Abstract
Examinations of trust have advanced steadily over the past several decades, yielding important insights within criminal justice, economics, environmental studies, management and industrial organization, psychology, political science, and sociology. Cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of trust, however, have been limited by differences in defining and measuring trust and in methodological approaches. In this chapter, we take the position that (1) cross-disciplinary studies can be improved by recognizing trust as a multilevel phenomenon and (2) context impacts the nature of trusting relations. We present an organizing framework for conceptualizing trust between trustees and trustors at person, group, and institution levels. The differences between these levels have theoretical implications for the study of trust and that might be used to justify distinctions in definitions and methodological approaches across settings. We highlight where the levels overlap and describe how this overlap has created confusion in the trust literature to date. Part of the overlap—and confusion—is the role of interpersonal trust at each level. We delineate when and how interpersonal trust is theoretically relevant to conceptualizing and measuring trust at each level and suggest that other trust-related constructs, such as perceived legitimacy, competence, and integrity, may be more important than interpersonal trust at some levels and in some contexts. Translating findings from trust research in one discipline to another and collaborating across disciplines may be facilitated if researchers ensure that their levels of conceptualization and measurement are aligned and that models developed for a particular context are relevant in other, distinct contexts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While the emphasis of this exercise is on democratic societies, we recognize that in many societies throughout the world vulnerability to an authority may be compulsory rather than voluntary.
- 2.
The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in 1787 and 1788. The essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers under the pen name “Publius.” The purpose of the papers was to urge the citizens of New York to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. They are considered a primary important source for understanding the original intent of the Constitution (Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html).
- 3.
An environmental protection group dedicated to conserving and protecting wilderness areas, improving air and water quality, energy conservation, and protecting endangered species, http://www.sierraclub.org/about.
References
Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34, 575–618.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150912.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 211–241.
Campos-Castillo, C., Woodson, B. W., Theiss-Morse, E., Sacks, T., Fleig-Palmer, M. M., & Peek, M. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between interpersonal and institutional trust in political and health care contexts. In E. Shockley, T. M. S. Neal, L. M. PytlikZillig, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration. New York: Springer.
Chen, C., Hsieh, C., & Chen, D. (2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92, 954–973.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., et al. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236. doi:10.1037/a0031757.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499–518.
Currall, S. C., & Inkpen, A. C. (2002). A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 479–495. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491027.
de Tocqueville, A. (2012). Democracy in America (E. Nolla, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1835)
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35–51. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1251829.
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Baird, V. A. (1998). On the legitimacy of national high courts. American Political Science Review, 92, 343–358. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2585668.
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 187–201. doi:10.1177/106591290505800201.
Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist #68. The Federalist Papers. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html.
Hamm, J. A., Lee, J., Trinkner, R., Wingrove, T., Leben, S., & Breuer, C. (2016). On the cross-domain scholarship of trust in the institutional context. In E. Shockley, T. M. S. Neal, L. M. PytlikZillig, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration. New York: Springer.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organizational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 23–63. doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5–22.
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.
Plitt, M., Savjani, R. R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2015). Are corporations people too? The neural correlates of moral judgments about companies and individuals. Social Neuroscience, 10(2), 113–125. doi:10.1080/17470919.2014.978026.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.
Schilke, O., & Cook, K. (2015). Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 267–297.
Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., & Gutscher, H. (Eds.). (2010). Trust in risk management: Uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind. London: Earthscan.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141–159.
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
Herian, M.N., Neal, T.M.S. (2016). Trust as a Multilevel Phenomenon Across Contexts: Implications for Improved Interdisciplinarity in Trust Research. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_7
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)