谁在网络环境中赢得信任?技术信任与供应商信任对技术接受的元分析

IF 7.1 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Electronic Markets Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1
Leonie Kuen, Daniel Westmattelmann, Maike Bruckes, Gerhard Schewe
{"title":"谁在网络环境中赢得信任?技术信任与供应商信任对技术接受的元分析","authors":"Leonie Kuen, Daniel Westmattelmann, Maike Bruckes, Gerhard Schewe","doi":"10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Trust has been identified as inevitable for technology acceptance and might further gain importance as technologies become increasingly complex. However, previous research on trust in online environments lacks a systematic configuration of trust entities in research models; some studies include either trust in technology or trust in provider, others both. In combination with inconsistent results, this leads to a lack of in-depth knowledge about the trust entities’ relationship to each other, to their antecedents, and intention to use. Therefore, this study aims at clarifying these relationships and examining how they vary for different configurations. We performed pairwise meta-analyses to generate summary effects for the individual trust entities and examined four different trust configurations by applying meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Our findings advance technology acceptance and trust research and highlight the necessity to carefully configure trust. More specifically, the results from pairwise meta-analysis support a strong relationship between the trust entities that is, however, countered by the effects of antecedents in MASEM. Institution-based trust and reputation are found stronger predictors for trust in provider and familiarity a stronger determinant of trust in technology. Furthermore, the trust entities show comparable paths to intention to use when either trust entity is included in the research model, but when both are integrated, trust in technology is more important than trust in provider.</p>","PeriodicalId":47719,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Markets","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who earns trust in online environments? A meta-analysis of trust in technology and trust in provider for technology acceptance\",\"authors\":\"Leonie Kuen, Daniel Westmattelmann, Maike Bruckes, Gerhard Schewe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Trust has been identified as inevitable for technology acceptance and might further gain importance as technologies become increasingly complex. However, previous research on trust in online environments lacks a systematic configuration of trust entities in research models; some studies include either trust in technology or trust in provider, others both. In combination with inconsistent results, this leads to a lack of in-depth knowledge about the trust entities’ relationship to each other, to their antecedents, and intention to use. Therefore, this study aims at clarifying these relationships and examining how they vary for different configurations. We performed pairwise meta-analyses to generate summary effects for the individual trust entities and examined four different trust configurations by applying meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Our findings advance technology acceptance and trust research and highlight the necessity to carefully configure trust. More specifically, the results from pairwise meta-analysis support a strong relationship between the trust entities that is, however, countered by the effects of antecedents in MASEM. Institution-based trust and reputation are found stronger predictors for trust in provider and familiarity a stronger determinant of trust in technology. Furthermore, the trust entities show comparable paths to intention to use when either trust entity is included in the research model, but when both are integrated, trust in technology is more important than trust in provider.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Markets\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Markets\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Markets","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

信任已被确定为技术接受的必然条件,随着技术日益复杂,信任的重要性可能进一步增强。然而,以往对网络环境下信任的研究缺乏对信任主体在研究模型中的系统配置;一些研究要么包括对技术的信任,要么包括对供应商的信任,还有一些研究两者都包括。再加上不一致的结果,这导致对信任实体彼此之间的关系、它们的前因和使用意图缺乏深入的了解。因此,本研究旨在澄清这些关系,并研究它们在不同配置下的变化。我们对个体信任实体进行了两两荟萃分析,以产生汇总效应,并通过应用荟萃分析结构方程模型(MASEM)检查了四种不同的信任配置。我们的研究结果推动了技术接受和信任研究,并强调了仔细配置信任的必要性。更具体地说,两两荟萃分析的结果支持信任实体之间的强关系,然而,在MASEM中,这被前因的影响所抵消。基于机构的信任和声誉被发现是对提供者信任的更强预测因子,而熟悉度是对技术信任的更强决定因子。此外,当研究模型中包含任何一个信任实体时,信任实体显示出可比较的使用意图路径,但当两者集成时,对技术的信任比对提供者的信任更重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Who earns trust in online environments? A meta-analysis of trust in technology and trust in provider for technology acceptance

Trust has been identified as inevitable for technology acceptance and might further gain importance as technologies become increasingly complex. However, previous research on trust in online environments lacks a systematic configuration of trust entities in research models; some studies include either trust in technology or trust in provider, others both. In combination with inconsistent results, this leads to a lack of in-depth knowledge about the trust entities’ relationship to each other, to their antecedents, and intention to use. Therefore, this study aims at clarifying these relationships and examining how they vary for different configurations. We performed pairwise meta-analyses to generate summary effects for the individual trust entities and examined four different trust configurations by applying meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). Our findings advance technology acceptance and trust research and highlight the necessity to carefully configure trust. More specifically, the results from pairwise meta-analysis support a strong relationship between the trust entities that is, however, countered by the effects of antecedents in MASEM. Institution-based trust and reputation are found stronger predictors for trust in provider and familiarity a stronger determinant of trust in technology. Furthermore, the trust entities show comparable paths to intention to use when either trust entity is included in the research model, but when both are integrated, trust in technology is more important than trust in provider.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Markets
Electronic Markets Multiple-
CiteScore
14.80
自引率
15.30%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: Electronic Markets (EM) stands as a premier academic journal providing a dynamic platform for research into various forms of networked business. Recognizing the pivotal role of information and communication technology (ICT), EM delves into how ICT transforms the interactions between organizations and customers across diverse domains such as social networks, electronic commerce, supply chain management, and customer relationship management. Electronic markets, in essence, encompass the realms of networked business where multiple suppliers and customers engage in economic transactions within single or multiple tiers of economic value chains. This broad concept encompasses various forms, including allocation platforms with dynamic price discovery mechanisms, fostering atomistic relationships. Notable examples originate from financial markets (e.g., CBOT, XETRA) and energy markets (e.g., EEX, ICE). Join us in exploring the multifaceted landscape of electronic markets and their transformative impact on business interactions and dynamics.
期刊最新文献
Digital Business as a Field for Research and Education Certified data chats for future used car markets How online exposure to nature affects customer engagement: Evidence from Sina Weibo Critical success factors of users’ continuous intention of adopting cryptocurrency exchanges: LAS-VICT principle On the influence of conventional and automated market makers on market quality in cryptoeconomic systems
×
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