Abstract
Clarifying the “conceptual morass” of the social science of trust is a critical endeavor, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is an important tool for researchers seeking to investigate the relationships among and relative influence of the many trust constructs in this expanding literature. Problematically, however, the often conceptually overlapping nature of the constructs themselves can create covariance problems that are only exacerbated by SEM’s ability to partition shared and unshared variance among indicators. These challenges can, in some situations, entirely preclude researchers from using SEM to test theoretically important hypotheses. There are a number of potential strategies available to researchers to address these problems, notably including both item- and factor-level aggregation techniques. Importantly, however, these aggregation strategies often compromise many of the benefits that make SEM so attractive in the first place. We therefore recommend that researchers with strongly correlated latent constructs test a specific alternative model in which higher-order factors are used to predict the covariance among the latent factors. These models address the problems that arise from working with excessive covariance while preserving the conceptual and statistical distinctiveness of the lower-order factors and permitting researchers to test their independent influence on important outcomes. To aid in illustrating this approach, the chapter includes a real-world data example in which various alternative model specifications are tested, highlighting the utility of higher-order factor models for trust researchers.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The use of two indicators for any latent variable (higher or lower order) often creates problems for identification that require constraining their loadings to be equal. This would preclude the researcher from evaluating their relative loadings because they would have been set to be the same. See Rindskopf and Rose (1988) for a more in-depth treatment of these issues.
References
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 78–102.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.
Coffman, D. L., & McCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235–259.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big-Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23, 1117–1133.
Hamm, J. A. (2014). Understanding the role of trust in cooperation with a natural resources institution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychdiss/63/
Hamm, J. A., PytlikZillig, L. M., Herian, M. N., Tomkins, A. J., Dietrich, H., & Michaels, S. (2013). Trust and intention to comply with a water allocation decision: The moderating roles of knowledge and consistency. Ecology and Society, 18, Article 49. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art49/
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organizational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 23–63.
Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22, 1087–1104. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0581.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust in risk regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1674–1700.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.
Siegrist, M. (2010). Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Analysis, 30, 1022–1024.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.
Smith, J. W., Leahy, J. E., Anderson, D. H., & Davenport, M. A. (2013). Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Society and Natural Resources, 26, 452–471.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Turel, O., Yuan, Y., & Connelly, C. E. (2008). In justice we trust: Predicting user acceptance of E-customer services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 123–151.
Van Slyke, C., Belanger, F., & Comunale, C. L. (2009). A behavioral beliefs model of trustworthiness in consumer-oriented E-commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 7, 22–43.
Williams, L. J., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 233–242.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful feedback of the editors and the assistance of James D. Carr in preparing this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hamm, J.A., Hoffman, L. (2016). Working with Covariance: Using Higher-Order Factors in Structural Equation Modeling with Trust Constructs. In: Shockley, E., Neal, T., PytlikZillig, L., Bornstein, B. (eds) Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22260-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22261-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)