Felt trust: Added baggage or added value? A critical review, constructive redirection, and exploratory meta-analysis

IF 6.8 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1002/job.2838
Bart de Jong, Allan Lee, Harjinder Gill, Xiaotong (Janey) Zheng
{"title":"Felt trust: Added baggage or added value? A critical review, constructive redirection, and exploratory meta-analysis","authors":"Bart de Jong,&nbsp;Allan Lee,&nbsp;Harjinder Gill,&nbsp;Xiaotong (Janey) Zheng","doi":"10.1002/job.2838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>After decades of scholarly focus on studying trust from the <i>trustor's</i> perspective, there has been a rapidly growing interest in understanding trust from the <i>trustee's</i> perspective, with a particular focus on felt trust (i.e., a trustee's perception of being trusted by a trustor). The fundamental assumption underlying this trustee-centric perspective is that it complements the dominant trustor-centric perspective and enables a more comprehensive understanding of how trust manifests and operates in the workplace. Unfortunately, our critical review of 121 felt trust studies reported in 87 manuscripts reveals major problems in multiple areas (conceptualization, measurement, theorizing, and research methods) that limit this field's ability to achieve this potential. To remedy this, we build on existing frameworks, best practices, and exemplars from the (felt) trust and meta-perceptions literature to outline a constructive redirection of the field. We subsequently empirically test the field's fundamental assumption by meta-analytically exploring the distinctiveness and incremental validity of felt trust beyond other trust concepts. Taken together, our envisioned redirection and meta-analytic findings enable the field of felt trust to live up to its promise and enrich our understanding of organizational trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":48450,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","volume":"46 2","pages":"288-313"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/job.2838","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2838","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After decades of scholarly focus on studying trust from the trustor's perspective, there has been a rapidly growing interest in understanding trust from the trustee's perspective, with a particular focus on felt trust (i.e., a trustee's perception of being trusted by a trustor). The fundamental assumption underlying this trustee-centric perspective is that it complements the dominant trustor-centric perspective and enables a more comprehensive understanding of how trust manifests and operates in the workplace. Unfortunately, our critical review of 121 felt trust studies reported in 87 manuscripts reveals major problems in multiple areas (conceptualization, measurement, theorizing, and research methods) that limit this field's ability to achieve this potential. To remedy this, we build on existing frameworks, best practices, and exemplars from the (felt) trust and meta-perceptions literature to outline a constructive redirection of the field. We subsequently empirically test the field's fundamental assumption by meta-analytically exploring the distinctiveness and incremental validity of felt trust beyond other trust concepts. Taken together, our envisioned redirection and meta-analytic findings enable the field of felt trust to live up to its promise and enrich our understanding of organizational trust.

Abstract Image

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
感受信任:增加负担还是增加价值?批判性的回顾,建设性的重定向和探索性的荟萃分析
经过几十年的学术关注,从受托人的角度来研究信任,从受托人的角度来理解信任的兴趣迅速增长,特别关注感觉信任(即受托人被受托人信任的感觉)。这种以信任为中心的观点的基本假设是,它补充了主流的以信任为中心的观点,使人们能够更全面地理解信任是如何在工作场所表现和运作的。不幸的是,我们对87份手稿中报告的121份感觉信任研究的批判性回顾揭示了多个领域(概念化、测量、理论化和研究方法)的主要问题,这些问题限制了该领域实现这一潜力的能力。为了解决这个问题,我们以现有框架、最佳实践和(感觉)信任和元感知文献中的范例为基础,概述了该领域的建设性重定向。随后,我们通过元分析探索感觉信任的独特性和增量效度超越其他信任概念,实证检验了该领域的基本假设。综上所述,我们设想的重定向和元分析的发现使感觉信任领域实现了它的承诺,并丰富了我们对组织信任的理解。
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
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Behavior aims to publish empirical reports and theoretical reviews of research in the field of organizational behavior, wherever in the world that work is conducted. The journal will focus on research and theory in all topics associated with organizational behavior within and across individual, group and organizational levels of analysis, including: -At the individual level: personality, perception, beliefs, attitudes, values, motivation, career behavior, stress, emotions, judgment, and commitment. -At the group level: size, composition, structure, leadership, power, group affect, and politics. -At the organizational level: structure, change, goal-setting, creativity, and human resource management policies and practices. -Across levels: decision-making, performance, job satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism, diversity, careers and career development, equal opportunities, work-life balance, identification, organizational culture and climate, inter-organizational processes, and multi-national and cross-national issues. -Research methodologies in studies of organizational behavior.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Do Not Be a Prompt Puppet: Human Judgment and Courage in the Age of AI Issue Information From Friction to Fulfillment: Examining When and How Spousal Active-Destructive Responsiveness to Employees' Sharing of Positive Events Benefits the Work Domain Neurodiversity Right: The Case for Neurodiversity Employment Programs
×
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:604180095
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