本篇論文認為陌生人之間往來得以順遂的主要基礎，是透過制度所建立的符號系統以及聲譽和形象。我們提出「制度信任」的三個理論面向：能力、代理倫理與仲裁救濟，並試著從個人在處理金融風險、侵權因應與公民責任等三方面的行為走向來測量「制度信任」以檢驗三個理論面向的有效性。本文資料來自1997年12月在台灣北部地區，根據「分層系統抽樣」原則，完成面訪的1,374位受訪者。實證分析的結果發現：(1)由行為走向測量制度信任是有效且有意義的方向。用以指涉能力、代理倫理和仲裁與救濟效力的六個指標，它對各類信任行為有一致的解釋方向，民眾愈肯定不同制度的表現，愈會在行為上表現出正面的做法。能力、代理倫理和仲裁與救濟效力，分別對民眾的行為，帶有不同的意義。(2)人們在實際狀況和假想情境上，對應方式差異顯著。假設性狀況似乎比較 "冷靜"，使用正式的救濟管道，但真正碰到問題時，基於解決問題的迫切性，所採取的方法就比較靠自己。(3)實際處理方式與若再次發生的處理方式之間亦出現顯著的落差。制度由不被採用到被採用的過程，似人們呈現出由「不知道能不能信任」到「願意試著信任看看」的心態轉折。行為反應的確有一個由嘗試和錯誤中學習的過程。

The premise of this paper is that interactions among strangers are largely based on the symbolic systems, reputation, and credibility generated through institutions. We propose competence, agency problem, and hazard remedy as the fundamental dimensions of institutional trust. And we measure an individual's trust in an institution from a behavioral perspective, i.e., behavioral responses to financial risks, civil offenses, and misconduct of public officials. A stratified random sample of 1,374 respondents from the northern part of Taiwan have completed face-to­face interviews. The major findings are: (1) The behavioral approach to measuring institutional trust is valid. The assessments of the institutions on competence, agency and hazard remedy are correlated with the behavioral responses at the right direction. (2) Behavioral responses are markedly different for those who have actual experience and those who don't but project their behavioral responses to hypothetical situations. The experienced tend to rely on own means to deal with the crisis, while the no experienced on legal system. (3) For those who have actual experience, they would have chosen different strategies if the same offenses ever happen again to them. Behavioral responses reveal a trial-and-error learning process.