I found the following about this issue:

?

Trust versus confidence issues

In the context of the work I do, I think about trust as being relationship based – it exists between two or more people and represents a set of beliefs about the others, especially around their motivations. Confidence is a belief about an??experience, positional authority or training. By separating the two, we can create different conversations.

Imagine, for example, that you are waiting on a colleague to allocate resources to support one of your initiatives. Your colleague has been delaying, and it is impacting your ability to move forward. You have a choice in this situation about how you might accurately describe your feelings:

? “I don’t trust my colleague to help me out by allocating the resources.”

? “I don’t have confidence in my colleague’s understanding of the situation.”

Those are two very different ways of articulating what you believe to be the problem. If you don’t trust your colleague’s motivations, you have a relationship issue that requires investment of time and energy from both of you to connect, build a common bond and appreciate each other.

If you don’t have confidence in your colleague’s expertise, you have an issue of clarity and connection to the situation that can be addressed with information, data and support.

?

Die verskil tussen die twee stellings is klaarblyklik: jy trust (vertrou) ’n mens en jy het confidence (vertroue) in iemand se vermo? (om iets te kan doen).

Die bron hier onder (dankie, Jaco) bevestig dit (“is called?confidence, is concerned with abilities”).

Eerder as om ’n leksikale ekwivalent te soek (ek ken nie ’n geskikte Afrikaanse woord hiervoor nie) sou ek dit vertaal as:

“Ek glo nie my kollega gaan my van die nodige hulpbronne voorsien nie”; en

“Ek glo nie my kollega verstaan die situasie nie.”

Dis immers wat die skrywer bedoel.

?

Waar die CEO-bron die twee onderskei op grond van die aard van “trust”, focus die bron hier onder op die oorsprong daarvan.

Dit noem “confidence” ook as ’n soort “trust”, wat die saak verder kompliseer.

?

The consensus view within social science research is that there are two main types of trust, one that is based on the relations between the trusting person and the other (relational trust), and one that is based on past behavior of the other and/or constraints on future behavior (calculative trust). The former, which we call?trust?, is concerned with intentions; the latter, called?confidence, is concerned with abilities. In general, trust is more important and given more weight than confidence. Among the other characteristics that distinguish trust from confidence are these:

Trust: Function is to reduce complexity through social risk taking; no external criterion of accuracy; greater use of heuristic processes, such as value similarity and affect; regulatory focus is promotive.

Confidence: Function is to control future behavior through knowledge of the past or constraints on the future; lesser use of heuristic processes, such as familiarity; regulatory focus is preventive.

?

Deur “funksies” aan albei toe te skryf beteken seker dat trust en confidence sekere effekte het eerder as dat (wat my eerste indruk was) dit bestuurstegnieke is. Dis mos belaglik om enige vorm van vertroue te beskou as ’n bewustelike, koelbloedige keuse te maak om vertroue te hê.

?

Laastens, hier het mens weereens te doen met die beginsel dat mens idees vertaal, nie woorde nie. In Afrikaans kan jy iets meemaak, belewe, ondervind en ervaar; in Engels is al drie “experience”. En as jy met elkeen van die vier iets anders bedoel, moet jy daardie bedoeling maar op ’n ander manier weergee.