ABSTRACT
The notion that a scientist must seek to formulate generalizations that include all of the cases of the phenomena with which he is concerned has been brought to the attention of sociologists many times. The central problem of this study is that of providing an explanation in keeping with the assumption of proper scientific method and generalization by determining whether a definable sequence of events is always present when trust violation is present and never present when trust violation is absent. When a hypothesis was formulated, a search for negative cases was conducted, and when such cases were found the hypothesis was reformulated in light of them. The hypothesis was reformulated, emphasizing this time not financial obligations, which were considered as nonsocially sanctionable and hence as nonshareable, but as nonshareable problems of that nature. This hypothesis proved to be far superior to the others, and no evidence necessitating its rejection has been found as yet.
