mc knight trust in ecomerce

8/3/2019 Mc Knight Trust in Ecomerce

1/25

International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Winter 20012002, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 3559.Copyright 2002 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

1086-4415/2002 $9.50 + 0.00.

What Trust Means in E-Commerce CustomerRelationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual

Typology

D. Harrison McKnight and Norman L. Chervany

ABSTRACT: Trust is a vital relationship concept that needs clarification because research-ers across disciplines have defined it in so many different ways. A typology of trust t ypeswould make it easier to compare and communicate results, and would be especially valu-able if the types of trust related to one other. The typology should be interdisciplinary

because many disciplines research e-commerce. This paper justifies a parsimonious inter-disciplinary t ypology and relates trust constructs to e-commerce consumer actions, defin-ing both conceptual-level and operational-level trust constructs. Conceptual-level constructsconsist of disposition to trust (primarily from psychology), institution-based trust (from soci-ology), and trusting beliefs and trusting intentions (primarily from social psychology). Eachconstruct is decomposed into measurable subconstructs, and the typology shows howtrust constructs relate to already existing Internet relationship constructs. The effects ofWeb vendor interventions on consumer behaviors are posited to be partially mediated by

consumer trusting beliefs and trusting intentions in the e-vendor.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: Customer relationships, human issues in e-commerce,Internet consumers, trust.

Ms. Wilson . . . was looking for a lawyer to help her win custody ofher son. Trolling the Internet, she hit upon Mr. Lais. She was so im-pressed with his credentials, including a claim to the title of Advo-cate, The Republic of India, that she agreed to wire him $5,000 so he

could get right on the case. . . . That was the last she ever saw of hermoney. Mr. Lais made himself scarce, too. [She later found that] hehad a history of run-ins with bar regulators [and] was under a three-month suspension . . . by the State Bar of California. . . . For lawyerswho have been suspended, the Web can be a way to keep up a virtualshingle. [68]

With 15 prescriptions costing $800 a month and no insurance cover-age, 65-year-old Starr Tolleson is desperate to find ways to cut drug

costs. But even though Internet pharmacies promise savings of 20%or more, Mrs. Tolleson has yet to venture onto the Web. It is a littlefrightening to think that there is a possibility that the medicines thatyou order are not pure or are not the ones you have ordered, says theFernandina Beach, Fla., retiree. [56]

To many consumers, e-commerce represents an excursion beyond the un-known into the unknowable. A generation ago, purchasing drugs or dry goodsfrom the corner store or dealing with a lawyer or doctor involved a known

quantity. One could inspect the goods and evaluate the vendor before makingthe purchase. The druggist and the family doctor and the neighborhood law-yer, like their clients, had been there for many years. Clients knew them byreputation through trusted friends and by their own personal experience with


2/25

36 D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT AND NORMAN L. CHERVANY

them as professionals and as members of a club or church or PTA. Since then,however, the influx of new people into old communities, the growth of urbanpopulations, and, more recently, widespread job turnover and geographic

movement has shifted the basis of trust from personal knowledge to institu-tional knowledge [82]. Clients are able to deal with professionals who arepersonally unknown to them because licensing and regulating entities onlylegitimate professionals who have passed certain competence hurdles. With-out knowing lawyers or doctors personally, clients can rely on them becausethey have passed the tests needed to put up a shingle. Clients see the medi-cal or legal certificate on the wall and can test the professional through per-sonal interaction. Since e-commerce provides little opportunity to verify the

quality of goods through inspection or the quality of a professional throughinterpersonal interaction, it makes even greater demands on the credulity ofconsumers.

Trust is central to interpersonal and commercial relationships [27, 51] be-cause it is crucial wherever risk, uncertainty, or interdependence exist [45, 50].These conditions flourish in many settings, but thrive in socially distant rela-tionships. Researchers have found trust to be important to both virtual teamsand e-commerce [1, 30, 31, 32, 53, 73]. As increased transaction complexitymakes conditions more uncertain, as is the case in computer-mediated com-merce, the need for trust grows [50].

This article proceeds under the belief that conceptual work is as valid ascientific pursuit as empirical testing of theory. Although conceptual efforts,unlike empirical work, do not report test results from the real world, they areimportant because they form a firm basis upon which empirical studies build,as several researchers have argued (e.g., [76]). In the four-base model of re-search developed by Sagasti and Mitroff, one base is the conceptual modelthe step before building an empirically testable model [66]. Schwabdemonstrates the importance of good conceptual work to construct validity[69]. In his classic treatise on conducting research, Kaplan devotes entire chap-ters to theory building and conceptualizing [34]. Conceptual models help re-searchers by linking science to the real world upfront, so that the results of thescientific research may later be of greater use to practice [66].

Testing a theory before it is properly conceptualized causes problems. Theresulting research is often misinterpreted because researchers have not yetagreed on what the terms mean. Moreover, as Crozier warns, premature rigorcan keep a theory from being adequately comprehensive [13, p. 5]. Narrowresults are not as likely to contribute to practice [76]. The logical positivistview of science requires that theory be developed conceptually first and thenoperationally, so that the results of operationalizing it will be applicable to theconceptual theory. Because we cannot identify observable representations ofa concept unless its meaning is clear, the initial step is to clarify the mentalimagery conveyed by ones concepts [71, p. 98]. In short, pursuing empiricalwork before adequately defining concepts is like putting the cart before thehorse.

A good deal of research on trust is under way, with the potential to producesignificant understanding of e-commerce or other social phenomena. How-ever, a clearer understanding of what the term trust means is needed if the


3/25

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 37

results are to be interpreted and compared across disciplines. This paper jus-tifies and specifies a conceptual typology of trust constructs. It then definesthe four resulting constructs and ten measurable subconstructs, and relates

them to other e-commerce concepts. Distrust constructs are separate from trustconstructs [40], and lie outside the scope of this paper. Distrust should bedefined as the mirror-image opposite of trust [48]. Three example definitionsof distrust constructs are given below.

The State of Trust Definitions

There are literally dozens of definitions of trust. Some researchers find themcontradictory and confusing (e.g., [41, 70, 74]), others conclude that the con-cept is almost or elusive to define [22, 80], and still others choose not to defineit [28, 55]. All of these problems are found in the e-commerce research do-main, with researchers defining trust as a willingness to believe [20] or asbeliefs regarding various attributes of the other party [49, 73], such as fair-ness, goodness, strength, ability, benevolence, honesty, and predictability. SomeInternet researchers, for whatever reason, do not specifically define trust (e.g.,[4, 5, 12, 19, 30, 53, 78]). A consensus definition would help researchers forme-commerce models that communicate shared meaning between researchersand practitioners. Why does the term trust elicit either confusion or reluc-tance to define?

One reason is that every discipline views trust from its own unique per-spective. Like the story of the six blind men and the elephant, a disciplinarylens colors researchers views of what trust is. Psychologists see trust as apersonal trait, sociologists see it as a social structure, and economists see it asan economic-choice mechanism [39]. Scholars in one discipline may not un-derstand and appreciate the view of trust held in other disciplines (e.g., [42]).Hence, definitions differ widely, often clustering along disciplinary lines.

A second reason for the confusion is that trust is a vague term. Like othernatural language terms, it has acquired many meanings [71]. Three unabridgeddictionaries (Websters, Random House, and Oxford) give trust, on aver-age, 17.0 definitions, while the terms cooperation, confidence, and pre-dictable have an average of 4.7 definitions. Cooperation, confidence, andpredictable are the terms that Mayer et al. use to discriminate trust fromsimilar concepts [45].

Few researchers address this issue head-on by trying to reconcile the vari-ous types of trust into a sensible set of constructs that adequately cover itsdifferent meanings (exceptions: [3, 7, 16, 21, 35, 45, 50]). In part, this is becauseof disciplinary perspectives. For example, Lewis and Weigert, as sociologists,argue that psychological views of trust are invalid because trust cannot bereduced to a personal characteristic [42]. Disciplinary lenses help us see somethings, but may also act as blinders [64].

The other problem is that empirical research drives most definitions of trust.Researchers tend to develop narrow conceptualizations of trust that fit thetype of research they do. They defend their narrow conceptualizations by re-ferring to the factor analysis. Van de Ven warned that when theories on a topic


4/25


widely diverge, the advocates for each theory engage in activities to maketheir theory better by increasing its internal consistency, often at the expenseof limiting its scope. As a result, and as Pogge stated, a way of seeing is a way

of not seeing. From an overall Academy perspective, such impeccable micrologic is creating macro nonsense! [76, p. 487]. The broad proliferation of in-commensurate trust definitions is evidence that this has happened in trustresearch.

The Need for Better Conceptual Trust Definitions

Researchers should agree on trust definitions for two practical reasons. First,common definitions would enable them to sort out findings across studies.Currently, this is very hard to do [27]. Without agreed-upon definitions, effec-tive meta-analyses is difficult and ineffective. A search in ABI Inform yieldedonly two meta-analyses about trust, both published recently and both focusedon sales relations. This meager result may be a symptom of the difficulty ofcomparing trust studies, especially across disciplines. What trust research needsis a set of rules for translating one result to another, as Rubin recommendedfor the equally diverse literature on love [65]. Consensus knowledge abouttrust will then progress more rapidly.

Second, consistent definitions enable researchers to communicate clearlywith practitioners and provide them with better prescriptions. Common-senseterms like trust should be accessed from the real world [36, p. 11] and thensharpened for scientific use [3, 6]. Next, they should be compared back tocommon-sense terms to see how well they match the meaning and range ofmeaning the terms connote in everyday use [66]. Luhmann suggested thatresearchers should build trust theory and then enter a dialogue with the ev-eryday understanding of the social world [44, p. 3]. This dialogue wouldenable trust research to be more valuable to practitioners and enable research-ers to obtain valuable practitioner knowledge. Such interplay improves thepractical applicability of the scientific and renders researchable the common[36].

The trust prescriptions provided to practitioners are typically couched inthe same vague terminology (trust) that confuses so many researchers. Vagueprescriptions that generic trust will solve the Internets problems are danger-ous because they may not address a specific problem in a productive way.Worse, the researcher/consultants type of trust may be prescribed or appliedmistakenly to situations in which it is not appropriate. This is like giving apatient pain medication for a heart problem because it worked for a head-ache. As an example, what better leads to consumer adoption of an Internetservice, user trust perceptions about the Internet or user disposition to trust?Both have been referred to as trust, but one may be much more crucial in thissituation than the other.

The key to defining trust lies only indirectly in empirical work or even inconstruct validation. After all, it is the plethora of empirical studies that hasbrought trust research to so confusing a state. Wrightsman argues that thegeneral concept of trust deserves much more theoretical analysis. Measure-


5/25


ment has advanced more rapidly than conceptual clarification [79, p. 411]. Ifso, then efforts to conceptualize should be redoubled, as several trust research-ers suggest [35, 39, 74]. Other scientists maintain that effective conceptuali-

zation is vital to progress with any construct [34, 69]. Thus, building a goodtheoretical, conceptual view of trust will help move trust research forward.

One Suggestion: Create a Trust Typology

Because trust is so broad a concept, and is defined in so many different ways,a typology of trust constructs is an appropriate desideratum. A good typol-

ogy would do two things [75]. First, it would create order out of chaos bydistinguishing concepts that at first appear to be the same. Second, it wouldmake it possible to postulate how the different types of trust relate to eachother [69], creating a model of trust types. This is because a good typology isnot a collection of undifferentiated entities but is composed of a cluster oftraits which do in reality hang together [75, p. 178]. However, a typology isonly appropriate if it is parsimonious enough to be easily understood andthus useful to practice [45]. Given the breadth of meaning of the trust con-struct, this is difficult. The more complex a concept is, the less parsimoniousits dimensions may seem. However, as Hirschman has advised, researchersshould loosen their most stringent demands regarding parsimony in order toincrease conceptual understanding of social phenomena that are by naturecomplex [29].

Producing an acceptable typology requires analysis of existing trust defini-tions. In the research reported here, various definitions were compared to findconceptual trends. From about 80 articles and books on trust, 65 were identi-fied that provided definitions of trust. The articles and books were from thefields of psychology/social psychology (23), sociology/economics/politicalscience (19), and either management or communications (23). The books werespecifically about trust. The articles tended to be from well-read journals intheir domain. Each was either oft-cited by others or had a unique trust defini-tion. The search was stopped when conceptual saturation was reached, thatis, when no new definitions emerged [26].

An analysis of these definitions showed that they fell into two broad group-ings. Many of them could be categorized into different conceptual types, suchas attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and dispositions, whereas others could becategorized as reflecting different referents: trust in something, trust in some-one, or trust in a specific characteristic of someone (e.g., honesty). In termsof specific characteristics, 16 categories of trust-related characteristics wereidentified.

As Table 1 shows, the 16 categories can be distilled into five second-orderconceptual categories by comparing one type of characteristic with another.Ninety-three student raters validated the categorizations. Seventy-one percentof their ratings agreed with those by the authors. Most of the categorizationswere intuitive, but based on the literature, it was possible to differentiate pre-dictability and integrity by defining the latter as value-laden and the former asvalueless. The value-laden literature definitions of dependable and reliable more


6/25


closely fit in the integrity category than in the predictability category. Predict-ability was included as an economics-based subconstruct. This differs fromMayer et al., who excluded predictability from their trust typology [45]. Thus,four second-order categories (competence, benevolence, integrity, and predict-ability) cover 91.8 percent of the characteristics-based trust definitions found.

The two types of groupings of trust definitions (construct type and refer-ent) did not appear to overlap, in that the first refers to what type of constructtrust is, and the second to the object of trust. Therefore, after the number ofattributes was reduced to five, these two categories were used as dimensionsof a five-by-six table that made it possible to categorize the types of trust defi-nitions used by researchers (seeTable 2). Each of the definitions in the 65 ar-ticles and books was mapped onto these dimensions. The result was theexpected findingthat trust definitions ranged all over the map.

A Typology of Related Trust Constructs

From this mapping, and from a conceptual analysis of how trust types relateto one other [47], an interdisciplinary model of trust types was formulated.The model, shown in Figure 1, has concepts representing all of the columns in

Trust-related Second-order Percentage

characteristic conceptual category Definition count of total

1. Competent 14

2. Expert 3

3. Dynamic 3

Competence 20 20.4

4. Predictable Predictability 6 6.1

5. Good, moral 6

6. Good will 10

7. Benevolent, caring 18

8. Responsive 4Benevolence 38 38.8

9. Honest 11

10. Credible 1

11. Reliable 8

12. Dependable 6

Integrity 26 26.5

13. Open 3

14. Careful, safe 315. Shared understanding 1

16. Personally attractive 1

Other 8 8.2

Total 98 100.0

Table 1. Trust Referent Characteristicbased Definition Categories.


7/25


Table 2. Disposition to trust reflects Table 2s disposition column. Institution-based trust reflects the structural/institutional column. The attitude and be-

lief columns were combined into trusting beliefs, which were defined as havingboth affective and cognitive components (see [59]). Trusting intentions coversthe intention column.

Trust-related behaviors was made a dotted-line concept outside the trusttypology because behavioral forms of trust already have other labels (e.g.,cooperation, information sharing, entering agreements with, risk taking,involvement with). What these have in common is that, in each case, one partybehaviorally dependson the other party. Calling these trusting behaviors wouldneedlessly duplicate other constructs. The umbrella term trust-relatedbehaviors provides a second-order category for constructs like cooperationand risk taking, keeping them separate from, but related to, trust constructs.

The dispositional, institutional, and interpersonal trust constructs arediscriminant from each other for at least three reasons. First, as Figure 1 shows,they come from different research disciplines. Because psychologists andsociologists, for example, think about the world very differently, their conceptsalso differ, primarily in terms of the nature of the research behind their origin.Disposition to trust comes primarily from trait psychology, which says thatactions are molded by certain childhood-derived attributes that become moreor less stable over time. Institution-based trust derives from sociology, whichsays that behaviors are situationally constructed. In this paradigm, action isnot determined by factors within the person but by the environment or

Structural/ Dispo-

institutional sition Attitude Belief Intention Behavior

Referent

characteristic:

Competence x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

xxxxxxxx

Benevolence xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

xxx

Integrity xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx

xxxxxxx

Predictability x xxxxxxxxxxx x

Other xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

xxxxxx

Table 2. Mapping of Literature Trust Definitions.

Notes:1. Each x represents one trust definition.2. Attitude includes affect and confidence; Belief includes expectancy.

Conceptual types


8/25


situation. Trusting beliefs and intentions reflect the idea that interactions between people and cognitive-emotional reactions to such interactionsdetermine behavior (e.g., [37]). Based on these large differences, one couldargue that this typology contains constructs that are too diverse to be relatedat all. Yet, by establishing as the level of analysis the individual trusting theother party, the starkness of the differences is subtly reduced, such that eachconstruct relates to another more naturally. For example, institution-based trustis defined below as a belief about situations and structures rather than anintersubjective shared reality, as some sociologists would have it. This wasdone, in part, to create a more cohesive set of concepts, but also to recognizethe sociological work that defines beliefs/perceptions as concepts.

The second reason the constructs are clearly discriminant from each otheris that they form different sentences in the grammar of trust. That is, trustwas modeled as an action sentence with a subject, verb, and direct object (seeFigure 2). The trustor is the subject or nominative of the sentence, trust itself isthe verb or predicate, and the trustee is the direct object. Figure 1 shows (inparentheses) that the direct object is the differentiating factor amongdispositional, institutional, and interpersonal constructs. Per Figure 2, whiledispositional trust means that one trusts others generally, institutional trustmeans that one trusts the situation or structures. With interpersonal trust, thedirect object is the specific other individual one trusts. This suggests the essenceof the definitions of the psychological state known as trust: to willingly becomevulnerable to the trustee, whether another person, an institution, or peoplegenerally, having taken into consideration the characteristics of the trustee.This comprises a comprehensive definition of trust.

A third way to distinguish these concepts is by their contextual orientation(see Table 3). Disposition to trust is cross-situational and cross-personal because

Note: The Trust-Related Behaviors construct lies outside the trust typology.

Figure 1. An Interdisciplinary Model of High-Level Trust Concepts

Dispositionto

Trust

Institution-BasedTrust

TrustingBeliefs

Trusting

Intentions

Trust-

RelatedBehaviors

Interpersonal Trust

Social Psychology & Economics(Trust in Specific Others)

Dispositional Trust

PsychologyEconomics

(Trust inGeneral Others)

Sociology(Trust in the

Situation orStructures)

Institutional Trust


9/25


it reflects the extent to which the trustor has a general propensity/tendency todepend on most people across most situations. Institution-based trust issituation-specific but cross-personal because it means that one trusts the specificsituation but does so irrespective of the specific people in that situation. Trustingbeliefs and intentions have a person-specific direct object but are cross-situational in that one trusts the person across various contexts [40].

The four trust constructs in Figure 1 can be subdivided into lower levelconstructs that are measurable via scales (see Figure 3). Disposition to trust includesthe faith in humanity and trusting stance subconstructs. Institution-based trustconsists of structural assurance and situational normality of the Web. Trustingbeliefs includes competence, benevolence, integrity, and predictability beliefs,corresponding to the first four rows of Table 2. Trusting intentions includeswillingness to depend and subjective probability of depending on the Web vendor[14, 16].

As the definitions below will show, these subconstructs of the four mainconstructs are conceptually distinguishable from each other and from theconstruct. They are not simply two parts of a dual construct. Like the subtypes ofa data-modeling supertype, each subconstruct partakes of the overall conceptualmeaning of the concept (supertype), but has certain attributes that distinguish itfrom the concept and from other subconstructs (subtypes) [8]. For example,consider the biological categories and subcategories of the animal kingdom. Acow and an elephant are both in the mammal category, for example, becausethey both give live birth, have hair, and nourish their babies through mammaryglands.These attributes are common to all mammals, but cows and elephants(subcategories), respectively, have additional attributes not specified for amammal (category). The elephant is different from other mammals because ofattributes like size, unique ears, a flexible, elongated snout, tusks, and its toe/

Figure 2. Grammar of the Trust Model

* Here, the word trust is used as a surrogate for willing to depend on or intends to depend on (trustingintentions or disposition to trust), believes in the {attribute} of (trusting beliefs), or believes it is a contextconducive to success (institution-based trust).

A. Basic Sentence structure

Nominative/Noun Predicate/Verb Direct Object Type of Trust

Concept

(various)

B. Examples of Sentence Variations

The trustor trusts* the trustee.

The E-commerce consumer trusts the E-vendor. Interpersonal

The E-commerce consumer trusts the web itself.

The E-commerce consumer trusts others generally.

Institutional

Dispositional


10/25


Situation- Cross- Person- Cross-

specific situational specific personal

Disposition to trust X X

Institution-based trust X X

Trusting beliefs X X

Trusting intentions X X

Table 3. Contextual Orientation of Trust Concepts.

Situational Personal

Concept orientation

Figure 3. A Model of E-Commerce Customer Relationships Trust

Constructs

Source: Adapted from {47}.

Note: Thinner arrows are proposed to be weaker links than thicker arrows, usually due to mediation effects.

Trusting Beliefs

StructuralAssurance of

the Web

Institution-based Trust

SituationalNormality of

the Web

Trust in Web Vendor/Business

Web VendorInterventionsPrivacy Policy3rd Part y Seals

Interacting withCustomers

Reputationbuilding

Links to otherSites

Guarantees

Trust-RelatedInternet Behaviors

PurchasingCooperatingInformationSharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief

Predictabilitybelief

SubjectiveProbability ofDepending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs


11/25


foot arrangement. Similarly, each of the subconstructs of the four main constructspartakes of the nature of the construct but has attributes that differentiate it fromits parent construct and from other subconstructs of its parent construct. The

constructs and subconstructs in Figure 1 can now be defined, reflecting on theirmeaning and inter-relationships in light of e-commerce customer-vendor relations.

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Constructs

Implicit in all the definitions presented here are two aspects not explicitlylisted in each definition: felt security and a risky situation. A feeling of security

means that one feels safe, assured, and comfortable (not anxious or fearful)about the prospect of depending on the trustee [42, 59]. Feelings of securityreflect the affective side of trust. Both security and confidence are oftenincluded in research and dictionary definitions of trust (e.g., [11, 25, 43, 67]).The possibility of negative consequences or risk is what makes trust inunfamiliar or uncertain situations like the Internet important but problematic[22, 25, 60, 81]. One should therefore implicitly add to each definition belowthe phrase: with a feeling of relative security in a situation of risk.

The Internet provides a dual challenge, in that both it and its players arerelatively new. Researchers have found that in novel situations, people relyon their general disposition to trust [33, 63]. Disposition to trust means theextent to which one displays a consistent tendency to be willing to depend onothers in general across a broad spectrum of situations and persons. This con-struct derives primarily from disposition or trait psychology. The precedingdefinition does not literally refer to a persons trait. Rather, it means that onehas a general propensity to be willing to depend on others [45]. Disposition totrust does not necessarily imply that one believes others to be trustworthy.Whatever the reason, one tends to be willing to depend on others. People maygrow up with a disposition to trust or may develop it later in life [17]. Eitherway, it is acted out as a generalized reaction to lifes experiences with otherpeople [63]. Because disposition to trust is a generalized tendency across situ-ations and persons, it colors our interpretation of situations and actors in situ-ations. Thus, as Figure 1 indicates, disposition to trust will influenceinstitution-based trust, which reflects beliefs about the situation. Dispositionto trust will affect trust in a specific other (interpersonal trust), but only whennovel situations arise in which the other and the situation are unfamiliar [33].To the extent that e-commerce is novel to a consumer, disposition to trust willinfluence interpersonal trust in the vendor (see Figure 1), as Gefen found [24].Referring to the vignette that began this article, perhaps it was a high disposi-tion to trust others that influenced Ms. Wilson to trust Mr. Lais initially.

As a new phenomenon to many people, the Internet presents almost thesame unnerving prospect as that presented to a person who walks on ice ofunknown thickness: Will it hold up, or will I break through and drown? Inother words, are Internet conditions such that I will be successful? Institution-based trustmeans one believes that favorable conditions are in place that areconducive to situational success in an endeavor or aspect of ones life [41, 44,70, 82]. In the Internet context, favorable conditions refers to the legal, regu-


12/25


latory, business, and technical environment perceived to support success. Thisconstruct comes from the sociology tradition that people can rely on othersbecause of structures, situations, or roles that provide assurances that things

will go well [2]. Hence, the causal link in Figure 1 goes from institution-basedtrust to trusting beliefs and intentions, and not in the other direction. Zuckertraced the history of regulations and institutions in America that enabled peopleto trust one other not because they knew one other personally, but becauselicensing or auditing or laws or governmental enforcement bodies were inplace to make sure the other person was either afraid to harm you or pun-ished for doing so [82]. Similarly, beliefs that the Internet has legal or regula-tory protections for consumers (institution-based trust) should influence trust

in a particular e-vendor (interpersonal trust). Mrs. Tolleson (in the second vi-gnette) apparently feared that Internet protections were not sufficient to protecther from getting impure or incorrect medicines. It is likely that institution-basedtrust will link more strongly to trusting beliefs than disposition to trust becausesituation tends to have stronger effects on interpersonal beliefs than disposi-tion when the situation is known [33]. However, if the situation itself is un-known, as with prospective Internet users, disposition to trust may have astronger relationship with interpersonal trust than does institution-based trust.

In the Internet context, the people involved include consumers and e-ven-dors. The term e-vendor is here left vague so that it may encompass boththe Web store and the store owner or manager. Interpersonal trust of e-ven-dors by consumers is critical for establishing transactional behavior. As a WallStreet Journal article put it, It seems that trust equals revenue, even on-line[57]. Trusting beliefs means that one believes that the other party has one ormore characteristics beneficial to oneself. In terms of characteristics, the con-sumer wants the e-vendor to be willing and able to act in the consumersinterest, honest in transactions, and both capable of, and predictable at, deliv-ering as promised. Ms. Wilson had high trusting beliefs in Mr. Lais at first, butlow trusting beliefs after the transaction. Trusting beliefs is not an expecta-tion, as some have defined trust (e.g., [3, 15]), but is specified as a cognitive/affective belief in order to reflect the type of construct more normally used insocial science. Perceptions about the other partys traits are often included intrust definitions [59, 80]. Trusting beliefs are here defined as person-specific,in contrast to institution-based trust, which is situation-specific.

Can one depend on an e-vendor to deliver and not betray by divulgingpersonal information (e.g., credit card number) to other vendors? If one iswilling to provide such information, then this is the essence of being willingto depend on the vendor to keep the information confidential. The informedconsumer has to reconcile these issues before being willing to transact busi-ness on the Web. Trusting intentionsmeans that one is willing to depend on, orintends to depend on, the other party even though one cannot control thatparty. Trusting intentions definitions embody three elements synthesized fromthe trust literature. First, a readiness to depend or rely on another (such as Ms.Wilson relying on her Web lawyer) is central to trusting intentions [16, 25, 42,61]. To depend means to have the trustee do something on ones behalf. Sec-ond, trusting intentions is person-specific [21, 72]. Finally, trusting intentionsinvolves willingness that is not based on having control or power over the


13/25


other party [22, 60, 61]. In the Internet context, the consumer has less controlthan in the brick-and-mortar context, and may incur greater negative conse-quences (e.g., a stolen identity), making trusting intentions especially prob-

lematic. Trusting intentions relates to the power literature because it is definedin terms of dependence and control. This may be researched: For example, thefeeling of powerlessness against the faceless Internet is probably a factor re-lated to fear to do business on the Web. Reflecting such feelings, one distrustdefinition is added for contrast.Distrusting intentions means that one is againstbeing willing to depend, or intends not to depend, on the other party. Thefeelings behind this construct are usually strong and emotionally charged [48],as were Ms. Wilsons post-transaction feelings toward Mr. Lais.

The link between trusting beliefs and trusting intentions is natural becausethe theory of reasoned action posits that beliefs influence intentions [18]. Inthe Internet setting, it seems reasonable that strong beliefs that the vendor ishonest, competent, benevolent, and predictable should lead to willingness todepend, or to intend to depend, on the vendor (see Figure 3). People are will-ing to depend on those they feel have beneficial characteristics. Additionaltheoretical justification for model linkages among the above trust constructsis provided by McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany [47].

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Subconstructs

Disposition to trust has two subconstructs, faith in humanity and trustingstance. Faith in humanity refers to underlying assumptions about people, whiletrusting stance is like a personal strategy. Faith in humanity means that oneassumes others are usually competent, benevolent, honest/ethical, and pre-dictable(e.g., [62, 79]). Mayer et al. gave the example that if you were going todrown, could you trust nonspecific others to come to your aid? [45].You wouldif, having high faith in humanity, you assumed that others generally careenough to help. Likewise, you would be more likely to have high trustingbeliefs that an Internet vendor is trustworthy if your faith in humanity is high,since it is people that operate e-businesses (see Figure 3). Those with highfaith in humanity tend to be less judgmental or critical of others upfront andare usually more tolerant of their mistakes.

Trusting stance means that, regardless of what one assumes about otherpeople generally, one assumes that one will achieve better outcomes by deal-ing with people as though they were well-meaning and reliable. Therefore,trusting stance is like a personal choice or strategy to trust others. Because itinvolves a choice that is presumably based on a subjective calculation of theodds of success in a venture, trusting stance derives from the calculative, eco-nomics-based trust research stream (e.g., [60]). Here is an example. A con-sumer asked why he or she trusted a Web store might answer, Because Ialways trust Web stores until they give me a reason not to trust them. Some-one with high trusting stance would probably have high trusting intentions(see Figure 3), that is, would be willing to take normal risks (e.g., risk of creditcard fraud) to buy goods or services on-line, until an adverse experience forcesa change of mind about e-vendors.


14/25


Trusting stance and faith in humanity are alike in that they each constitutea tendency or propensity to trust other people [45]. They differ in terms oftheir assumptions. Because faith in humanity relates to assumptions about

the attributes of other people, it is more likely than trusting stance to be anantecedent to trusting beliefs (in people) (see Figure 3). Trusting stance willrelate more to trusting intention, since it is a strategy related to trusting othersrather than a belief about people [47].

Institution-based trust has two subconstructs, structural assurance and situ-ational normality of the Web. Structural assurance means that one believes thatprotective structuresguarantees, contracts, regulations, promises, legal re-course, processes, or proceduresare in place that are conducive to situational

success [70, 82]. For example, users of the Internet have structural assuranceto the extent to which they believe that legal and technological Internet safe-guards (e.g., encryption) protect them from privacy loss, identity loss, or creditcard fraud generally [30]. Structural assurance is the opposite of perceivedWeb risk. With a high level of structural assurance regarding the Internet, onewould be more likely to believe in the goodness of Internet vendors (trust-ing beliefs ) and to rely on specific Internet vendors (trusting intentions) be-cause of the secure feeling structural assurance engenders (see Figure 3).

Situational normalitymeans that one believes that the situation in a venture

is normal or favorable or conducive to situational success.Situation (on theWeb) reflects Garfinkels idea that trust is the perception that things in a situ-ation are normal, proper, customary, fitting, or in proper order [2, 23, 41].Garfinkel found in natural experiments that people do not trust others whenthings go weird, that is, when they face inexplicable, abnormal situations.For example, one subject told the experimenter that hed had a flat tire on theway to work. The experimenter responded, What do you mean you had aflat tire? The subject replied, in a hostile way, What do you mean What doyou mean? A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I meant. Nothing special. Whata crazy question! [23, p. 221] At this point, trust between them broke downbecause the illogical question produced an abnormal situation. Situationalnormality means that a properly ordered setting is likely to facilitate a suc-cessful venture. When Web consumers believe that the Internet situation isnormal and that their role and the vendors roles in the situation are appro-priate and conducive to success, then they have a basis for trusting the ven-dor in the situation. Hence, situational normality regarding the Internet settingwill affect trusting beliefs and trusting intentions about Internet vendors (seeFigure 3).

Just as those with high faith in humanity are less critical of people, they areprobably also less critical of situations and more positive about the structuresbeneath situations. Therefore, one with a high faith in humanity should havehigh situational normality and structural assurance regarding the e-commercesetting. Similarly, those who give people the benefit of the doubt because ofhigh trusting stance will be more likely to have high situational normality andstructural assurance beliefs. Hence, both disposition to trust constructs shouldinfluence both institution-based trust constructs, as Figure 3 indicates.

The trusting beliefs subconstructs defined here are of four types, buildingon Mayer et al. [45], although it is recognized that other types exist. Trusting


15/25


belief-competence means that one believes that the other party has theability orpower to do for one what one needs done. In the case of the Internet relation-ship, the consumer would believe that the vendor can provide the goods and

services in a proper and convenient way. Trusting belief-benevolence means thatone believes that the other party cares about one and is motivated to act inones interest. A benevolent Internet vendor would not be perceived to actopportunistically by taking advantage of the trustor. Benevolence reflects thespecific relationship between trustor and trustee, not trustee kindness to all.Trusting belief-integrity means that one believes that the other party makes good-faith agreements, tells the truth, acts ethically, and fulfills promises[7]. Thiswould reflect the belief that the Internet vendor will come through on its prom-

ises and ethical obligations, such as to deliver goods or services or to keepprivate information secure. Thus, integrity is more about the character of thetrustee than about the trustor-trustee relationship. Trusting belief-predictabilitymeans that one believes the other partys actions (good or bad) are consistentenough that one can forecast them in a given situation.Those with hightrust-ing belief-predictability would believe that they can predict the Internetvendors future behavior in a given situation. This construct, as opposed totrusting belief-integrity, is value-neutral, such that the vendor is believed pre-dictably to do either good or bad things in the future. The vendor may havegood or bad traits, but is perceived to be consistent in those traits. For ex-ample, a consumer with a high level of predictability belief would forecastthat Amazon.com will consistently deliver a book in seven days. One with ahigh belief level would forecast that Amazon.com will need a follow-up e-mail before it sends off the package. Predictability is separate from, but inter-acts with, the other constructs, because having predictability means that thetrustees willingness and ability to serve trustor interests does not vary orchange over time. Thus, in contrast to the view of Mayer et al., predictabilityis important to the trust typology.

Which of the four beliefs is more important? In a sense, they complementone another, comprising an unassailable foundation for trusting intentionsand trust-related behaviors [45]. That is, if the trustor has high beliefs in thecompetence, integrity, benevolence, and predictability of the trustee, thenthe trustor will have the highest level of willingness to depend on the trustee,because these attributes address nearly every contingent circumstance inthe relationship. Specifically, a vendor consistently (predictability belief)shown to be willing (benevolence belief) and able (competence belief) toserve consumer interests with total honesty (integrity belief) is indeed wor-thy of trust.

On the individual level, however, the belief that addresses the greatest fearof the prospective Web user is the belief that is most important. For example,if a consumer fears that his or her credit card number might inadvertently bemade available to other Web users, the consumers competence belief that thevendor will use its technical prowess to take proper precautions using SSL orother tools will address this issue. If the fear is that the vendor might sellpersonal information to other vendors for marketing purposes, then trustingbelief-integrity may be the most important because of the ethical issues. Ms.Wilson may at first have placed greater emphasis on credential-based compe-


16/25


tence, but after the transaction would probably emphasize Mr. Laiss (lack of)integrity. On the level of potential Web users as a whole, the most importanttrusting belief will address the most important issue affecting overall use. Ini-

tially, if this is the private data security issue, then competence may be themost important belief. However, this is an empirical question, and research-ers are hereby challenged to test it.

Some or all of these trusting beliefs will probably merge together into oneconstruct when the trustor knows little about the trustee, but as the parties getto know each other, the trustor will be able to differentiate among the trustingbeliefs more discretely [40]. The two most likely to merge are integrity and be-nevolence, since they both imply that the trustee will do the trustor good in-

stead of harm.The subconstructs of trusting intentions include willingness to depend andsubjective probability of depending. Willingness to depend means that one isvolitionally prepared to make oneself vulnerable to the other party in a situa-tion by relying on the other party(e.g., [16, 45]). Here, the e-consumer is will-ing to depend on the vendor to do its part of the transaction in a proper andefficient way. Subjective probability of depending means the extent to which oneforecasts or predicts that one will depend on the other party[14]. This meansthat consumers predict that they will rely or depend on the e-commerce ven-dor in the future. While willingness to depend expresses volition or desire,subjective probability of depending expresses something strongera verifi-able intent or commitment to depend. These constructs could refer to aconsumers willingness or intention to depend on the vendor to fulfill an or-der, provide a service, provide excellent advice, keep personal informationconfidential and secure, or warrant its products. To provide contrast, two dis-trusting intentions subconstructs are defined. No willingness to depend meansthat one is against making oneself vulnerable to the other party by relying onthe other party. Subjective probability of not depending means the extent to whichone forecasts or predicts that one will not depend on the other party. Thesedefinitions are mirror opposites of the trust definitions. Other distrust con-structs could be defined [48], but are not included here.

Linking Trust Constructs to Other Internet Constructs

Figure 3 links trust variables to two Internet constructs. First, trusting inten-tions and trusting beliefs are linked to a construct termed trust-related Internetbehaviors. This construct is defined constitutively as behaviors that demon-strate that one is willing to purchase from or do business with the Internetvendor, cooperate with it, and share information with it. Trust-related Internetbehaviors is not a trust construct, but a naturally following consequence ofthe interpersonal trust constructs. Just as the theory of reasoned action showsthat behavioral beliefs and intentions lead to related behaviors [18], so themodel presented here posits that in the Internet setting, trusting beliefs andintentions will influence one to actually do business with the Web vendor. Itposits that trusting intentions will only partially mediate trusting beliefs be-cause these beliefs are likely to become very specific over time [72]. Therefore,


17/25


one or more trusting beliefs will probably have a direct effect on specific Internetbehaviors. For example, belief in vendor benevolence may have a partiallymediated effect on consumer information sharing because it provides assur-

ances specific to this construct.So far, only trusting beliefs and intentions have been posited as antecedentfactors to Internet behaviors like purchasing. But vendors can also try to in-fluence consumers to purchase and cooperate and share information throughthe Web vendor interventions shown in Figure 3. Web vendor interventionsare actions a vendor may take to provide assurances to consumers about thevendors site. Rather than relating to the Web environment as a whole, asinstitution-based trust does, a Web vendor intervention assures customers that

this particular vendor site is safe in spite of whatever deficiencies exist in theoverall Web environment. Over time, if such interventions become standardand actual practices, the overall Web may be widely perceived as a safer, moresecure place, increasing institution-based trust.

At this point it is necessary to explain how the trust constructs relate toWeb vendor interventions (see Figure 3). Existing Internet theory postulatesthat privacy policies, third-party seals [4], interacting with customers, reputa-tion building, links to other sites, and guarantees may help induce such con-sumer behaviors as purchasing and personal information sharing (e.g., [30]),as reflected by the arrow from Web vendor interventions to trust-relatedInternet behaviors. The potential contribution to theory made in this paper isthe suggestion that although the direct link exists, the effects of trust-buildinginterventions on Internet behaviors will be partially mediated by trusting be-liefs and intentions. Therefore, arrows have been drawn from interventions totrusting beliefs and trusting intentions. The rationale for these mediating linkswill now be discussed.

Privacy Policy and Third-Party Privacy Seals

If a vendor posts a privacy policy or uses a third-party seal (e.g., TRUSTe)indicating that a privacy policy exists on the site, the consumer should believethat this vendor is ethical with regard to capturing personal information (trust-ing beliefintegrity). Thus, the consumer is more likely to be willing to sharepersonal information with this vendor (trusting intentions). A consumer whointends to share personal information is more likely to actually share the in-formation (trust-related Internet behaviorsinformation sharing).

Interacting with Customers

If a vendor interacts on-line with its customers, it should be able to convey tothem that it is benevolent, competent, honest, and/or predictable. The inter-action provides the customer with evidence that the vendor has various posi-tive attributes, thereby strengthening trusting beliefs. The interaction also

provides the customer with assurances that support willingness to depend onthe vendor (trusting intentions). Therefore the customer is more likely to en-gage in trust-related Internet behaviors like purchasing, cooperating, and shar-ing information.


18/25


Reputation Building

The vendor may advertise its good reputation in order to induce purchasingbehaviors. But improving its reputation will also improve trusting beliefs,

because reputation is the second-hand rumor that one has positive generaltraits, whereas trusting beliefs constitute the first-hand belief. Trusting inten-tions directly result from these beliefs.

Links to Other Sites

Links to other reputable sites may provide assurance enabling purchasing orother Internet behaviors [73]. However, outside links imply that one has good

company because one is good company, which would have a positive impacton trusting beliefs about the site vendor.

Guarantees or Other Seals

Guarantees or third-party seals related to the reliability of the site (e.g., BBB,AICPAs WebTrust or SysTrust) would raise trusting beliefs in the integrity of

the vendor, thereby engendering willingness to depend on that vendor. Thetrusting belief affected depends on the nature of the seal.In sum, each consumer trust-building intervention tends to build trusting

beliefs and intentions that act as intermediate mechanisms for producing trust-related Internet behaviors. If the preceding arguments hold true empirically,trusting beliefs and trusting intentions will partially mediate the effects ofthese interventions on trust-related Internet behaviors.

Reasons the Typology May Be Applicable

1. The authors have created and tested scales for each of these trustsubconstructs, as will be reported elsewhere. Thus, all thesubconstructs are measurable, facilitating new research on either partor all of the model.

2. The constructs are specific and parsimonious enough to be easilyunderstood and distinguished. Subconstructs tie closely to constructsin a precise definitional way, such that moving from subconstruct toconstruct does not constitute the vagueness of concept stretching [54].

3. The constructs are grounded in the literature in terms of the moreoften used types of trust.

4. The constructs traverse several disciplines. Although they do notcorrespond exactly to each disciplines trust concepts, they capturesignificant conceptual meaning from each [58].

5. The constructs form a model that is potentially helpful in the e-commerce relationship domain. The model provides heuristicvalue by generating research possibilities that connect dispositional,institutional, and interpersonal types of trust [34].


19/25


6. The definitions were genericized so that the constructs can travel toother research domains [54].

The reader may wish to compare the typology with other trust typologiesin terms of coverage. Gabarro, Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna, and Mishra ad-dressed several types of trusting beliefs [21, 50, 59]. Bromiley and Cummingshad three types of beliefs and intentions that addressed benevolence and in-tegrity attributes [7]. Barber defined three distinct types of trust [3]. McAllisteraddressed two trust types: cognitive-based and affective-based trust [46]Mayer, Davis and Schoorman were very thorough, positing both trust itself,propensity to trust, and integrity, ability, and benevolence perceptions [45].They also mentioned the need for institutional trust constructs. This articleextends the work of McKnight et al. [47] by delineating two trusting inten-tions, adding trust-related behaviors, including an affective definitional basisfor the trust concepts (felt security), and linking disposition to trust with situ-ational normality.

Model Limitations

The model has two potential drawbacks. First, because it ventures across dis-ciplinary lines, it risks losing some of the meanings associated with the origi-nal trust definitions [77]. This limitation has been addressed up front, as Vande Ven and Ferry suggested, by making the definitions clear and by ground-ing them in the originating literature. Splitting institution-based trust into twoclearly defined and grounded constructs, situational normality and structuralassurance, is an example of how proper conceptual grounding in the litera-ture has been ensured. Second, some of the model constructs are delineatedso finely that they may not be discriminant in empirical studies. The best ex-ample of this is the four trusting beliefs. Although these beliefs are often dis-criminant when the trustor knows the trustee well, they tend to factor togetherwhen the trustor and trustee are not well knownespecially trusting be-liefbenevolence and trusting beliefintegrity. On the other hand, the dis-position to trust and institution-based trust subconstructs are consistentlydistinguishable.

Conclusion

Lewis and Weigert called trust a highly complex and multi-dimensional phe-nomenon [41]. The classification system presented in this article clarifies thecomplexity by specifying categories for most existing trust meanings, therebyfacilitating meta-analyses of trust research (see Table 2). This trust typologyhelps address conceptual confusion by representing trust as a coherent, de-fined set of four concepts and ten subconstructs. These constructs are alsoclarified by explaining how they relate to one other and to already-used Internetrelationship constructs. This depiction of trust has heuristic value because itgenerates research possibilities [34]. The model will help researchers examine


20/25


e-commerce customer relationships in new ways, since it includes personal,institutional, and interpersonal concepts. Another benefit is that the modelpresents a vocabulary (and grammar) of specifically defined trust types that

scholars and practitioners can use to converse on this important topic. Finally,because the operational model constructs are well grounded in actual phe-nomena, more specific (and thus more helpful) trust prescriptions should re-sult. This is especially true in the Internet world, where researchers arealready finding that perceptions about the situation and propensity to trustare important to consumer trust in Internet vendors (e.g., [24]). Given thecurrent holes in general Web protections, additional structural assurancesare needed.

For unscrupulous lawyers, the Web is the perfect marketing toolcheap, pervasive and lacking serious regulation. Bar authorities, whowere already struggling in the Old Economy, are throwing up theirhands in the New. Most dont even try to keep tabs on lawyersInternet ads, citing a lack of resources. . . . Ms. Wilson still kicks herselffor not doing a more thorough background check on Mr. Lais, butsays she thinks the bar should have tried harder, too. The bar says itwasnt aware of the site until Ms. Wilson started complaining, and

that even if it had been, taking the legal steps to shut it down mighthave taken longer than his three-month suspension. [68]

REFERENCES

1. Ba, S.; Whinston, A.B.; and Zhang, H. Building trust in the electronicmarket through an economic incentive mechanism. In P. De and J.I. DeGross(eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on InformationSystems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 208213.2. Baier, A. Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(January 1986), 231260.3. Barber, B. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press, 1983.4. Benassi, P. TRUSTe: An online privacy seal program. Communications of

the ACM, 42, 2 (February 1999), 5659.5. Bensaou, M. Electronically-mediated partnerships: The use of CAD

technologies in supplier relations. In P. De and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceed-ings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems. Charlotte,NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 307323.6. Berscheid, E., and Meyers, S.A. A social categorical approach to a

question about love. Personal Relationships, 3 (1996), 1943.7. Bromiley, P., and Cummings, L.L. Transactions costs in organizations

with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard, and R. Lewicki (eds. ), Research on Nego-tiations in Organizations, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995, pp. 219247.8. Brown, R.G. Data modeling methodologiescontrasts in style. In B. von

Halle and D. Kull (eds.), Data Management Handbook. Boston: Auerbach,1993, pp. 389439.9. Chrusciel, D., and Zahedi, F.M. Seller-based vs. buyer-based Internet

intermediaries: A research design. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth
http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199902^2942:2L.56[aid=1604411]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199902^2942:2L.56[aid=1604411]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1350-4126^281996^293L.19[aid=2016960]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199902^2942:2L.56[aid=1604411]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0014-1704^28198601^2996L.231[aid=2016959]


21/25


(eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems.Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 241243.10. Clarke, R. Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention.

Communications of the ACM, 42, 2 (February 1999), 6068.11. Cook, J., and Wall, T. New work attitude measures of trust, organiza-tional commitment and personal need non-fulfillment.Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 53 (1980), 3952.12. Cranor, L.F. Internet privacy. Communications of the ACM, 42, 2 (February1999), 2831.13. Crozier, M. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1964.

14. Currall, S.C., and Judge, T.A. Measuring trust between organizationalboundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,64, 2 (1995), 151170.15. Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and DestructiveProcesses. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.16. Dobing, B. Building trust in user-analyst relationships. Ph.D. disserta-tion, University of Minnesota, 1993.17. Erikson, E.H. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.18. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.

Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: AnIntroduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.19. Fritscher, M. Towards a unique world-wide digital certificate. In W.D.Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Confer-ence on Information Systems. Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 432434.20. Fung, R.K.K., and Lee, M.K.O. EC-trust (trust in electronic commerce):Exploring the antecedent factors. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth(eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems,Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 517519.21. Gabarro, J. J. The development of trust, influence, and expectations. InA.G. Athos and J.J. Gabarro (eds.), Interpersonal Behavior: Communication andUnderstanding in Relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978, pp.290303.22. Gambetta, D. Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making andBreaking Cooperative Relations. New York: Blackwell, 1988, pp. 213237.23. Garfinkel, H. A conception of, and experiments with, trust as acondition of stable concerted actions. In O.J. Harvey (ed.),Motivation andSocial Interaction. New York: Ronald Press, 1963, pp. 187238.24. Gefen, D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. OMEGA, 28, 6(2000), 725737.25. Giffin, K. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory ofinterpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 2(1967), 104120.26. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:Aldine, 1967.27. Golembiewski, R.T., and McConkie, M. The centrality of interpersonaltrust in group processes. In G.L. Cooper (ed.), Theories of Group Processes.London: John Wiley, 1975, pp. 131185.28. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of
http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199902^2942:2L.60[aid=1604412]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0749-5978^281995^2964:2L.151[aid=2016962]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0033-2909^281967^2968:2L.104[aid=2016963]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0305-0483^282000^2928:6L.725[aid=1625584]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0749-5978^281995^2964:2L.151[aid=2016962]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0033-2909^281967^2968:2L.104[aid=2016963]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0305-0483^282000^2928:6L.725[aid=1625584]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0749-5978^281995^2964:2L.151[aid=2016962]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199902^2942:2L.60[aid=1604412]


22/25


embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3(1985), 481510.29. Hirschman, A.O. Against parsimony: Three easy ways of complicatingsome categories of economic discourse.American Economic Review, 74, 1

(1984), 8996.30. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P.; and Peralta, M., Building consumer trustonline.Communications of the ACM, 42, 4 (April 1999), 8085.31. Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Leidner, D.E. Communication and trust in globalvirtual teams.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3 , 4 (June 1998),129.32. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; and Vitale, M. Consumer trust in anInternet store. Working paper, Department of MSIS, University of Texas,

April 1998.33. Johnson-George, C., and Swap, W.C. Measurement of specific interper-sonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in aspecific other.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 3 (1982), 13061317.34. Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Chandler, 1964.35. Kee, H.W., and Knox, R.E. Conceptual and methodological consider-ations in the study of trust and suspicion.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14, 3(1970), 357366.36. Kelley, H.H. Common-sense psychology and scientific psychology.Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1992), 123.37. Kelley, H.H.; Berscheid, E.; Christensen, A.; Harvey, J.H.; Huston, T.L.;Levinger, G.; McClintock, E.; Peplau, L.A.; and Peterson, D. R. Analyzingclose relationships. In H.H. Kelley; E. Berscheid; A. Christensen; J.H.Harvey; T.L. Huston; G. Levinger; E. McClintock; L.A. Peplau; andD.R. Peterson (eds.), Close Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983, pp.2067.38. Klose, M., and Lechner, U. Design of business media: An integratedmodel of electronic commerce. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.),Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Milwau-kee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 559561.39. Lewicki, R.J., and Bunker, B.B. Trust in relationships: A model of trustdevelopment and decline. In B.B. Bunker and J.Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict,Cooperation and Justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995, pp. 133173.40. Lewicki, R.J.; McAllister, D.J.; and Bies, R. J. Trust and distrust: Newrelationships and realities.Academy of Management Review, 23, 3 (1998), 438458.41. Lewis, J.D., and Weigert, A.J. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 4(1985), 967985.42. Lewis, J.D., and Weigert, A.J. Social atomism, holism, and trust. Sociologi-cal Quarterly, 26, 4 (1985), 455471.43. Lindskold, S. Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects ofconciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. Psychological Bulletin, 8, 3 (July1978), 772793.44. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power. New York: John Wiley, 1979.45. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; and Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model oforganizational trust.Academy of Management Review, 20, 3 (1995), 709734.
http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0038-0253^281985^2926:4L.455[aid=2016968]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0038-0253^281985^2926:4L.455[aid=2016968]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.438[aid=1650882]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0066-4308^281992^2943L.1[aid=2016967]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199904^2942:4L.80[aid=759948]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-9602^281985^2991:3L.481[aid=61589]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.438[aid=1650882]


23/25


46. McAllister, D.J. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations forinterpersonal cooperation in organizations.Academy of Management Journal,38, 3(1995), 2459.

47. McKnight, D.H.; Cummings, L.L.; and Chervany, N.L. Initial trustformation in new organizational relationships.Academy of ManagementReview, 23, 3(1998), 473490.48. McKnight, D.H., and Chervany, N.L. While trust is cool and collected,distrust is fiery and frenzied: A model of distrust concepts. In D. Strong, D.Straub, and J.I. DeGross (eds. ),Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conferenceon Information Systems. Boston: Omnipress, 2001, pp. 883888.49. Menon, N.M.; Konana, P.; Browne, G.J.; and Balasubramanian, S.

Understanding trustworthiness beliefs in electronic brokerage usage. In P.De and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conferenceon Information Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 552555.50. Mishra, A.K. Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. InR.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds. ), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theoryand Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, pp. 261287.51. Morgan, R.M., and Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relation-ship marketing.Journal of Marketing , 58, 3 (1994), 2038.52. Muthitacharoen, A. Investigating consumers attitude toward Internetshopping. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.), Proceedings of theFifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee: Omnipress,1999, pp. 532534.53. Noteberg, A.; Christiaanse, E.; and Wallage, P. The role of trust andassurance services in electronic channels: An exploratory study. In P. De andJ.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference onInformation Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 472478.54. Osigweh, C. Concept fallibility in organizational science.Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 4(1989), 579594.55. Ouchi, W.G. Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the JapaneseChallenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.56. Parker-Pope, T. How to tell whether that online drugstore is really agood deal. Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2001, B1.57. Petersen, A. Private matters: It seems that trust equals revenue, evenonline. Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2001, R24, R31.58. Poole, M.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. Using paradox to build managementand organization theories.Academy of Management Review, 14, 4 (1989),562578.59. Rempel, J.K.; Holmes, J. G.; and Zanna, M. P. Trust in close relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49 (1985), 95112.60. Riker, W.H. The nature of trust. In J.T. Tedeschi (ed. ), Perspectives onSocial Power. Chicago: Aldine, 1971, pp. 6381.61. Ring, P.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. Developmental processes of cooperativeinterorganizational relationships.Academy of Management Review, 19, 1(1994), 90118.62. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and Values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957.63. Rotter, Julian B. Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust.Ameri-can Psychologist, 26, 5 (May 1971), 443452.
http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.473[aid=1650884]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0022-3514^281985^2949L.95[aid=1397300]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.473[aid=1650884]


24/25


64. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; and Camerer, C. Not so differentafter all: A cross-discipline view of trust.Academy of Management Review, 23,3 (1998), 393404.

65. Rubin, Z. Preface. In R.J. Sternberg and M.L. Barnes (eds.), The Psychol-ogy of Love. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. viixii.66. Sagasti, F.R., and Mitroff, I.I. Operations research from the viewpoint ofgeneral systems theory. OMEGA, 1, 6 (1973), 695709.67. Scanzoni, J. Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R.L.Burgess and T.L. Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships.New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 6198.68. Schmitt, R.B. Lowering the bar: Lawyers flood Web, but many ads fail to

tell the whole truth. Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2001, A1, A12.69. Schwab, D.P. Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B.M. Stawand L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 2. Green-wich, CT: JAI Press, 1980, pp. 343.70. Shapiro, S.P. The social control of impersonal trust.American Journal ofSociology, 93, 3(1987), 623658.71. Singleton, R., Jr.; Straits, B.C.; Straits, M.M.; and McAllister, R.J.Ap-proaches to Social Research . New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.72. Sitkin, S.B., and Roth, N.L. Explaining the limited effectiveness oflegalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 3 (August1993), 367392.73. Stewart, K.J. Transference as a means of building trust in world wideWeb sites. In P. De and J.I. DeGross (eds. ), Proceedings of the TwentiethInternational Conference on Information Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress,1999, pp. 459464.74. Taylor, R.G. The role of trust in labor-management relations. OrganizationDevelopment Journal (summer 1989), 8589.75. Tiryakian, E.A. Typologies. In D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia ofthe Social Science, vol. 16. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968, pp.177186.76. Van de Ven, A. H. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory.Acad-emy of Management Review, 14, 4(1989), 486489.77. Van de Ven, A.H., and Ferry, D. L.Measuring and Assessing Organizations.New York: John Wiley, 1980.78. Wang, H.; Lee, M.K.O.; and Wang, C. Consumer privacy concerns aboutInternet marketing. Communications of the ACM, 41, 3 (March 1998), 6370.79. Wrightsman, L.S. Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward humannature. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.),Measuresof Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, vol. 1. San Diego: AcademicPress, 1991, pp. 373412.80. Yamagishi, T., and Yamagishi, M. Trust and commitment in the UnitedStates and Japan.Motivation and Emotion, 18, 2 (1994), 129166.81. Zand, D.E. Trust and managerial problem solving.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 17, 2(1972), 229239.82. Zucker, L.G. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economicstructure, 18401920. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research inOrganizational Behavior, vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, pp. 53111.
http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-9602^281987^2993:3L.623[aid=2016973]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1047-7039^28199308^294:3L.367[aid=1338105]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1047-7039^28199308^294:3L.367[aid=1338105]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-9602^281987^2993:3L.623[aid=2016973]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.393[aid=941612]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0001-0782^28199803^2941:3L.63[aid=1398983]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1047-7039^28199308^294:3L.367[aid=1338105]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0002-9602^281987^2993:3L.623[aid=2016973]http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0363-7425^281998^2923:3L.393[aid=941612]


25/25


D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT ([email protected]) is an assistant professor inthe Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D.from the University of Minnesota. His research interests include trust in e-commerceand information system settings, leadership, and the retention and motivation of com-

puter personnel.

NORMAN L. CHERVANY ([email protected]) is a professor of informa-tion and decision sciences at the Carlson School of Management, University of Min-nesota. He received his doctorate in decision sciences from Indiana University. Hisresearch interests revolve around the relationships among information technology/systems and organizational strategy, organizational design, work design, and projectimplementation.

mc knight trust in ecomerce

Documents