Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2017.1285241
S. Lu, D. Kong, D. Ferrin, K. Dirks
ABSTRACT Given the practical importance of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the study of determinants of trust in negotiations. However, research in this area has not been well connected or integrated, which limits the ability of scholars and practitioners to ascertain the state of current scientific knowledge and identify questions for future research. Based on attribution theory and social exchange theory, we present a conceptual framework for understanding how a variety of factors combine to influence the development of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations. Then, to verify the conceptual framework, we identified and meta-analysed findings from a total of 25 independent studies of determinants of trust in negotiations. The meta-analyses provided support for two of the three factors in the conceptual framework – trustor attributes and shared attributes – that are likely to influence an individual’s trust in a negotiation partner. The framework and findings provide valuable scientific insights on trust and negotiation, and also valuable practical insights for negotiation practitioners.
{"title":"What are the determinants of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations? Meta-analytic evidence and implications for future research","authors":"S. Lu, D. Kong, D. Ferrin, K. Dirks","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2017.1285241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1285241","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Given the practical importance of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the study of determinants of trust in negotiations. However, research in this area has not been well connected or integrated, which limits the ability of scholars and practitioners to ascertain the state of current scientific knowledge and identify questions for future research. Based on attribution theory and social exchange theory, we present a conceptual framework for understanding how a variety of factors combine to influence the development of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations. Then, to verify the conceptual framework, we identified and meta-analysed findings from a total of 25 independent studies of determinants of trust in negotiations. The meta-analyses provided support for two of the three factors in the conceptual framework – trustor attributes and shared attributes – that are likely to influence an individual’s trust in a negotiation partner. The framework and findings provide valuable scientific insights on trust and negotiation, and also valuable practical insights for negotiation practitioners.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2017.1285241","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47059744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1213954
P. Li
Before I introduce the articles published in the second issue of JTR in 2016, I would like to take the opportunity to share a couple of noteworthy news items with you. First, the number of submissions in the first half of this year (up to the end of June) has substantially increased, already higher than the number for the whole of 2015. This may be related to the inclusion of JTR in the journal list in the Academic Journal Guide 2015 from the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in UK, thus the higher recognition of JTR due to the greater exposure of the ABS listing. I hope this momentum will continue in the rest of this year and also in years to come. Second, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Neve Isaeva from the University of Birmingham for winning the privileged award, theMichael K. O’Rourke Best Publication Award, which is to recognise the outstanding achievement in the publication of a postgraduate researcher. Neve received the 2016 award for the best publication in the College of Social Sciences, and this article was published in JTR as a special-forum article (Isaeva, Bachmann, Bristow, & Saunders, 2015). Only five winners are selected each year for this award, one for each of the five colleges at the University of Birmingham with approximately 5000 postgraduate research students. I strongly recommend this award-winning article to all JTR readers, and in fact would like to share with you again my view on this article as published in the second issue of JTR in 2015 (Li, 2015a):
在介绍《JTR》2016年第2期发表的文章之前，我想借此机会与大家分享几条值得关注的新闻。首先，今年上半年(截至6月底)的提交数量大幅增加，已经高于2015年全年的数量。这可能与JTR被列入英国商学院协会(ABS) 2015年学术期刊指南的期刊名单有关，因此，由于ABS名单的曝光率更高，JTR的认受性更高。我希望这一势头将在今年剩余时间和未来几年继续下去。其次，我非常高兴地祝贺伯明翰大学的Neve Isaeva获得michael K. O 'Rourke最佳出版物奖，这是为了表彰研究生研究人员在出版方面的杰出成就。Neve获得2016年社会科学学院最佳出版物奖，这篇文章作为特别论坛文章发表在JTR上(Isaeva, Bachmann, Bristow， & Saunders, 2015)。该奖项每年只选出五名获奖者，伯明翰大学五个学院各选出一名，共有约5000名研究生。我向所有JTR的读者强烈推荐这篇获奖的文章，事实上，我想再次与您分享我对这篇发表在2015年第二期JTR (Li, 2015a)的文章的看法:
{"title":"Trust portfolio toward an integrative framework: the emerging themes of trust context and trust complexity","authors":"P. Li","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1213954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1213954","url":null,"abstract":"Before I introduce the articles published in the second issue of JTR in 2016, I would like to take the opportunity to share a couple of noteworthy news items with you. First, the number of submissions in the first half of this year (up to the end of June) has substantially increased, already higher than the number for the whole of 2015. This may be related to the inclusion of JTR in the journal list in the Academic Journal Guide 2015 from the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in UK, thus the higher recognition of JTR due to the greater exposure of the ABS listing. I hope this momentum will continue in the rest of this year and also in years to come. Second, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Neve Isaeva from the University of Birmingham for winning the privileged award, theMichael K. O’Rourke Best Publication Award, which is to recognise the outstanding achievement in the publication of a postgraduate researcher. Neve received the 2016 award for the best publication in the College of Social Sciences, and this article was published in JTR as a special-forum article (Isaeva, Bachmann, Bristow, & Saunders, 2015). Only five winners are selected each year for this award, one for each of the five colleges at the University of Birmingham with approximately 5000 postgraduate research students. I strongly recommend this award-winning article to all JTR readers, and in fact would like to share with you again my view on this article as published in the second issue of JTR in 2015 (Li, 2015a):","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1213954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59992961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1207543
J. Chang, Honggang Yang, Kuang‐Hui Yeh, Shih-Chi Hsu
ABSTRACT This study seeks to understand and describe the essences of the experience of trust development in close personal relationships. A review of the literature reveals that prior Western studies emphasised the processes of trust development, while prior Chinese studies focused on actions that need to be taken to develop trust. In addition, most prior trust development studies were confined to workplace, exchange and acquaintance relationships. To fill the gaps, this empirical study seeks to understand how trust develops in close relationships between parents and children, married couples, romantic partners and close friends. It employs a qualitative phenomenological method to collect data through in-depth interviews with 14 Chinese adults in Taiwan who have successfully developed trust in these close relationships. The findings revealed that trust development involves not only demonstrating trustworthiness through meeting expectations based on roles, norms and needs but also engaging in effective communication in times of change and conflict. The findings advance the existing knowledge of trust development by providing a comprehensive, action-taking model with applicability to broader close relationships under-studied by prior researchers. They have implications on trust development strategies in the Chinese context that are critical for Westerners to know as they do business with the Chinese.
{"title":"Developing trust in close personal relationships: ethnic Chinese’s experiences","authors":"J. Chang, Honggang Yang, Kuang‐Hui Yeh, Shih-Chi Hsu","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1207543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1207543","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study seeks to understand and describe the essences of the experience of trust development in close personal relationships. A review of the literature reveals that prior Western studies emphasised the processes of trust development, while prior Chinese studies focused on actions that need to be taken to develop trust. In addition, most prior trust development studies were confined to workplace, exchange and acquaintance relationships. To fill the gaps, this empirical study seeks to understand how trust develops in close relationships between parents and children, married couples, romantic partners and close friends. It employs a qualitative phenomenological method to collect data through in-depth interviews with 14 Chinese adults in Taiwan who have successfully developed trust in these close relationships. The findings revealed that trust development involves not only demonstrating trustworthiness through meeting expectations based on roles, norms and needs but also engaging in effective communication in times of change and conflict. The findings advance the existing knowledge of trust development by providing a comprehensive, action-taking model with applicability to broader close relationships under-studied by prior researchers. They have implications on trust development strategies in the Chinese context that are critical for Westerners to know as they do business with the Chinese.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1207543","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1213173
A. Gausdal, Helge Svare, Guido Möllering
ABSTRACT This paper explores the interactions between three focal constructs: network trust, network cooperation and network benefits. While positive interactions between these constructs are generally recognised, a deeper understanding is needed why high trust does not always coincide with high levels of cooperation and benefits in networks. Based on qualitative and survey data gathered from three Norwegian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) networks, this paper contributes to the process theory of inter-organisational relationships by showing how network trust, cooperation and benefits interact in various ways in ongoing networks, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the relative and changing impact of each of the three focal constructs on the other constructs. In particular, trust facilitates cooperative initiatives that promise real network benefits which subsequently reinforce trust, especially when network members are smaller firms and the network has many members.
{"title":"Why don’t all high-trust networks achieve strong network benefits? A case-based exploration of cooperation in Norwegian SME networks","authors":"A. Gausdal, Helge Svare, Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1213173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1213173","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper explores the interactions between three focal constructs: network trust, network cooperation and network benefits. While positive interactions between these constructs are generally recognised, a deeper understanding is needed why high trust does not always coincide with high levels of cooperation and benefits in networks. Based on qualitative and survey data gathered from three Norwegian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) networks, this paper contributes to the process theory of inter-organisational relationships by showing how network trust, cooperation and benefits interact in various ways in ongoing networks, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the relative and changing impact of each of the three focal constructs on the other constructs. In particular, trust facilitates cooperative initiatives that promise real network benefits which subsequently reinforce trust, especially when network members are smaller firms and the network has many members.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1213173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59992148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-04-04DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1156546
H. Høyer, E. Mønness
ABSTRACT The article raises the question of whether there is a relationship between the trust that citizens have in people and the trust they have in various institutions such as public administration and media/press. The data were collected from two major surveys, and the universe is limited to citizens of two Norwegian counties. The analyses show that there is a spillover effect between the trust that citizens have in people and institutions (in general) and the degree of trust citizens have in the various particular institutions. Trust between persons, and between persons and institutions, appears to have a bandwidth-type structure. These aspects or factors can be grouped into personal trust, public institutional trust and media/press trust. These different factors are correlated with each other.
{"title":"Trust in public institutions – spillover and bandwidth","authors":"H. Høyer, E. Mønness","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1156546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1156546","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article raises the question of whether there is a relationship between the trust that citizens have in people and the trust they have in various institutions such as public administration and media/press. The data were collected from two major surveys, and the universe is limited to citizens of two Norwegian counties. The analyses show that there is a spillover effect between the trust that citizens have in people and institutions (in general) and the degree of trust citizens have in the various particular institutions. Trust between persons, and between persons and institutions, appears to have a bandwidth-type structure. These aspects or factors can be grouped into personal trust, public institutional trust and media/press trust. These different factors are correlated with each other.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1156546","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-03-31DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
L. PytlikZillig, Joseph A. Hamm, Ellie Shockley, M. Herian, T. Neal, Christopher D. Kimbrough, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein
ABSTRACT Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city's budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above .9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above .8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.
{"title":"The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses","authors":"L. PytlikZillig, Joseph A. Hamm, Ellie Shockley, M. Herian, T. Neal, Christopher D. Kimbrough, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city's budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above .9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above .8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479
F. Schoorman, R. Mayer, J. H. Davis, Peter Ping Li
ABSTRACT Several authors have suggested that trust is important to empowerment. This research develops the theoretical relationship between empowerment and trust. Trust, defined as a willingness to be vulnerable, was found to contribute to managers’ taking greater risks in their relationships with their employees through increased delegation of authority. Results show strong support that trust for an employee is a function of the employee’s perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity, as well as the manager’s propensity to trust.
{"title":"Empowerment in veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation†","authors":"F. Schoorman, R. Mayer, J. H. Davis, Peter Ping Li","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Several authors have suggested that trust is important to empowerment. This research develops the theoretical relationship between empowerment and trust. Trust, defined as a willingness to be vulnerable, was found to contribute to managers’ taking greater risks in their relationships with their employees through increased delegation of authority. Results show strong support that trust for an employee is a function of the employee’s perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity, as well as the manager’s propensity to trust.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2015.1108202
Joseph A. Hamm, Lesa Hoffman, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein
Contemporary natural resource management (NRM) emphasises the role of the public in general and land owners in particular as voluntary participants in the process. Understanding the role of trust in voluntary cooperation is therefore critical, but the current state of the relevant literature is such that it fails to systematically address a few important issues. This inquiry sought to address these issues by presenting and testing a model of land owners’ trust in and cooperation with a NRM institution. The model hypothesises that the six major drivers of trust in this context (dispositional trust, care, competence, confidence, procedural fairness and salient values similarity) are distinct but correlated constructs that drive cooperation and whose effects are moderated by the sophistication (relevant knowledge and experience) of the trustor. The results provide complicated partial support for the hypotheses and suggest that (1) although the six constructs are separable, their effects on cooperation are not as distinct as expected; (2) the most important consideration for cooperation may, in fact, be a broader evaluation – potentially a willingness to be vulnerable to the target and (3) if sophistication is an important moderator of the effect of trust, it is likely to require only a low level of general sophistication about the target institution to encourage trustors to rely most strongly on their perceptions of the institution itself.
{"title":"On the influence of trust in predicting rural land owner cooperation with natural resource management institutions","authors":"Joseph A. Hamm, Lesa Hoffman, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2015.1108202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2015.1108202","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary natural resource management (NRM) emphasises the role of the public in general and land owners in particular as voluntary participants in the process. Understanding the role of trust in voluntary cooperation is therefore critical, but the current state of the relevant literature is such that it fails to systematically address a few important issues. This inquiry sought to address these issues by presenting and testing a model of land owners’ trust in and cooperation with a NRM institution. The model hypothesises that the six major drivers of trust in this context (dispositional trust, care, competence, confidence, procedural fairness and salient values similarity) are distinct but correlated constructs that drive cooperation and whose effects are moderated by the sophistication (relevant knowledge and experience) of the trustor. The results provide complicated partial support for the hypotheses and suggest that (1) although the six constructs are separable, their effects on cooperation are not as distinct as expected; (2) the most important consideration for cooperation may, in fact, be a broader evaluation – potentially a willingness to be vulnerable to the target and (3) if sophistication is an important moderator of the effect of trust, it is likely to require only a low level of general sophistication about the target institution to encourage trustors to rely most strongly on their perceptions of the institution itself.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2015.1108202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1159966
P. Li
Welcome to the 6th year birthday of Journal of Trust Research! We have published five volumes already. In the past 5 years, we have published 33 regular articles, 12 specialforum articles, and 11 editorial essays, thus a total of 56 pieces. Among the 10 issues within the 5 volumes, we have 2 special issues. It is worth noting that most articles published in JTR either focus primarily on interpersonal trust or institutional trust, so the link between interpersonal trust and institutional trust has not been adequately explored. I am excited to report that the current issue has an article on the very topic. More importantly, I am honoured to report that the most impactful contributions from JTR so far seem to derive from three areas. First, JTR has published some of the most critical articles concerning the methodological issues of trust research. For example, JTR has published three key articles in this area: (1) ‘Measuring trust in organization research: Review and recommendations’ by Bill McEvily and Marco Torroiello (Volume 1, Issue 1, 2011); (2) ‘Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale’ by Lance Frazire, Paul Johnson, and Stav Fainshmidt (Volume 3, Issue 2, 2013); and (3) ‘Why the epistemologies of trust researchers matter’ by Neve Isaeva, Reinhard Bachmann, Alexandra Bristow, and Mark Saunders (Volume 5, Issue 2, 2015). We hope that JTR will continue this lead in publishing articles related to the methodological issues of trust research. Second, JTR has published three sets of debate articles. The first set is concerned with future directions for research on the link between interpersonal trust and institutional trust (the two special-forum debate articles were contributed by Reinhard Bachmann and Graham Dietz, published in Volume 1, Issue 2, 2011). The second set is concerned with the role of trust in government (the two special-forum debate articles were contributed by Russell Hardin and Guido Möllering, published in Volume 3, Issue 1, 2013). The third set is concerned with the institutionalisation of trust research (the special-forum debate articles were contributed by Don Ferrin and Vincenzo Perrone, published in Volume 3, Issue 2, 2013). Such debate articles tend to attract more attention than other articles as reflected in more downloads and more citations. To take full advantage of this special type of article, we will encourage and promote more debates over salient issues of trust research in the future. Third, JTR has published two special issues, both of which are interdisciplinary in nature, which is particularly appropriate given JTR’s role as an interdisciplinary trust journal. The first special issue (Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014) focuses on the role of trust in economics, especially the effect of trust on transaction costs (guest-edited by Guido Möllering). The second special issue (Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015) focuses on the role of trust in international relations (guest-edited by Hiski Haukkala, Johanna Vuorelma, and
欢迎来到信任研究杂志的六周年生日!我们已经出版了五卷。5年来，共发表常规文章33篇，专题论坛文章12篇，社论文章11篇，共计56篇。在5册的10期中，我们有2期特刊。值得注意的是，JTR上发表的大多数文章要么主要关注人际信任，要么主要关注制度信任，因此对人际信任与制度信任之间的联系没有进行充分的探讨。我很兴奋地告诉大家，本期杂志上有一篇关于这个话题的文章。更重要的是，我很荣幸地报告，JTR迄今为止最具影响力的贡献似乎来自三个领域。首先，JTR发表了一些关于信任研究方法问题的最重要的文章。例如，JTR在这一领域发表了三篇重要文章:(1)Bill McEvily和Marco Torroiello的“衡量组织研究中的信任:回顾和建议”(2011年第1卷第1期);(2) Lance Frazire, Paul Johnson和Stav Fainshmidt的“信任倾向量表的开发和验证”(第3卷，第2期，2013);(3) Neve Isaeva、Reinhard Bachmann、Alexandra Bristow和Mark Saunders合著的《为什么信任研究者的认识论很重要》(第5卷，2015年第2期)。我们希望JTR在发表与信任研究方法问题相关的文章方面继续保持这种领先地位。第二，JTR发表了三套辩论文章。第一组是关于人际信任和制度信任之间联系的未来研究方向(两篇特别论坛辩论文章由Reinhard Bachmann和Graham Dietz贡献，发表在2011年第1卷第2期)。第二组涉及信任在政府中的作用(两篇特别论坛辩论文章由罗素·哈丁和圭多Möllering贡献，发表于2013年第1期第3卷)。第三组与信任研究的制度化有关(特别论坛辩论文章由Don Ferrin和Vincenzo Perrone贡献，发表于2013年第3卷第2期)。这样的辩论文章往往比其他文章吸引更多的关注，这反映在更多的下载和更多的引用上。为了充分利用这一特殊类型的文章，我们将在未来鼓励和推动更多关于信任研究的突出问题的辩论。第三，JTR出版了两期特刊，都是跨学科性质的，这对于JTR作为跨学科信任期刊的角色来说尤为合适。第一期特刊(第4卷，第1期，2014年)侧重于信任在经济学中的作用，特别是信任对交易成本的影响(嘉宾编辑Guido Möllering)。第二期特刊(2015年第1期，第5卷)聚焦于信任在国际关系中的作用(客座编辑:希斯基·豪卡拉、约翰娜·沃雷尔玛和卡里娜·范德韦特林)。为了继续努力扩大跨学科的报道范围，我们正在计划更多的特刊，包括即将出版的关于
{"title":"The holistic and contextual natures of trust: past, present, and future research","authors":"P. Li","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1159966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1159966","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the 6th year birthday of Journal of Trust Research! We have published five volumes already. In the past 5 years, we have published 33 regular articles, 12 specialforum articles, and 11 editorial essays, thus a total of 56 pieces. Among the 10 issues within the 5 volumes, we have 2 special issues. It is worth noting that most articles published in JTR either focus primarily on interpersonal trust or institutional trust, so the link between interpersonal trust and institutional trust has not been adequately explored. I am excited to report that the current issue has an article on the very topic. More importantly, I am honoured to report that the most impactful contributions from JTR so far seem to derive from three areas. First, JTR has published some of the most critical articles concerning the methodological issues of trust research. For example, JTR has published three key articles in this area: (1) ‘Measuring trust in organization research: Review and recommendations’ by Bill McEvily and Marco Torroiello (Volume 1, Issue 1, 2011); (2) ‘Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale’ by Lance Frazire, Paul Johnson, and Stav Fainshmidt (Volume 3, Issue 2, 2013); and (3) ‘Why the epistemologies of trust researchers matter’ by Neve Isaeva, Reinhard Bachmann, Alexandra Bristow, and Mark Saunders (Volume 5, Issue 2, 2015). We hope that JTR will continue this lead in publishing articles related to the methodological issues of trust research. Second, JTR has published three sets of debate articles. The first set is concerned with future directions for research on the link between interpersonal trust and institutional trust (the two special-forum debate articles were contributed by Reinhard Bachmann and Graham Dietz, published in Volume 1, Issue 2, 2011). The second set is concerned with the role of trust in government (the two special-forum debate articles were contributed by Russell Hardin and Guido Möllering, published in Volume 3, Issue 1, 2013). The third set is concerned with the institutionalisation of trust research (the special-forum debate articles were contributed by Don Ferrin and Vincenzo Perrone, published in Volume 3, Issue 2, 2013). Such debate articles tend to attract more attention than other articles as reflected in more downloads and more citations. To take full advantage of this special type of article, we will encourage and promote more debates over salient issues of trust research in the future. Third, JTR has published two special issues, both of which are interdisciplinary in nature, which is particularly appropriate given JTR’s role as an interdisciplinary trust journal. The first special issue (Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014) focuses on the role of trust in economics, especially the effect of trust on transaction costs (guest-edited by Guido Möllering). The second special issue (Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015) focuses on the role of trust in international relations (guest-edited by Hiski Haukkala, Johanna Vuorelma, and","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1159966","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59991663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1161887
F. Schoorman, R. Mayer, James H. Davis
The introduction and discussion of this paper reflect the state of the field two decades ago when the paper was presented. Some of the issues raised in the paper have seen considerable research sin...
{"title":"Perspective: Empowerment in veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation","authors":"F. Schoorman, R. Mayer, James H. Davis","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1161887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1161887","url":null,"abstract":"The introduction and discussion of this paper reflect the state of the field two decades ago when the paper was presented. Some of the issues raised in the paper have seen considerable research sin...","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1161887","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59992025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：