Trust is only involved when the trusting expectation makes a difference to a decision; otherwise what we have is a simple hope. If a mother leaves a child in the care of a babysitter, a number of hopes are associated with this. These are, that nothing untoward will happen, that the girl will be kind to the baby, will not disturb its sleep by turning up the radio, and so on. Her trust only extends to eventualities which, if they occur, would cause her to regret her decision to go out at all and to leave her child in the care of anybody. Trust therefore always bears upon a critical alternative, in which the harm resulting from a breach of trust may be greater than the benefit to be gained from the trust proving warranted. Hence one who trusts takes cognizance of the possibility of excessive harm arising from the selectivity of others' actions and adopts a position towards that possibility. One who simply hopes has confidence despite uncertainty. Trust reflects contingency. Hope ignores contingency.

DEFINE: Distinguishes trust (risk-bearing, decision-relevant, contingent) from hope (confidence despite uncertainty), centered on the 'critical alternative' where breach harm exceeds trust benefit.

Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, loc. 145