window component for distributed computing which is easy to execute and the time intricacy is O(m*n) i.e., n CSP's and m CU's in the framework. It is used to identify the malicious simulation experiments which the level of substances and provides the reliable information. The above architecture highlights only two components i.e., parameter extractor and trust calculator, it isn't certain that on what premise the parameters are separated and how weights are assigned. The Dempster- Shafer evidence mechanism theory is used to remove conflicts between evidences and the interactions among providers and users w.r.to time are examined in detail by sliding window mechanism .
The quantitative and the qualitative research are entirely based on the information of the respondents’ perceptions and attitudes. Technically, respondents had to be willing to participate and answer questions (Babbi & Mouton, 2008: 236). It is also clearly stipulated in the ethical clearance of the research. However, some people were not willing to participate in the research while some respondents were reluctant to answer and share their perceptions openly and freely. The 2005 election aftermath and the political intensity of the country had impact on the interaction of the public. A few respondents were suspicious or afraid as why the research was being conducted, even after explaining the purpose of the study and showing them legal evidence to conduct the research. People had mixed feelings about the research; some thought as a reflection the government’ or ruling party’s sympathy, others thought that it was a spying operation. The ground is different from the methodological and technical aspects of research. In order to mitigate the challenge, from the beginning of the survey the interviewers and I repetitively informed the targeted population on the purpose of the study which was entirely academic, the importance of his or her participation on the study, the significance of his or her accurate and real responses and attitudes, the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. Though getting individuals’ trust to express their perception on social and institutional confidence has been complex, we attempted to help to create an atmosphere for the individuals to participate and convey their real attitude rather than expressing socially and politically acceptable opinions.
nature. Rather, it has been to point out that by attending to the specific details of ethnographic description, trust as a stable, quantifiable and generalised resource rapidly dissolves–not through intellectual analysis, but because in everyday life it simply does not exist as such an entity. This suggests that chasing a singular, generalisable concept or measure not only provides a restricted representation, but that in doing so we may actually exclude the specific fea- tures that characterises its role and potential in health settings. This is because the very process of making it known in this way separates it from those more dynamic, context-specific, and contingent features which make rela- tionships with people, things and our bodies active and meaningful. In contrast, I have suggested one can talk about trust as a quality that on occasions is attributed by people to particular assemblages of persons and things, and that in the case of diabetes management this quality equates to a gen- eral sense of stability. But within this, a new issue arises; as a person evaluates specific practices they also come to reflect upon their own place within them, and the nature of the ties they have with other people and things. In this way, trust is neither an object nor a subjective feeling, but rather a qual- ity experienced by persons as they reflect upon their own place in multiple networks of relations.
Second, beyond the theoretical discussion, the implications on the findings at the practical level are also important. In general, theoretical approaches that explain the origins of social trust at the individual level are more determinist than those which explain it with systemic level factors. If social trust is a personality trait, developed early in life and not flexible, this leaves little to no room for interventions that would aim to improve its levels. In the best-case scenario, these interventions would have a very slow and minimal impact, as many individual experiences would have to be changed. If, on the other hand, social trust is better explained by societal level theories, interventions can aim at changing systemic level factors, which becomes an easier task. Our findings suggest that this approach might fail to produce any meaningful impact in societies where social trust levels are already low though, as systemic factors do not correlate with social trust in these countries. In practice, this leads to the conclusion that systemic reforms undertaken in many countries, former socialist countries included, and that aim to improve democratization level and well-being of citizens, might fail to automatically lead to higher levels of social trust. Systemic factors will, thus have to be complemented with means and mechanisms that would directly tackle social trust.
Theories of strategic management also argue that long-term strategic alliances are typically based on trust, require joint decision making and cooperation, involve the sharing of assets and resources (including information and knowledge), and a commitment to mutual learning (Lorange and Roos 1993). Theorists contend that repeated interaction will help to create the ‘collaborative advantage’ that comes from knowing each other well; it is then that partnerships gain ‘competitive advantage’ over competitors (Huxham 1993, Moss Kanter 1994, Faulkner 1995). Aspects of the long-term relationship and relational contracting in complex situations contribute to improved outcomes (Bovaird 2004, Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). The public governance paradigm, influenced by strategic management literature (Kooiman 1993, Rhodes 1997), gained importance in the 1990s. The advent of public governance marked a significant shift from the premises of New Public Management and efficiency as the major criteria for judging the performance of public organizations and public services. Though efficiency remained important, the focus shifted to the need to confront and solve the ‘wicked problems’ in society. Wicked problems are problems of such magnitude that the public sector cannot tackle them on its own and requires public agencies to work with a wide range of actors from other sectors (Stoker 1998, Pierre and Peters 2000, Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). Interdependence among actors becomes an element of relations. The government is no longer in the position to impose control on actors, but is dependent on others for making decisions. This locates actors in partnerships and networks where no single strategic vision dominates but the perceptions and strategic choices of actors influence each other, and agreements are reached through negotiation (Bovaird 2004).
Dr. Lisa van der Werff is an organisational psychologist and postdoctoral researcher with the Irish Centre for Cloud Computing and Com- merce. Her research interests are in the area of trust decision making, maintenance and re- pair. Lisa also has an interest in quantita- tive research methodologies including structural equation modelling, latent growth modelling, Bayesian analysis and big data analysis. Her research with IC4 focuses on how Cloud service providers can communicate trustworthiness to consumers and on trust repair processes following data breach. Lisa holds a PhD and MSc in Work and Organisational Psychology from DCU Business School as well as a BA in Psychology from NUI Maynooth. Her PhD was completed with support from the Daniel OHare Scholarship Fund as part of the National Development Plan. During her PhD, Lisa spent a semester as a visiting scholar in the University of Georgia, USA. Lisa also has over 6 years of industry experience working as a learning and development specialist and human resources professional for KPMG and McCann FitzGerald Solicitors.
In sum, we thus find that Monsanto did not communicate the product risks of its Roundup herbicide in an accountable manner as neither transparency, responsiveness nor inclusiveness was given. More specifically, we deem the shortcomings in regard to transparency and responsiveness to be very substantial. While this particular instance does not allow us to verify whether our hypothesis is accurate, we can nonetheless conclude that Monsanto did not seem to put much emphasis on communicating product risks in an accountable manner in this case. This in turn potentially might hint at one cause for Monsanto’s lack of trust. At the same time we need to highlight that Monsanto itself appears to some extent overconfident with regard to how much public trust it actually enjoys. In response to having been sentenced for misleading advertising pertaining to its Roundup products in France, a Monsanto France spokesperson confidently claimed that “[t]here is a relationship of trust between our products and their users and we believe that consumers will continue to use Roundup” (TerraDaily, 2007). This alleged relationship of trust is very important for Monsanto, as the business model, inter alia based on this herbicide, accounts for half of Monsanto’s overal revenue (Caval aro, 2009). Interestingly enough, however, in the year between the first ruling and Monsanto’s appeal to the higher instance, sales of Roundup herbicide decreased. More specifically, in the fourth quarter of 2008, Monsanto had to post a loss of $233 million, primarily due to lower than expected sales of Roundup (BBC News, 2009). While we do not claim that Monsanto’s unaccountable risk communication was the key cause for this decline in sales, we nevertheless want to highlight the possibility that it was a contributing factor and thus may represent a sanction for Monsanto’s conduct.
A decentralized approach to integrity attestation is adopted by Schiffman et al in . The primary concerns addressed by this approach are the limited transparency of IaaS platforms and the limits to scalability imposed by third party integrity attestation mechanisms, as described in . The authors examine a trusted cloud architecture where the integrity of the IaaS CH is verified by the IaaS client through a “cloud verifier” (CV) proxy that resides in the application domain of the IaaS platform provider and is accessible by the client. Thus, in the first step of the protocol the client evaluates the integrity of the CV in order to include the CV into its trust perimeter if the integrity level of the CV is considered satisfactory. Next, the CV sends attestation requests from CH, i.e. the CH where the guest virtual machine instance can potentially be deployed, thus extending the trust chain to the CH. Finally, CH verifies the integrity of the virtual machine image, which is countersigned by the CV and returned to the client which evaluates the virtual machine image integrity data and allows or disallows the virtual machine launch on the CH. While the idea of increasing the transparency of the IaaS platform for the client is indeed supported in industry [197, 198], the authors do not clarify how the introduction of an additional integrity attestation component in the architecture of the IaaS platform has positive effects on the transparency of the IaaS platform. Furthermore, the proposed protocol increases the complexity model for the IaaS client both by introducing the evaluation of integrity attestation reports of the CV and CH and introduction of additional steps in the trusted virtual machine launch, where the client has to take actions based on the data returned from the CV. This requires either human interaction or a fairly complex integrity attestation evaluation component (or a combination thereof) on the client side, making a wide- scale adoption of the solution difficult.
Research on leadership within schools has examined principals’ varied and complex tasks and highlighted their responsibility to promote positive relationships with their staff. Prominent in that research and in the professional literature on school leadership are arguments that staff trust of a principal—resulting from the principal’s trust-building actions—is a crucial factor for school improvement. Despite this priority, there remains a need to study the ways in which principals come to understand the nature of trust and cultivate it within schools. Thus, the purpose of this narrative study was to examine the stories of elementary school principals to derive an understanding of the experiences that influenced their beliefs and practices about trust and trust-building. This research employed a purposeful sampling strategy and involved seven currently practicing elementary school principals within the Massachusetts MetroWest area. Through interviews, these participants shared narratives on experiences that influenced their understanding of trust, instances of their own efforts to increase trust, and accounts of how these past experiences affected their thought processes with regard to their current leadership actions. Thematic and structural analysis of the interview transcripts yielded five findings: (a) Participants strongly endorse trust as essential for goal achievement but are perplexed by its elusive meaning and uncertain manifestations; (b) Participants’ understanding of trust between staff and the principal is based largely on their experiences interacting with other school leaders where trust was breached; (c) Participants came to understand the need to admit and apologize in order to repair broken trust; (d) Participants implicitly understand that trust is built through a