Between Expectation and Behavioral Intent: A Model of Trust (2004)

ABSTRACT In recent years trust has drawn great deal of attention from both business practitioners and scholars. Few constructs have been defined so many different ways resulting much confusion. Numerous studies have looked at interpersonal trust, organizational trust, or trust exchange relationships, but the underlying meaning of trust seems remain elusive. This research attempts improve our understanding of the nature of trust through examination of various perspectives and by presenting integrated model of the construct. To account for the differences among these diverse perspectives, the model portrays trust as decision place one's others. As central construct, trust is preceded by expectations and followed by behavioral intent and ultimately by actions. Expectations, as antecedent of trust, are conceived be function of perceived risk, anticipations of the outcomes associated with specific situation, and perceived trustworthiness of the party involved. INTRODUCTION Trust is central issue many active areas of business research, including teamwork, leadership, organizational relations, buyer-seller relationships, strategic alliances, and organizational governance. Drawing research findings other social sciences such as economics, psychology, and sociology, researchers business generally agree that trust is critical organizational governance (Powell, 1996), intra- and inter-organization relationships, and effective, long lasting business relations (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh, Singh & Sabol, 2002). As fundamental social force (Lewis & Weigert, 1985), trust provides important mechanism for control (Nooteboom, Berger & Noorderhaven, 1997), enables cooperative behavior (Gambetta, 1988), promotes adaptive organizational forms network relations (Miles & Snow, 1992), decreases transaction costs (Meyerson, Weick & Kramer 1996), and facilitates and enhances strategic partnerships (Shapiro, Sheppard & Cheraskin, 1992). Despite great efforts made by scholars, our understanding of trust remains elusive and little consensus has been achieved among scholars with regard the nature of trust. Trust has been conceptualized various ways. Some scholars trust in terms of confident positive expectations regarding another's conduct (Lewicki & Bies, 1998, p. 439). To them, Trust is a particular level of the subjective probability with which agent assesses that agent or group of agents will perform particular action (Gambetta, 1988, p. 217). Or it is an expectancy held by individual or group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of individual or group can be relied on (Rotter, 1967, p. 651). Other scholars trust terms of behavioral intent; trust is viewed as a willingness rely exchange partner whom one has confidence (Moorman, Deshpande & Zaltman, 1993, p. 82). Consequently, trust is said exist to the extent which person is confident in, and willing act the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another (McAllister, 1995, p.25). In addition, some scholars view trust terms of one's perception or feeling of the party be trusted. For example, Tyler & Degoey (1996, p.335) define trust terms of feelings that authority made good-faith effort and treated the parties involved the conflict fairly. For those, perceived trustworthiness of the trustee is central trust. Some scholars try incorporate different perspectives as well as situational characteristics conceptualizing trust. A widely cited definition of trust states, An individual may be said have trust the occurrence of event if he expects its occurrence and his expectations lead behavior which he perceives have greater negative consequences if the expectation is not than positive motivational consequences if it is confirmed (Deutsch, 1958, p. …