Why does one trust? A 360-degree perspective on the role of position power in weighting trustworthiness factors.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Military Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1080/08995605.2024.2373576
Gene M Alarcon, Joseph B Lyons, Roger C Mayer, Alexander J Barelka, Phil Bobko
{"title":"Why does one trust? A 360-degree perspective on the role of position power in weighting trustworthiness factors.","authors":"Gene M Alarcon, Joseph B Lyons, Roger C Mayer, Alexander J Barelka, Phil Bobko","doi":"10.1080/08995605.2024.2373576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of the current paper is to explore the influence of the perceived trustworthiness factors of ability, benevolence and integrity on general and specific trust across supervisors, subordinates and peers with the same focal referent. This study used a 360-degree approach to examine how positional power asymmetries influence the relationship between trustworthiness and trust for a general and situation-specific referent. Data were obtained from military supervisors (<i>N</i> = 200), peers (<i>N</i> = 123), and subordinates (<i>N</i> = 85). Measures of trustworthiness and trust of a common military officer were obtained. Supervisors and subordinates differed in their relative weighting of trustworthiness factors (i.e. ability, benevolence, and integrity) when evaluating general and specific trust. Peers evidenced no difference in the relative weighting of trustworthiness factors. The relationship between benevolence and specific trust was stronger for subordinates than for supervisors. One implication of our findings is that trust can develop differently in bottom-up versus top-down organizational relationships. This study provides evidence that supervisors and subordinates emphasize different aspects of trustworthiness when evaluating their trust of a focal officer, and this process was different for general versus specific trust referents. The study also extends previous research by replicating previous findings across raters.</p>","PeriodicalId":18696,"journal":{"name":"Military Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2024.2373576","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of the current paper is to explore the influence of the perceived trustworthiness factors of ability, benevolence and integrity on general and specific trust across supervisors, subordinates and peers with the same focal referent. This study used a 360-degree approach to examine how positional power asymmetries influence the relationship between trustworthiness and trust for a general and situation-specific referent. Data were obtained from military supervisors (N = 200), peers (N = 123), and subordinates (N = 85). Measures of trustworthiness and trust of a common military officer were obtained. Supervisors and subordinates differed in their relative weighting of trustworthiness factors (i.e. ability, benevolence, and integrity) when evaluating general and specific trust. Peers evidenced no difference in the relative weighting of trustworthiness factors. The relationship between benevolence and specific trust was stronger for subordinates than for supervisors. One implication of our findings is that trust can develop differently in bottom-up versus top-down organizational relationships. This study provides evidence that supervisors and subordinates emphasize different aspects of trustworthiness when evaluating their trust of a focal officer, and this process was different for general versus specific trust referents. The study also extends previous research by replicating previous findings across raters.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人为什么会信任?从 360 度视角看职位权力在衡量可信度因素中的作用。
本文旨在探讨能力、仁慈和正直等感知可信度因素对同一焦点参照物的上司、下属和同级之间的一般信任和特定信任的影响。本研究采用 360 度方法,考察职位权力不对称如何影响一般参照物和特定情况参照物的可信度与信任之间的关系。数据来自军事主管(200 人)、同级(123 人)和下属(85 人)。对一名普通军官的可信度和信任度进行了测量。上司和下属在评价一般信任和特定信任时,对信任因素(即能力、仁慈和正直)的相对权重有所不同。同级人员在信任因素的相对权重上没有差异。对下属而言,仁慈与特定信任之间的关系要强于对上司的关系。我们研究结果的一个含义是,信任在自下而上和自上而下的组织关系中会有不同的发展。本研究提供的证据表明,上司和下属在评估他们对协调人的信任时,会强调可信度的不同方面,而这一过程对于一般信任参照物和特定信任参照物是不同的。本研究还通过在不同评价者之间复制以前的研究结果,对以前的研究进行了扩展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Military Psychology
Military Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Military Psychology is the quarterly journal of Division 19 (Society for Military Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. The journal seeks to facilitate the scientific development of military psychology by encouraging communication between researchers and practitioners. The domain of military psychology is the conduct of research or practice of psychological principles within a military environment. The journal publishes behavioral science research articles having military applications in the areas of clinical and health psychology, training and human factors, manpower and personnel, social and organizational systems, and testing and measurement.
期刊最新文献
A qualitative assessment of perceptions of gender-based stigma among US Marine Corps officers in training. Are veterans willing to assist with firearm safety for suicide prevention? Associations among psychological health problems, intimate-relationship problems, and suicidal ideation among United States Air Force active-duty personnel. Fluid teams. Low psychological resilience and physical fitness predict attrition from US Marine Corps Officer Candidate School training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1