Conceptualizations of Trust: Can We Trust Them?

lthough logistics and supply chain management research efforts have continued to become more sophisticated, opportunities still exist forfurther advancement. One critical area needing improvement is enhanced scale development and validation. This study provides insightsinto the strengths and weaknesses of one speciﬁc construct, trust, by examining how trust has been measured in our literature. A methodologyfor improving scale development, the Q-sort procedure, is used to demonstrate a need for better measurement scales. Our ﬁndings suggest thatnumerous measures of trust have been used for logistics and supply chain research—most of which have been borrowed from other disciplines—without signiﬁcant replication. More importantly, the results illustrate that all too often content validity is less than adequate. It appears asthough we are not always measuring what we want to. Greater focus is recommended for future research that examines theory-based scaledevelopment, puriﬁcation of measures, and replication of scales to further reﬁne and improve construct measurement for enhanced surveyresearch.Keywords: Q-sort; scale development; scale validity; trustINTRODUCTIONLogistics/supply chain management (SCM) research has evolvedsigniﬁcantly since the ﬁrst issue of the Journal of BusinessLogistics appeared in 1978. As an example of this evolution,Georgi et al. (2010) summarize how the intellectual foundationof the journal has changed since its inception, shifting frompredominantly operationally focused research to more strategic-oriented research. Perhaps much of this evolution is a result of,or was at least partially motivated by, calls from within theﬁeld for more rigorous theoretical and methodological focus.For example, Stock (1990, 1996, 2002) calls for the logisticsdiscipline to broaden its perspectives on logistics and its rolewithin the corporate landscape by not only delving into researchin nontraditional areas but also including other disciplinaryapproaches, such as psychology and organizational behavior, inour research. In 1994, Dunn et al. discuss the need for greaterscale development and validation in logistics research as theﬁeld was embarking on research that involved more latent vari-ables. Scale development and validation was critical to movelogistics research from purely descriptive to a more theoreticallydriven approach (Dunn et al. 1994). Furthermore, as research inlogistics began focusing on more behavioral approaches, scaledevelopment and validation were considered more critical foradvancing logistics theory (Keller et al. 2002).Despite such evolution, recent research has indicated that morework is needed. Sanders and Wagner (2011) propose that “multi-disciplinary and/or multimethod research can provide greaterinsight into today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and opportuni-ties” (p. 317). In addition, Goldsby and Autry (2011, 324) sug-gest “despite the acceleration of SCM research, many criticaltopics remain understudied,” and indicate that research is war-ranted to enhance the theoretical foundations in logistics andSCM research.In particular, behavioral-based research offers a critical areafor further study not only in terms of theoretical developmentbut also with respect to construct deﬁnitions, scale development,and validation. This is particularly important given the rise inbehavioral-based research in the ﬁeld. Recent research illustratedthat one of the key emerging themes in logistics research hasbeen a greater focus on interorganizational relationships (Georgiet al. 2010). Research examining the intellectual structure ofSCM found interorganizational research to be one of three mainstreams of research (Charvet et al. 2008).Our study focuses speciﬁcally on evaluating the use of trust asa key construct in interorganizational research within logistics/SCM literature. Results of a literature review indicate thatalthough trust has been examined in a large number of studies,the construct does not have an accepted deﬁnition, and inconsis-tencies in scale development exist. Trust is a broad term thatencompasses a great deal of complexity and, potentially, misun-derstanding. As such, the standard trust scales used in logistics/SCM research may not be broad enough to truly capture theessence of such a complex construct. For example, trust may beconceptualized based on what trust entails (e.g., what the trustorexamines with respect to the trustee), where trust resides (e.g., atthe individual or interorganizational level), and, even, how trustdevelops (e.g., longitudinal aspects of trust, including the lossand potential recovery of trust).Furthermore, as a ﬁeld, we have predominantly relied on otherdisciplines for scale development and validation with respect totrust (e.g., psychology, organizational behavior, marketing) whileoften ignoring the potential for content validity issues that mayresult from contextual modiﬁcations. Content validity “refers tothe adequacy with which a measure assesses the domain of inter-est” (Hinkin 1995, 968). As such, trust scales that were devel-oped to understand interpersonal trust in the context of a spousalrelationship may not be valid when applied to interpersonal trustbetween a buyer and a sales representative. Conﬁdence in con-tent validity of a measure does not automatically transfer as asingular property of that measure—rather, content validity shouldCorresponding author:Judith M. Whipple, Department of Supply Chain Management, TheEli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, 632Bogue Street, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; E-mail: whipple@bus.msu.eduJournal of Business Logistics, 2013, 34(2): 117–130© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals