Trust Measure

Trust within Teams:
the
relative importance
of
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity

Douglas A. Beatton
BBus (Finance and Management)
School of Management
Queensland University of Technology

A Dissertation
in fulfilment of the requirements
for the
Degree of Master of Business (Research)

2007

iii
Abstract

Trust between team members is important: Research has shown that teams with
higher levels of trust have a propensity to be higher performers. This study built on
contemporary trust theory by examining initial interpersonal trust development
between a new team member and a newly formed work-team using experimental
rather than correlation-based survey methods. Undergraduate students from a
metropolitan Australian university participated in a vignette experiment examining
the effect of teams with varying levels of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity on trust
development. It was hypothesised that these antecedents of trust do not have similar
effect on our Intention to Trust as is currently depicted in Mayer, Davis and
Schoormans (1995) integrative model of organisational trust. Their model is
developed by hypothesising that the type and magnitude of the information we
receive about a trustee moderates the relationship between our Intention to Trust and
its antecedents. Initial examination of the traditional scales identified overlaps that
needed clarification. This was completed by informing existing scales and the
vignette manipulations with the context specific information that emerged from the
thematic analysis of structured interviews. Subsequent analyses of the questionnaire
data used ANOVA and Structural Equation Modelling techniques. In testing the
hypotheses, Ability was found to be most salient in the development of Intention to
Trust. This research contributes methodologically by developing a vignette-based
experimental method that improves the reliability of existing trust scales. The study
contributes theoretically by further explaining the salience of the trust antecedents
and practically by identifying that the judgment and decision-making of new work-
team members can be distorted by halo bias wherein they ignore the Benevolence
traits of team members of a group that exhibits high levels of Ability.

KEYWORDS: Ability; ANOVA; Benevolence; Integrity; Intention to Trust ;
Groups; Halo Bias; Teams; Trust; Vignette; Structural Equation Modelling.

iv

v
Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................... 1
1.2 WHY TRUST IS IMPORTANT ...................................................................................................... 3
1.3 THE RATIONALE FOR THE RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 4
1.4 THE RESEARCH GAP................................................................................................................. 6
1.5 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS...................................................................................................... 9
1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS...................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO.................................................................................................................................. 15
2.1 DEFINING TRUST .................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 THE DIFFERENT TYPES AND THEMES OF TRUST............................................................ 16
2.1.2 RISK.............................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.3 CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.4 TRUST IS DYNAMIC....................................................................................................... 20
2.1.5 ABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 24
2.1.6 INTEGRITY..................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.7 BENEVOLENCE.............................................................................................................. 28
2.2 CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER THREE............................................................................................................................... 31
3.1 REFINING THE STUDY MODEL ................................................................................................ 31
3.2 CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................................. 41
4.1 FURTHER DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES FOR THIS STUDY.................................................... 41
4.2 CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................................. 47
5.1 THE RESEARCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................... 47
5.2 ISSUES IN SCALE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 60
5.3 THE DATA COLLECTION PLAN................................................................................................ 64
5.4 ANALYTIC STRATEGY............................................................................................................. 65
5.5 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER SIX .................................................................................................................................... 67
6.1 METHODOLOGICAL EMPLOYMENT OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN - THE THREE STUDY STAGES . 67
CHAPTER SEVEN............................................................................................................................. 139
7.1 OVERALL SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS ........................................................................... 139
CHAPTER EIGHT.............................................................................................................................. 143
8.1 DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH............................................................ 143
REFERENCE LIST............................................................................................................................. 153

vi

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Research results from a recent study by Serva et al. (2005) .................................... 43
Table 2: Effect and sample size estimates calculations from similar trust-related studies .... 57
Table 3: Examples of the low Cronbach Alpha results for the trust scales from recent studies
............................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4: Theoretical basis for the thematic analysis of the structured interview transcripts . 70
Table 5: Summary of results for the thematic analysis of the structured interview transcripts
............................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 6: The five-point Likert-scaled Propensity to Trust items used in the Pilot Stage of the
study....................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 7: The five-point Likert-scaled Intention to Trust items used in the Pilot and Final
stages of this study................................................................................................................. 75
Table 8: Examples of the good Cronbach Alpha results for the Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity scales used in recent studies.................................................................................... 76
Table 9: The five-point Likert-scaled Ability items used in the Pilot and Final stage of this
study....................................................................................................................................... 76
Table 10: The five-point Likert-scaled Benevolence items used in the Pilot and Final stages
of this study............................................................................................................................ 77
Table 11: The five-point Likert-scaled Integrity items used in the Pilot and Final stages of
this study................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 12: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of the dimensions of Ability and
Benevolence........................................................................................................................... 82
Table 13: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of dimensions of Ability and Integrity 82
Table 14: Descriptive statistics and correlations from Study Stage 2, N = 187 .................... 87
Table 15: Comparison of ITT study results from this research and recent studies employing
similar measurement scales based on the Mayer et al. (1995) theoretical foundation........... 87
Table 16: Ability information provided in the Pilot Study Low Ability vignette.................. 88
Table 17: Ability information provided in the Pilot Study High Ability vignette ................. 88
Table 18: Grading scale for the university population........................................................... 89
Table 19: Updated Low Ability vignette content reflecting failing grades............................ 89
Table 20: Univariate statistics from the missing variable analysis of the Stage 3 data ......... 93
Table 21: Descriptive statistics and correlations from Study Stage 3, N = 224..................... 95
similar measurement scales based on the Mayer et al. (1995) theoretical foundation; N = 224
............................................................................................................................................... 96
Table 23: A comparison with recent trust studied reveals the improved scale reliability for
Intention to Trust.................................................................................................................... 99
Table 24: Measures and suggested thresholds applied to assess SEM model fit................. 102
Table 25: YVariable Squared Multiple Correlations - initial model; N = 224................... 105
Table 26: Squared Multiple Correlations for the YVariables in the initial model with the
RCMF; N = 224 ................................................................................................................... 107

viii
Table 27: YVariable Squared Multiple Correlations - the respecified ITT model; N = 224
.............................................................................................................................................. 110
Table 28: Model-based measures of scale reliability - the respecified ITT model, N = 224110
Table 29: Summary of model fit improvement between the initial ITT model and the
respecified ITT model; N = 224 ........................................................................................... 110
Table 30: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables; N = 224.............................. 111
Table 31: Table A3.1: Squared Multiple Correlations for the X Variables for the
respecified Ability Congeneric model; N = 224................................................................... 113
Table 32: Table A3.2: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Ability
Congeneric model; N = 224.................................................................................................. 113
Table 33: Summary of model fit improvement between the initial and respecified Ability
models; N = 224 ................................................................................................................... 113
Table 34: Squared Multiple Correlations for X Variables; N = 224 ................................. 114
Table 35: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables in the respecified Benevolence
model .................................................................................................................................... 116
Table 36: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Benevolence model
.............................................................................................................................................. 116
Table 37: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified
Benevolence models; N = 224.............................................................................................. 116
Table 38: Squared Multiple Correlations for the X Variables in the initial Integrity model
.............................................................................................................................................. 117
.............................................................................................................................................. 119
Table 40: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Integrity model.... 119
Table 41: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified Integrity
models; N = 224 ................................................................................................................... 119
Table 42: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables for the respecified three-factor
CFA model; N = 224............................................................................................................ 121
Table 43: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified three-factor CFA
model; N = 224..................................................................................................................... 121
Table 44: Summary of model fit difference between the respecified three-factor CFA model
and the
2
threshold for 24 degrees of freedom at p = 0.05.................................................. 121
Table 45: Variable loading combinations for the comparison of rival First Order CFA
Models.................................................................................................................................. 122
Table 46: Fit indices for the competing First Order CFA models of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity identifying the superiority of the three-factor oblique CFA model; N = 224....... 123
Table 47: Squared Multiple Correlations for the X and YVariables in the respecified path
analysis model; N = 224....................................................................................................... 125
Table 48: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified path
analysis; N = 224. ................................................................................................................. 125
Table 49: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the respecified path analysis model
and the re-specified path analysis model excluding item Int4; N = 224............................... 126
Table 50: Fit indices identifying the superiority of the hypothesised three-factor path analysis
model; N = 224..................................................................................................................... 127

ix
Table 51: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of the High and Low Information Levels
for Ability and Benevolence ................................................................................................ 129
Table 52: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of High and Low Information Levels for
Ability and Integrity............................................................................................................. 129
Table 53: Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable: Intention to Trust for Groups
with High and Low Information Levels of Ability (ability) and Integrity (integ) ............... 131
Table 54: Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable: Intention to Trust for Groups
with High and Low Information Levels of Ability (ability) and Benevolence (benev)....... 134

x

xi
Table of Figures

Figure 1: Stages of small group development; adapted from Robbins (2006, p. 489)........... 22
Figure 2: Antecedent of Trust Ability................................................................................. 25
Figure 3: Antecedents of Trust Ability and Integrity.......................................................... 27
Figure 4: A proposed model of the antecedents of trust Ability, Benevolence and Integrity
............................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 5: McKnight et al's. (1998) model of initial trust formation....................................... 31
Figure 6: Integrative model of organizational trust (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 715).................. 33
Figure 7: Example dimensions of Situational Strength; adapted from (Gill et al., 2005)...... 36
Figure 8: The proposed Information Levels of the trust antecedents..................................... 37
Figure 9: The proposed theoretical model for the study of how the antecedents of trust affect
our Intention to Trust in the context of newly forming work-teams...................................... 38
Figure 10: The Three study Stages ........................................................................................ 47
Figure 11: Initial 3x2 factorial design depicting Information Levels of Ability, Benevolence
and Integrity........................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 12: The Study Stages .................................................................................................. 65
Figure 13: Study Stage 1........................................................................................................ 67
Figure 16: Box plot of Intention to Trust for Stage 2 ............................................................ 98
Figure 17: Box plot of Intention to Trust for Stage 3 ............................................................ 98
Figure 18: A priori conceptualisation of the study model to be tested using LISREL 8.3 .. 101
Figure 19: Standardised Solution for the respecified Congeneric CFA Model of the
endogenous factor Intention to Trust; items Itt2, Itt3, Itt7 and Itt9 excluded ...................... 109
Figure 20: Standardised solution for the respecified congeneric CFA model of the trust
antecedent Ability; items Ab1, Ab5 and Ab6 excluded....................................................... 112
Figure 21: Standardised Solution for the Re-specified Congeneric CFA Model of the trust
Antecedent Benevolence; items Ben2 and Ben3 excluded.................................................. 115
Figure 22: Standardised Solution for the respecified Congeneric CFA model of the trust
Antecedent Integrity; Items Int4, Int5 and Int6 excluded .................................................... 118
Figure 23: Standardised Solution for the respecified first order CFA model of the trust
antecedents; Ability, Benevolence and Integrity; N = 224 .................................................. 120
Figure 24: Standardised solution for the respecified path analysis model of Intention to Trust
and its antecedents Ability, Benevolence and Integrity; N = 224........................................ 124

xii

xiii
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

AB Ability
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BEN Benevolence
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
DV Dependent Variable
HAHB High Ability combined with High Benevolence Information Level
HALB High Ability combined with Low Benevolence Information Level
HAHI High Ability combined with High Integrity Information Level
HALI High Ability combined with Low Integrity Information Level
INT Integrity
ITT Intention to Trust
IV Independent Variable
LAHB Low Ability combined with High Benevolence Information Level
LAHI Low Ability combined with High Integrity Information Level
LALB Low Ability combined with Low Benevolence Information Level
LAHI Low Ability combined with Low Integrity Information Level
LISREL Linear Structural Relations
ML Maximum Likelihood
PTT Propensity to Trust
QUT Queensland University of Technology
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

xiv

xv
Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a Degree or
Diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

Signed : ___________________________ Date: __________
Douglas A. Beatton

xvi

xvii
Acknowledgements

Many people contributed to the completion of this thesis. To all those involved I
offer my sincere gratitude and thanks. There are some people whose contribution was
exceptional; I would like to acknowledge their considerable assistance. First, thank
you to my wife, Debbie, and our two sons, for their understanding and patience. It
was your love and support that has been the greatest driving force. To my
supervisors, Dr. Kerrie Unsworth, Dr. Neal Knight-Turvey, thank you for your
guidance and advice, for believing in me, for helping me develop my research skills,
and especially to Kerrie for your continuous support, even as you readied for your
firstborn.

To Dr. Stephen Cox, thank you for your responsiveness and willingness to answer
my interminable questions regarding method and quantitative analysis. Stephen, your
proactive assistance helped me improve my analytical approach and enabled me to
realise additional benefits from my study effort. To Associate Professor Lisa Bradley
whose knowledge and experience in the development of vignettes was invaluable. To
Dr Chrys Gunasekara for his ongoing mentoring and support, thank you. To my
fellow research students for the helpful advice and debate that contributed to my
understanding. In particular, thank you to Francis Chan, Sukie Sawang, Tony Niven,
Mark Keogh, Laxman Samtani and the recently completed Dr Jack Keegan and Dr
Glen Murphy who were always available to share the load when things became
difficult.

My thanks go to the hundreds of anonymous Queensland University of Technology
(QUT) Business Faculty students who willingly, and without reward, offered
themselves as subjects for this study. Finally, the assistance of the School of
Management, the Faculty of Business, the Research Students Centre and the Library
staff at QUT is gratefully acknowledged.

xviii

1
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction and Overview
Trust touches nearly every facet of our lives. As a baby, we are initiated to trust
through a deep and abiding faith that emerges from the relationship with those who
care for us (Raths, 1972). In our daily lives, we extend interpersonal trust to a person
or group in expectation that they can be relied upon (Rotter, 1967). Trust is essential
for stable social relations (Blau, 1964, p. 99). In business, we trust in the benefits
that are expected to result from our cooperative day-to-day interpersonal relations
with fellow workers (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Trust promotes
mutual understanding and global collaboration (Child, 2001). From an organisational
perspective, trust between individuals and groups within our organizations is a very
important ingredient in the long-term stability of our organizations and the well-
being of their participants (Cook & Wall, 1980). Trust is a fundamental ingredient or
lubricant, an unavoidable dimension of social interaction (Mayer et al., 1995)
between employees and their managers.

Todays managers are expected to be forward thinking, they are expected to apply
their limited time to long-term strategic decision-making (Hill & Jones, 2004;
Mankins & Steele, 2006). At the same time, managers are goaled to satiate the
shareholder mentality that holds them responsible for short-term budgets, revenues,
profits and dividends (Misztal, 2002). In an environment of escalating global market
demands (Prahalad, 1997) business seeks nimbleness and agility (Champy, 1997) in
pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage, efficiency and flexibility. To maximise
flexibility and efficiently reduce costs in our dynamic global marketplace many
companies have downsized, reduced management layers and employed more part-
time or contracted staff (Daft, 2004; Makridakis, 1992); and this has the potential to
erode trust in the organisation, management and fellow employees (Mishra &
Spreitzer, 1998). The myth of a life-long career with an organization is shattered by
the stark realities of downsized and flattened corporations (Lawrence & Corwin,
2003, p. 937). In the period 1971 and 2001, the proportion of employed persons
working in full-time jobs in Australia declined from 89% to 69% (ABS, 2003). In
the August 2005 quarter, the 27,200 increase in part-time workers in Australia

2
exceeded the 14,500-fulltime workforce increase by 88 percent. In the growth labour
market of the past decade, where demand for skilled workers currently exceeds
supply, it would seem reasonable to expect that Australian employers would seek to
retain their workforce by offering them full-time employment. This has not been the
case, the trend towards part-time employment continues; part-time workers now
constitute 2,926,400 of Australias total workforce of 10,288,800 (ABS, 2006).

An impermanent workforce of part-time workers has reduced exposure to the culture
of our organisations (Misztal, 2002); organisations whose success is founded upon
the moral bonds of social trust (Fukuyama, 1995). In western countries like
Australia, reliance on a part-time workforce can undermine organisational trust and
the human resource development initiatives that seek to enhance employee
commitment and teamwork (Lawrence & Corwin, 2003). To complicate matters, the
complexity of todays work tasks (Keen, 1990) finds managers responsible for an
increasing number of teams containing knowledge workers (Handy, 1996) whose
skills and experience can exceed that of the manager (Drucker, 1999). Work
complexity has resulted in an increased dependence on work teams (Drucker, 1997).
A resultant high-trust managerial culture demands that organisations of the future
create the conditions for the prompt development of trust among its teams of
employees (Drucker, 1997 in Misztal, 2002). In an environment where managers are
held more accountable and the workforce more mobile, managers are forced to trust
in work-teams to deliver expected outcomes on time and within budget.

3
1.2 Why Trust is Important
If managers are to deliver to expectations, they would do well to recognise that
societies of high trust do better economically (Fukuyama, 1995). The development of
trust between the employees of an organisation has been shown to offer positive
outcomes for the organisation and its employees. From the organisational
perspective, trust enhances alliance success (Parkhe, 1998) and encourages
communication and collaboration between organisations (Child, 2001) and their
leadership (Atwater, 1988). Trust is considered pivotal to encouraging intra and
inter-organisational communications across virtual collaborative environments like
the Internet (Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004); (Paul & McDaniel, 2004).

Trust increases acceptance of an organisations culture and contributes to employee
satisfaction with their employer, their managers, and their direct supervisors
(Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, 1998; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Martin, 1999; Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Simon, 1995). Trust reduces the intention for
employees to leave their current employer (Wong, Ngo, & Wong, 2002) thereby
reducing an organisations cost of employment and training. Trusting employees are
more innovative (Tan & Tan, 2000) thereby contributing to a firms competitive
advantage (Santoro & Saparito, 2003). Trusting employees are less likely to waste
valuable time monitoring others to protect their own positions (Costa, Roe, &
Taillieu, 2001). Trusting employees are more likely to exhibit increased commitment
(Whitener, 2001; Watson & Papamarcos, 2002) to value-adding activities and the
achievement of their organisations goals (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Trusting
employees are more productive (Earley, 1986). Trust acts as a control, tempering the
potential downside of empowerment and reducing the risk that employees will not
perform work to expectations (Mills & Ungson, 2003). More importantly, the
development of trust between employees and an organisations customers enhances
customer loyalty and optimises the retention of valued clients (Casielles, Alvarez, &
Martin, 2005). The development of trust between management, employees and
customers offers positive outcomes and considerable benefits to an organisation.

4
From the perspective of the employee, increased levels of trust positively affect an
organisations commitment to the employee (Wong, Ngo et al., 2002). This
reciprocal social exchange which engenders feelings of personal obligation,
gratitude, and trust (Blau, 1964, p. 94) between the organisation and its employees
can enhance cost-reducing organisation citizenship behaviours such as helping fellow
workers or even lead to socially responsible behaviours such as volunteering to assist
in the wider community (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Mayer & Gavin, 2005;
Watson & Papamarcos, 2002). An increase in interpersonal trust between employees,
their fellow team members, and their managers can help rebuild trusting
interpersonal relationships (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004; Tan & Tan, 2000),
reduce workplace stress (Costa et al., 2001) and assist in reducing conflict in the
workplace (Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004). This can lead to increased
communication (Giffin, 1967), collaboration (Coletti, Sedatole, & Towry, 2005),
greater information sharing (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003) and transfer of
knowledge both within and between organisations (Levin, Cross, & Abrams, 2002).
Increased levels of trust can enhance job satisfaction and increase job performance
by individuals, work teams and organisations (Dirks, 1999); (Spreitzer, Noble,
Mishra, & Cooke, 1999). This research recognises the positive benefits of trust and
seeks to enhance those benefits by deepening our understanding of the development
of trust between the employees, work teams, and the management of an organisation.
Understanding how to better develop trust has the potential to help management
optimise the ensuing positive outcomes that can benefit the organisation, its
employees and the customers they serve.

1.3 The Rationale for the Research
The introduction identified that a plethora of recent research effort has been applied
to widening our understanding of trust. However, there are disparate views of trust.
Elangovan and Shapiro (1998) as well as Jones and George (1998) view trust as an
independent variable affecting outcomes. On the other hand, McKnight, Cummings,
& Chervany (1998) theorise trust as an outcome; they view trust as a variable
dependent upon our initial disposition to trust, the institutions involved in the
decision to trust and how we cognitively assess outcome certainty based on our
trusting beliefs in the competence, benevolence and honesty of those involved. In

5
some cultures like Japan, trust is distinguished as a dependent variable, an outcome
arising from individuals linked to one another through bonds and relationships. For
example, Ouchi (1981, p. 54 & p. 87) is of the opinion that Japanese cultural identity
is based upon clans of workers, teams, dedicated to their organisation on the basis of
trust. Das and Teng (2001b; 2004) perceive different types of trust that moderate or
mediate our behaviour. Similarly, Robinson & Rousseau (1994) assert that trust has a
moderating role in shaping causal relationships and interpersonal behaviour in
organizations and social settings. In seeking to develop theory, trust has been viewed
differently by many researchers.

Much theory development has focussed on the outcomes of trust (Bhattacharya &
Devinney, 1998). Considerable effort has been exerted to understand trust outcomes
in direct and virtual relationships between employees, management, organisations
and their customers (Abrams et al., 2003; Auh, 2005; Connell, Ferres, &
Travaglione, 2003; Coppola et al., 2004; Costigan et al., 1998; Das & Teng, 2001a;
Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Wong, Wong, & Ngo, 2002). In spite of these
laudable scholarly efforts, there has been a call for additional theory contribution;
research on the antecedents of trust has lagged behind theory (Ferrin & Dirks, 2003).
A recent study by Ferres, Connell, & Travaglione (2004, p. 617) reinforces the
importance of understanding trust development in the workplace because co-worker
trust may contribute to factors aiding individual and organisational performance.
They suggested future studies could focus on causal inferences by deepening our
understanding of the antecedents that lead to the development of trust in the
workplace.

6
1.4 The Research Gap
There appears to be a gap in our understanding of the antecedents that affect co-
worker trust development. Trust is an important factor in an employees preference to
work in a team, the development of the team, team behaviour, and the effective
functioning of work teams (Coppola et al., 2004; Costa, 2003; Kiffin-Petersen &
Cordery, 2003; Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005; Williams, 2001). Trust is important
because we have previously identified that teams complete much work in our
organisations, and, trust positively affects team effectiveness and their contribution
to the business. In the September 2005 Journal of Organisational Behaviour the
research of Serva et al. (2005) focussed on trust and teams and concluded by calling
for deeper contextual consideration in trust theory development within work teams.
Thus, there appears to be two areas where research could potentially contribute to
our understanding of trust; 1) we could benefit from enhancing our understanding
how the antecedents affect trust development, in; 2) the context of the work-teams
that now populate our workplaces.

In seeking to refine a research gap, it may assist if we review recent contributions
from trust researchers. Much research has clarified our understanding of how we
extend trust to the organization, manager, individual or work group (Costa, 2003;
Costa et al., 2001; Earley, 1986; Gill, Boies, Finegan, & McNally, 2005; Mayer &
Davis, 1999; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 1996b; Serva, Benmati, & Fuller, 2005;
Tan & Tan, 2000; Whitener et al., 1998). However, much of this research involved
field studies that, while more generalisable to the context under study, can suffer
from confounds that could reduce the internal validity of study results (Christensen,
2004). For example, the 1999 study by Mayer & Davis involved a field quasi-
experiment that sought to understand the effect of a newly introduced performance
appraisal system on employees trust in management. While the study deepened our
understanding of factors that can affect trust, the study was performed in the
everyday work environment where numerous confounding factors such as social
interaction between employees, workload, or even experiences from outside the work
environment could have contaminated study results. More recent field research by
Serva et al. (2005) enhanced our understanding of trust development by studying
trust development over the life of work-teams. The Serva et al. (2005) study gauged

7
the trust between work teams over a six-week software development project.
However, like the Mayer study, it too could have suffered from the contamination
that arises from uncontrollable factors. Thus, there appears to be an opportunity to
deepen our understanding of trust development in a research setting that seeks to
minimise confounding factors (Christensen, 1994); there appears to be opportunity
for experimentation in the area of trust.

The experiment of Gill et al. (2005) pursued such a goal and helped us understand
how different levels and types of antecedent information affect how we extend trust
to others. However, like previous studies (Costa, 2003; Costa et al., 2001; Mayer &
Davis, 1999; Schoorman et al., 1996b; Tan & Tan, 2000; Serva et al., 2005), the
work of Gill et al. (2005) concurrently examined the antecedents of trust. Perhaps
this is why Gill et al. (2005) concluded by calling for additional research that furthers
our understanding of the specific factors that are most salient in the development of
interpersonal trust. In seeking to exclude confounding factors, there appears to be an
opportunity to perform an experiment that seeks to enhance our understanding of the
salience of the antecedents in the development of trust.

While we have identified that there is an opportunity to perform an experiment that
seeks to enhance our understanding of the salience of the antecedents in the
development of trust, the earlier discussion reminds us of the paucity of trust
research in the context of work-teams. The aforementioned longitudinal study by
Serva et al., (2005) sought to enhance our understanding of trust development by
collecting and examining three waves of data. However, the data were collected after
the teams had formed and their team goals had been defined by management.
Contemporary views of the lifecycle of a team (Robbins, 2006) build on the work of
Tuckman & Jensen (1977) and remind us of a pre-stage in team development. The
pre-stage is when we know little about future team members. At this stage, we need
to apply our past teamwork experience and what little information we have about
team members to cognitively assess whether we could trust the newly forming work-
team. This researcher is not aware of studies that concatenate the three identified
trust research gaps: 1) which combination of antecedents are most salient in trust
development; 2) in the pre-stage context; 3) of a newly forming work-team?

8
In the context of newly forming work teams, there is a paucity of research examining
the extent to which the antecedent factors contribute to the initial development of
trust between the team members. Increasing our understanding of which antecedent
or combination of antecedents optimally impacts upon interpersonal trust has the
potential to help management develop new work-teams. In seeking to contribute to
this gap in the literature, this study will examine which antecedent or combination of
antecedents most affects trust development between members of a newly forming
work-team.

In summary, deepening our knowledge of how to better develop trust between
members of newly forming work-teams has positive implications for business. This
is particularly important because much of our work today is performed in teams.
Research effort that contributes to trust theory development in the area of newly
forming work-teams has the potential to accelerate the benefits that emerge from
more trusting work environments. In the hands of practitioners, the knowledge of
how to develop trust between members of newly forming work-teams has the
potential to form the basis of organisational development programs that positively
contribute to individual, team, management and organisational performance.

9
1.5 The Research Questions
There is a need to understand how to initiate trust in newly forming work-teams by
seeking an explanation to the questions:

R1: How do we develop interpersonal trust in the context of newly forming
work-teams?
And, more specifically
R2: Which trust antecedents are more important when initiating trust between
the team members?

10
1.6 Overview of the Thesis
Chapter 1 has identified the growing importance of trust in todays complex
workplace with a propensity to organise workers into teams. A concurrent move
towards an impermanent workforce of contract, part-time and temporary staff raises
the spectre of declining levels of trust between organisations, management and
employees with ramifications for loss of productivity and declines in the level of
customer service. In the shadow of this potential threat, managers are expected to
deliver expected outcomes on time and within budget.

In the environment of managers delivering to expectations, the significance of high
levels of trust within our workforce has been identified. In our contemporary
environment of part-time employees working in teams, the advantages of high levels
of trust between the stakeholders of a business was applied to support an informed
opinion emerging from the literature that further research contribution is warranted in
the area of trust development within work-teams. Initial information gathering
revealed disparate research perspectives of trust as an independent, dependent, or
moderating variable. Clarity emerged by identifying the paucity of research
addressing the causes, the antecedents of trust. It is argued that a research gap exists
in our current theoretical understanding of trust development in the context of newly
forming work-teams. Two antecedent focussed research questions emerged:

R1: How do we develop interpersonal trust in the context of newly forming
work teams?
and
R2: Which trust antecedents are more important when initiating trust
development between team members?

11
In Chapter Two, the literature review reveals the many facets of trust that sparkle
from the disparate views of the scientific disciplines. In the work-team context of this
study, a non-exhaustive list of trust types is defined and exampled. Instead of
accepting the perspective of a particular scientific discipline, the differing
perspectives are distilled to produce six core themes that are considered the essence
of trust; they are risk, context, dynamics, expectation, principles, and, competence. A
synthesis of these trust themes reveals three antecedent factors of Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity that arguably contribute to our Intention to Trust members
of a newly forming work-team. These antecedents and the hypotheses that emerge
are the focus of this study.

Chapter Three develops the study model of initial trust formation between members
of a newly forming work-team by comparing and contrasting two competing models.
While the kernel of the McKnight et al. (1998) model is similar to the Mayer et al.
(1995) integrative model of organisational trust, the McKnight et al. (2002) model
fails to adequately consider the dynamics involved in trust formation. For this reason
the Mayer et al. (1995) model is selected as the foundation for this study. However,
the Mayer et al. (1995) model also has deficiencies; it does not consider the effect of
the good or bad information that feeds back to us after we extend trust. In
consideration of the varying levels of the good or bad feedback that we receive when
we extend trust to a trustee, an Information Level for the trust antecedents is added to
the study model.

Chapter Four applies the study model to the context of a member joining a newly
forming work-team. It is proposed, that at the pre-stage of trust development, the
feedback that informs us that the trustee did what we expected does not come into
play because we have not yet shared a trusting episode. It is identified that before we
make an informed decision to join a team, we need information about the Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity of the other team members. In seeking to understand these
factors, previous studies provided differing results; there is scholarly disagreement
over which antecedent of trust is most important in trust development between
members of a newly forming work-team. In the context of a member choosing to join
a newly forming work-team, hypotheses predict the salience of the trust antecedents.

12
Chapter Five justifies and explains the research design for this three stage
experimental study. The initial Vignette Development Stage will use structured
interviews to determine the content of the vignette manipulation applied in
subsequent stages. The Pilot Stage pre-tests the vignettes and questionnaires to
facilitate their refinement for the Final Data Collection Stage. The research design
choices for the study setting, the type of measures, the unit of analysis, the time
horizon, and, the research paradigm are defined and justified. In the study context of
newly forming work-teams, it is argued that a population of Business Faculty
Undergraduate Students from a metropolitan Australian university are appropriate for
this research. The sampling design is justified in terms of the randomised application
of eight different vignette manipulations and sample size recommendations are
supported by calculations that consider the effect size requirements of the
correlation, ANOVA, and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques to be
employed in the subsequent data analysis. Finally, the reasons for questionnaire item
customisation is justified in terms of random measurement error reduction and the
resultant vignette and questionnaire development strategy is offered as a contribution
to enhance the reliability of contemporary trust scales. To finalise the methodological
plan, the data collection process is explained.

Chapter Six details the methodological application of the research design in the three
study stages. In Stage 1, structured interviews are thematically analysed to
theoretically derive the questionnaire and vignette content. In seeking to improve
internal validity of the scales, the phrases of the interviewees are applied to reword
the questionnaire items to reflect the context of the study. In Stage 2, issues emerge
from the piloting of the vignettes; expectations concerning subject interpretation of
work-team information reveal an interesting perspective on how university students
adjudge the ability of fellow team members. The resultant refined vignettes are
applied to collect the Stage 3 data that is prepared for correlation, ANOVA and SEM
analysis. Congeneric Confirmatory Factor Analysis refines the measurement
variables and subsequent First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis identifies the
antecedents of trust. A test of competing path analysis models converges on a multi-
factor model that identifies the antecedents of trust and ANOVA analysis is used to
identify the salience of the trust antecedents in the context of newly forming work-
teams.

13

Chapter Seven progressively applies empirical results to summarise study findings.
The relative importance of the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence, and
Integrity on the development of our Intention to Trust is revealed. Hypotheses
conclusions are supported with descriptive statistics and inferences from ANOVA
and the results of the fitted Structural Equation Models.

Chapter Eight discusses the finding in the context of the study setting. Explanations
are offered for why particular trust antecedents are more salient in trust development.
Practical implications for the findings are discussed and possible trust-building
actions are suggested. Finally, a non-exhaustive list of study limitations is offered
and opportunities for future trust-related research are revealed.

14

15
Chapter Two
2.1 Defining Trust
A review of literature identified that trust may be difficult to define; scientific
disciplines view trust differently (Korsgaard et al., 2002; Rotter, 1967 ; Rotter,
Chance, & Phares, 1972). McKnight et al. (1998) assert that the word "trust" is so
confusing (Shapiro, 1987a) and broad (Williamson, 1993) that it defies careful
definition (Gambetta, 2003). Viewed through the lenses of the scientific disciplines,
the disparate definitions of the phenomena referred to as trust can be confusing.
Anthropologists embark on an intellectual journey that views trust from the
perspective of a societys cultural values and practices (Blum, 2005). Sociologists
have contributed to our scholarly understanding by considering trust from the
perspective of socially embedded processes between people and authority (Bijlsma-
Frankema & Costa, 2005). They consider the socially embedded properties of our
relationships and the involvement and exchange of power in our social relations with
others and the notion of social balance wherein we innately reciprocate to the good
intentions of others (Blau, 1964).

To an economist trust is important and businessmen rely on it much more
extensively than is commonly realized (Williamson, 1975, p. 108). Economists
consider that trust flows from structured contracts, rewards or punishments that cause
individuals to behave in a certain manner. Economists are concerned with the cost
and benefits of specific behaviours (Bhattacharya & Devinney, 1998). The
econometric view takes a calculative (Williamson, 1975) and institutional (North,
1990) perspective wherein trust production involves a process of exchange (Zaheer,
McEvily, & Perrone, 1998) that is predicated upon expectations and outcomes that
are based upon the characteristics of the individuals and the nature of the institutions,
the firms, and the organisational structures involved in the transaction (Zucker, 1986,
p. 60). On the other hand, political scientists view trust through the lens of a political
process predicated upon civic morality and honesty (Letki, 2006; Craig, Martinez,
Gainous, & Kane, 2006). However, like a psychologist, this research views trust in
terms of the dyadic relationship between a trustor and the trustee (Rousseau et al.,
1998) by focusing on the thinking processes an individual, the trustor, goes through
to cognitively determine their Intention to Trust the trustee, another person, group or

16
organisation. With the scientific disciplines viewing trust from disparate
perspectives, it is easy to understand why there are so many different types of trust.

2.1.1 The Different Types and Themes of Trust
Perhaps the reason for the disparate perspectives of the scientific disciplines is the
multitude of facets to the phenomena called trust. Trust appears burdened with a
plethora of descriptive adjectives. Lewicki & Bunker (1996) suggest that trust may
be categorised based on the perspective from which it is viewed. For example, from
the organisational perspective, professional-trust exists among similar professionals
(Misztal, 2002) whose common interests lubricate intra- and inter-organizational
collaborations (Oliver, 1997) which Rus (2005) views as network-trust. Similarly,
institutional-trust results from institutional arrangements characterised in a
sociological perspective (Zucker, 1986); it is the security one feels in a supported
situation where we have guarantees, safety nets, or other structures to support our
endeavours (McKnight et al., 1998, p. 475). For example, we trust in our main
foundation institution, our government, to look after our best interests (John Child,
2001, p. 276); organisational-trust is a type of institutional trust (Wong, Ngo, &
Wong, 2003, p. 487).

From the perspective of trust-based transactions, some use economic-trust to explain
human choice (Miller, 1992); while others use financial-trust to explain our
confidence to deposit money in a banking institution in expectation of it being
returned with interest. From an interpersonal perspective, knowledge-based-trust
(Abrams et al., 2003) assumes the parties have first-hand knowledge of one another
based on a history of information-sharing (McKnight et al., 1998). Similarly,
competence-based-trust is important for the transfer of tacit knowledge (Levin et al.,
2002). Mollerings (2005) theoretical analysis of trust identifies three types of trust:
1) rational-trust involving choice based on perceived trustworthiness in a specific
context; 2) institutional-trust based on the trustors natural propensity to trust in
certain situations, and; 3) active-trust that involves the development of trust in fast
changing situations. When confronted with a new situation such as making a decision
whether to join a newly forming work-team, McKnight et al. (1998, p. 485) are of the
opinion that we engage in cognition-based trust that relies on rapid, cognitive cues

17
or first impressions, as opposed to personal interactions. This non-exhaustive list of
trust categories has the potential to cloud our understanding of trust. However, if we
probe for themes the mist of confusion begins to clear.

Probing these trust categories, the emerging themes provide direction along the path
to trust definition. Professional, knowledge, or competence-based trust invokes the
notion of capability and competence of the trustee. Organisational and institutional-
based trust could be viewed as emerging from familiar entities in whose standards
and principles of operation and behaviour we trust. Network, cognition and rational-
based trust invokes a vision of the interrelationships between trustors and trustees
wherein the trustee cognitively applies their thinking processes to rationally set
expectations of the benefits that should emerge from decisions to extend trust to a
trustee. Financial and economic-based trust positions the trust decision within a
context or situation wherein the benefits of the transaction are evaluated by the
trustor. Active-trust reminds us that states of trust change, trust is dynamic. As
trustors, we cognitively assess the feedback or new information that emerges from
the previous trusting episodes to decide whether to extend trust to that person or
organisation in the future.

In summary, five core trust themes have been identified: 1) the capabilities or
competence of the trustee; 2) the principles and standards under which they behave;
3) the trustors expectation of the benefits that arise from a decision to trust; 4) the
notion that trust occurs in situation or context, and; 5) the dynamic nature of trust.
Before we look at each of these themes in more detail, perhaps we should ask
ourselves, why do we need to trust in the first place? Close examination identifies
that trust occurs in situations where we have a probability that an outcome will differ
from what we expect. In a word, 'uncertainty regarding whether the other intends to
and will act appropriately is the source of risk' (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). Trust
is not needed if our actions proceed with complete certainty and no risk is involved
(Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Therefore, risk is the sixth trust theme.

18
2.1.2 Risk
Das & Teng (2004, p 110) take a risk-based view of trust; defining trust as a mirror
image of risk. On the other hand, Coleman (1990) and Williamson (1993) identify
trust as subclass of risk because both deal with uncertainty and probability. One thing
we should be able to agree upon; trust is predicated upon uncertainty (Bhattacharya
& Devinney, 1998). If there were no risk involved in our day-to-day interactions with
others, the notion of trust would not emerge (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975).
Everything would be certain, as we expect. Clearly, we do not live in a world of
certainty. The rate of change is faster now than any other previous time in human
history (Marshall, 2000). In times of change trust is important because it bridges
barriers, helps us form friendships, partnerships and alliances in most situations
(Buchan, Croson, & Dawes, 2002).

For risk to be involved in a situation there needs to be a probability of loss or gain
(Mayer et al., 1995). For example, as managers we provide scarce resources like
computer equipment and money to our staff in expectation that their efforts will lead
to positive outcomes such as the sale of our products and services. In doing so, there
is a probability that our investment may not return what we expect. If our resources
have been expended and the result is no sales, we have effectively lost our resources.
On the other hand, we have made a gain if resource expenditure results in sales with
above average profits. As managers, we evaluate the risk involved in a situation to
determine the probability of success or failure. As a trustor, the trustee is considered
trustworthy when we feel secure in the knowledge that the actions of the individual,
group or organisation will not harm or put us at risk (Jones & George, 1998).
Trusting relationships involve a confidence that no party to the exchange will exploit
the other's vulnerability (Jones & George, 1998). A willingness to take risks may be
one of the few attributes of all situations involving uncertainty (Davis, Schoorman,
Mayer, & Tan, 2000). Trust is a risk taking behaviour or a willingness to be
vulnerable (Costa, 2003). We extend trust in situations of uncertainty (Mayer &
Gavin, 2005) in expectation of positive outcomes (Das & Teng, 2004). In summary,
risk is a theme that affects how we trust; the other trust themes are dynamics,
expectation, principles, competence and context.

19
2.1.3 Context
The literature review identified that trust development in the context of a work-team
has the potential to enhance team, management and organisational performance.
Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 398) assert the importance of considering context in trust-
related research; research on trust requires attention to the context in which trust is
studied; in particular, the researcher needs to be careful about, pulling together
disparate research on trust; such action requires attention to the context in which
trust is studied (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 398). Jones & George (1998) identify that
trustors and trustees experience positive moods and emotions reflective of the
context in which the trust relationship is developed. Bigley & Pearce (1998) assert
that different trust components can be more important in some contexts. For
example, a different locus of explanation for trust emerges when dispositional,
behavioural-decision, or institutional contexts are involved. In the case of a team,
distal contextual elements like team structures are not only relevant in the
institutional context, they affect how people behave, how they make decisions, and
how they trust those around them (Bigley & Pearce, 1998). Therefore, because this
study considers a trustors disposition to trust members of a newly forming work-
team, the theoretical model for this study will focus on the context of teamwork.

In spite of almost universal theoretical acclamation that context has the potential to
affect trust research results, Serva et al. (2005) are of the opinion that our
understanding of trust is hampered by lack of contextual clarity in the literature. The
discussion emerging from the research of Currall & Inkpen (2002) recommends that
context and the level of theorizing, individual, group, or organisation, needs to be
carefully considered for proper trust measurement. The findings of Kiffin-Petersen &
Cordery (2003) add weight to this thinking by suggesting that future trust studies
should distinguish between generalised trust in entities like our institutions and
societal structures and trust in strangers or peers depending on the specific context in
which the relationship is embedded. This research responds to the concerns of these
researchers by focussing the definition of the study model, the subsequent research
design, and the measurement instrument enhancement on the specific context of the
development of trust between members of a newly forming work-team.

20
This research seeks to enhance our knowledge and understanding of how to develop
trust in the specific context of newly forming work-teams. One problem with doing
research on teams is that the label team can be associated with a variety of social
and organizational forms; a delimitation of this domain is necessary in order to
understand what work teams mean and how to select them (Costa et al., 2001, p.
226). Looking at groups and teams, both have social bonds that integrate and unite
their members. However, the bonds of a team rest on social forces of identity and
attraction that go beyond the minimum requirement externally imposed by groups
who voluntarily form based on a loosely-shared common interest (McShane &
Travaglione, 2003, pp. 274-277). The integrative bonds of a team identify the
members as part of a distinct social group (Blau, 1964). A team is a tight
conglomeration of individuals who have cohesively melded into a single entity
(Chansler, Swamidass, & Cammann, 2003). From the perspective of trusting team
members, we have a proclivity to associate and are socially attracted to those who
share interests, ideas and goals similar to our own (Blau, 1964, p. 34). For the
purposes of this research, the distinct social entity called a work-team is defined as a
formal group of persons who come together for the purposes of work. The
hypothetical work-team in this study shares a social bond based on common values,
beliefs, and, common goals for which all team members are collectively and
equitably recognised and rewarded. The dynamic nature of trust is now discussed.

2.1.4 Trust is Dynamic
One of the most salient factors in the effectiveness of a complex social organizational
form like a work-team is the willingness of one or more individuals in the social unit
to trust others. The efficiency, adjustment, and, even, survival of any social group
depends upon the presence or absence of such trust (Rotter, 1967, p. 651).
Researchers from diverse fields agree that trust develops through repeated social
interactions that generate the feedback that enables us to update the information we
use to assess the trustworthiness of the person, the team, the organisation (Gabarro &
Athos, 1976; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995;
Sheppard & Sherman, 1998; Williams, 2001; Zand, 1972). These repeated trusting
social interactions cycle through phases of conditional trust to unconditional trust
towards blind trust (Jones & George, 1998). While Rotter (1980) states that we are

21
predisposed to trust. Jones & George (1998) assert that, initially, we do not expect
the other person to be trustworthy; in cognitively assessing the probability that the
trustee will act in our best interests, we conditionally extend trust to them in a
particular situation. As the trustee continues to behave as we expect our confidence
(Deutsch, 1960) builds, we are positively affected and move towards a state of
unconditional trust (Jones & George, 1998) wherein we relax trusting conditions and
become more trusting. When we consider the trustee will always behave as we
expect we enter a state of blind trust wherein we may even defend trustee
transgressions (Jones & George, 1998). An example would be a spouse defending the
errant actions of their long-term partner. Alternatively, if we exhibit negative affect
by continually breaking trust, then the trustor may distrust us by not choosing to
interact with or trust us in the future. The positive affect in the cycle of our
interpersonal social interactions influences our cooperative, pro-social behaviours
and dynamically facilitates trust development (Williams, 2001).

Similarly, trust development is influenced by the trustworthiness beliefs and
behaviour of fellow team members (Williams, 2001). In the context of a team,
(Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975, p. 177) identifies trust as a fundamental
building block upon which the most basic human interaction is built'. Trust between
team members does not just emerge from the ether; trust is a dynamic phenomena, it
builds, declines, and re-emerges over time. For example, beliefs about
trustworthiness may be influenced by how we feel about our social group (Williams,
2001, p. 378), our work-team. In addition, how we feel about our work-team is
subject to the feedback we receive from the previous trusting behaviours of our team
members. Sitkin & Roth (1993) state that trust has a bandwidth with variance in
scope as well as degree. If a trustor extends trust to a trustee and the trustees
behaviour is congruent with what the trustor expects, then the trustor will be
positively affected and more likely to reciprocate by extending trust to that person or
entity on another occasion (Blau, 1964). On the other hand, if the behaviour of the
trustee is not what the trustor expects then the probability that the trustor will trust
the trustee in the future will be much reduced. Like the Pavlovian response of a dog
negatively responding to punishment with a rolled up newspaper, the
communications and other feedback we receive from previous trusting episodes
affects our Intention to Trust team members in the future (Galford & Drapeau, 2003;

22
McClelland, 1987; Owen, 1996; Popa, 2005). Therefore, because our trusting state
dynamically changes over time, scholars should view trust as a continuum and focus
on specific stages when developing trust definitions and conceptual frameworks
(Rousseau et al., 1998). In response, this research focuses on the pre-stage (Tuckman
& Jensen, 1977) development of trust between members of a newly forming work-
team.

To clarify, in the life of a team Tuckman & Jensen's (1977) original five stages of
small group development have been extended to incorporate a pre-stage (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Stages of small group development; adapted from Robbins (2006, p. 489)

While a team may transit back and forth through these stages during its lifetime, the
context for this study is the initiation of trust in a dyadic relationship between a
member and their newly forming work-team. At this pre-stage, a new team member
would possess little, if any, knowledge about the other team members. Knowledge
and information about a trustee fuels our decision to extend trust in a given situation
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). This information helps us cognitively identify trustee
attributes (Popa, 2005) and affects both our expectations of the trustee (Frost,
Stimpson, & Maughan, 1978) and our Intention to Trust (Mayer et al., 1995). In the
context of this research, a new team member would rely on limited information,
hearsay, available written evidence, or draw on the trust related beliefs from previous
group trusting-experiences to assess whether the group could be trusted.
Pre-stage I
Pre-stage I
Stage I
Forming
Stage II
Storming
Stage III
Norming
Stage IV
Performing
Stage V
Adjourning
Pre-stage I
Pre-stage I
Stage I
Forming
Stage II
Storming
Stage III
Norming
Stage IV
Performing
Stage V
Adjourning
Stage III
Norming
Stage IV
Performing
Stage V
Adjourning

23
Trust related beliefs arise from our previous group memberships (Kramer, 2001), our
trusting experiences affect how we associate with social groups (Golembiewski &
McConkie, 1975), like work-teams. Given previous work-team experience, a trustor
would have preconceived perceptions about what to expect from a work-team and
have categorised this form of social or organisational grouping as desirable or
undesirable (Kramer & Cook, 2004). A team member who enjoyed a work-team
experience, perhaps because their expectations were satisfied, would be more likely
to trust in future team-work situations; a dissatisfied team member who was
disappointed with their work-team experience would have a lower propensity to trust
team-work situations in the future (Rousseau et al., 1998).

In the context of this study, a new team member who is offered the opportunity to
join a newly forming work-team would need to decide whether the work-team has
attributes that they consider acceptable. For example, is the teams work of high
quality, will the team members treat me with respect and will they do as they say. In
making a decision to extend trust to a work-team in a particular context or situation,
we project the attributes (Blau, 1964) of what we categorise as an ideal work-team
into our mental model then incorporate (Williams, 2001) observed recent behaviour
and new information about the work-team we could join. Based on how we
cognitively assess this information, our ensuing trustor behaviour reflects our
decision to extend, or not to extend, trust to the work-team. Our previous work-team
membership and the information we receive about the group affects our decisions to
extend trust. Of course, this raises a question, how does a trustor decide whether to
trust an individual, group or entity when we have no information about the trustee.

In a situation where we have no information about the trustee, we draw on our
previous trusting experiences. Initially, we rely on our innate or natural propensity to
trust or distrust (Raths, 1972). A new team member joining their first work-team
would lack the social or learned experience from pervious teamwork episodes (Rotter
et al., 1972). Based on limited or perhaps no information, they would need to
determine the probability of work-team success or failure based solely on their innate
or propensity to trust.

24
Researchers have different views on how to define Propensity to Trust. (McKnight et
al., 1998) propose those with high faith in humanity (high propensity to trust) would
attend selectively to information congruent with their level of trust in humanity, and
interpret new information according to their natural tendency. J. B. Rotter (1980)
argues that our social learning adjusts both our expectations of others and how we
trust them in the future. Gill et al. (2005) suggests our Propensity to Trust is an
individuals disposition to trust when we have little or no information about the
trustworthiness of the trustee. In the absence of specific information, it seems natural
that our life experiences, personality type, cultural background, education, and
numerous other socio-economic factors would affect our Propensity to Trust (Mayer
et al., 1995). They propose that once a trustor has information about a trustee,
Propensity to Trust is subsumed by what they call our Intention to Trust, which they
term as our trusting intention when we have context specific information about the
trustee.

This study provides initial information about a trustee and therefore focuses on our
Intention to Trust others. Specifically, this study seeks to identify the salience of the
antecedent information in developing trust between members of a newly forming
work-team. The review of literature has identified a body of evidence that supports
the assertion that once a trustor has received information about a trustee their
Propensity to Trust wanes and our trusting behaviour is a function of our Intention to
Trust (Davis, 1999; Gill et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman, Mayer, &
Davis, 1996a). Therefore, the theoretical model for this study will focus on the
antecedents that lead to the development of our Intention to Trust. Based on the
themes that emerged from the review of literature, the first antecedent is our
competence, our ability.

2.1.5 Ability
Our decision to extend trust in a situation is based upon our assessment of the
information we have about the trustee, and that includes their competence (Das &
Teng, 2001b). The trust antecedent of competence is synonymously referred to as
capability (De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliert, 1998), skills (Kirkman, Rosen,
Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002), applied, shared or communicated knowledge

25
(Levin et al., 2002), aptitude, expertise, or the expertness that arises from education,
training and experience (Mayer et al., 1995). Williams (2001, p. 379) defines
competence as ability or set of skills or competencies that allow us to perform in
some area. For example, if we provide resources to our employees, do they have
the knowledge, skills, and experience to use them to deliver the outcomes that we
expect? In the case of work teams performing to expectation, we need to trust in the
ability of our fellow team members to perform as expected (Serva et al., 2005); to
trust another party, a trustor must perceive that the trustee has the ability or
competence (Davis et al., 2000, p. 566). Gill et al. (2005) found that Ability was
positively associated with our Intention to Trust. Cook & Wall (1980), Mayer et al.
(1995) and Tan & Tan (2000) also consider Ability an essential element, an
antecedent, of our Intention to Trust. Based on this weight of evidence, Competence
is considered, or as Davis et al. (1999) term it, Ability, an antecedent of our
Intention to Trust (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Antecedent of Trust Ability
Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Intention
to Trust
+
Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Intention
to Trust
+

26
2.1.6 Integrity
The next theme affecting trust are the standards or principles underpinning trust. That
belief that another will adhere to a set of standards, principles or values that we deem
acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995). Integrity is another word for principles and both are
perceived as a virtue of character (Audi & Murphy, 2006, p. 3); a foundation or
basis for our behaviour (Levin et al., 2002). High levels of integrity are perceived as
a positive trait in an individual (Audi & Murphy, 2006) and an asset to a business
(Koehn, 2005). Integrity is founded upon principles that involve the consistent
adherence to standards of behaviour that are acceptable to a trustor (Mayer et al.,
1995, p. 719-720). McFall (1987) considers adherence and acceptability of the
principles under which we operate as important; others judge our moral and ethical
standards and personal Integrity when they make a decision to extend trust (Bews &
Rossouw, 2002). Davis & Rothstein (2006) found that employees positively
identified with an individual, group or organisation they perceived as high in
Integrity.

Sitkin & Roth (1993, p. 368) go beyond principles to introduce the notion of value
congruence to Integrity. Value congruence emerges from the compatibility and
alignment of beliefs and values between individuals, groups and organisations that
define shared cultural values and norms of behaviour that underpin our Integrity.
Gabarro & Athos (1976) and Misztal (1996) identify that a person of Integrity openly
and reliably exhibits honesty and fairness. To a trustor, these attributes of Integrity
engender a belief that the trustee has a strong sense of justice; there is a low
probability that their words or deeds will harm us (Mayer et al., 1995). Deviant
behaviours such as lying or actions incongruent with our words do the opposite; they
undermine our Integrity (Wanek, 1996), and; they create distrust (Kramer, 1999). We
optimally perceive others to be possessive of Integrity when we share congruent
principles, values and beliefs (Gabarro & Athos, 1976). For example, based on
perceived behaviours, we judge the trustworthiness of a group of workers by
evaluating their principles and values to determine if the Integrity of the trustee is
acceptable and congruent to the standards of behaviour that we consider acceptable
(Sitkin & Roth, 1993, p. 834). Gill et al. (2005) found that Integrity was positively

27
correlated with our Intention to Trust. Together with Ability, Integrity is considered
an antecedent of our Intention to Trust (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Antecedents of Trust Ability and Integrity

Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Integrity
Intention
to Trust
+
+
Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Integrity
Intention
to Trust
+
+

28
2.1.7 Benevolence
Jones & George (1998) propose that a trust experience is determined by the interplay
of not only people's principles and values but also their attitudes, moods and
emotions; how they feel about one another. These feelings are founded upon our
expectation (Rotter et al., 1972) of how the trustee, the other person, group or
organisation, will behave and whether the resultant behaviour is reflective of our
needs and desires (Jones & George, 1998). For some time, expectation has been
viewed as a fulcrum of trust. In 1978, Frost et al. (1978) defined trust as expectancy
held by an individual that the behaviour of another person or a group would be
altruistic and personally beneficial. Much trust literature defines this expectancy as
Benevolence; the extent to which the trustor perceives that the trustee intends to do
good to the trustor in a relationship (Hosmer, 1995; Levin et al., 2002; McKnight et
al., 2002; Mayer et al., 1995; Whitener et al., 1998; Williams, 2001). Benevolence
involves a duty or desire to care for or protect another. Persons of high Benevolence
exhibit loyalty (Butler Jr., 1991) by behaving with a willingness to protect, support,
and encourage others (Hosmer, 1995); Davis et al. (2000) state that Benevolence
represents a positive personal orientation of the trustor towards the trustee.

Three factors of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity have been identified and are
considered reliable antecedents that lead to the development of trust between
members of a newly forming work-team. Previous studies have similarly identified
Ability Benevolence and Integrity as trust antecedents. Mayer & Davis (1999) found
that Ability, Benevolence and Integrity were positively correlated with trust in
management. Tan & Tan (2000) identified that Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity
were positively associated with an employees Intention to Trust their supervisor. In
addition, Serva et al. (2005) identified the positive relationship that the antecedents
of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity have in the development of our Intention to
Trust work teams. Similarly, Ability, Benevolence and Integrity are considered
antecedents of our Intention to Trust (Figure 4). Therefore, it is hypothesised that:

H
1
: Benevolence and Integrity and Ability will be positively associated
with our Intention to Trust members of a newly forming work-team.

29

Figure 4: A proposed model of the antecedents of trust Ability, Benevolence and Integrity

2.2 Chapter Two Summary
This literature review has revealed the many facets of trust that sparkle from the
disparate views of the scientific disciplines. In the work-team context of this study,
the non-exhaustive list of trust types was explained and exampled. Instead of
accepting the perspective of a particular scientific discipline, distillation of the
differing views revealed six core themes that are considered the essence of trust.
These themes are risk, context, dynamics, expectation, principles, and, competence.
These themes and the study hypotheses are the focus for refining the study model.

Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Integrity
Benevolence
Intention
to Trust
+
+
+
Antecedents
of Trust
Ability
Integrity
Benevolence
Intention
to Trust
+
+
+

30

31
Chapter Three
3.1 Refining the Study Model
A study model of the formation of trust between members of a newly forming work-
team needs to consider all six themes identified from the literature review in Chapter
Two. A researcher could take two approaches to defining the study model. One
approach is to develop a completely new model. This is not the preferred approach of
this researcher. Leveraging from previous research effort provides a solid foundation
for ongoing research and offers a more plausible foundation upon which to build our
knowledge of trust and develop our understanding of how to refine trust-related
research designs, test instruments and analysis methods. A number of existing trust-
models incorporate some or all of the trust antecedents and themes identified in
Chapter Two. Firstly, a literature review by McKnight et al. (1998) proposed a model
for examining how trust is formed in new organizational relationships (Figure 5).

Figure 5: McKnight et al's. (1998) model of initial trust formation

This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library

32
Reflecting on the themes and antecedents identified earlier, the model incorporates
the factors of principles (Benevolence), competence (Ability) and the factor
honesty (honesty is commonly viewed as a reflection of our or an organizations
Integrity (Becker, 1998; Sackett & Wanek, 1996; Wanek, 1996). The model also
recognizes our Propensity to Trust. McKnight et al. (1998) termed this factor
disposition to trust. Their model also incorporates the cognitive processes involved
in trusting decisions and in consideration of context it incorporates the notion of
institution-based trust discussed earlier in this thesis. However, the McKnight et al.
(1998) model appears to view trust in stasis. It has been identified that we do not live
in a vacuum, trust is dynamic. The changing information that informs us about our
changing environment predicates that our trust state must alter. As we constantly
receive feedback, the new information that emerges from our numerous daily trust
experiences. The McKnight et al. (1998) model ill-considers the dynamic nature of
trust and the feedback that emerges from the numerous contextual situations in which
we find ourselves.

One could expect that this feedback is not restricted to the institution-based trust
context recognized in the McKnight et al. (1998) model; feedback emerges from all
the contexts, situations, where we extend trust. For example, if we were in a
professional-trust situation where we took advice from one of our peers and as a
result lost our job, it would be a natural reaction to be more cautious next time we
took advice, not just from a professional peer but in any situation, even a person one,
where we had similar stakes at risk. The McKnight et al. (1998) model restricts
consideration to institutions, those societal-based support systems such as
governments. As a theoretical foundation for this study, the McKnight et al. (1998)
model is deficient in that it inadequately considers context and the dynamic role that
feedback plays in our ongoing decisions to extend trust to others.

Alternatively, the earlier work of Mayer et al. (1995) includes all trust themes in the
McKnight et al. (1998) model as well as their missing feedback theme. There is ten
years of research based on the Mayer et al. (1995) integrative model of
organizational trust (Figure 6) (Bell, Oppenheimer, & Bastien, 2002; Cardona &
Elola, 2003; Costa et al., 2001; Davis, 1999; Davis et al., 2000; Franta, 2000; Gill et
al., 2005; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003; Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004;

33
Mayer, 1998; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Schoorman et al., 1996a,
1996b; Serva et al., 2005; Tan & Tan, 2000).

Figure 6: Integrative model of organizational trust (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 715)

In explaining the dynamic nature of our dyadic trusting inter-relationships, the Mayer
et al. (1995) model incorporates a feedback loop which emerges from the trustors
outcome evaluation, whether the behaviour of the trustee met the expectations of the
trustor. If a trustees behaviour was acceptable, we could risk extending trust on
another occasion. Alternatively, if the trustees behaviour did not meet our
expectations, it would be reasonable for us to expect that extending trust to the same
trustee again will have a high probability of a similarly unacceptable outcome. In
such situations, it would be normal for us to decide that it is too risky to extend trust
to that person, group or organisation, in the future. The Mayer et al. (1995) model
considers the dynamic nature of our trusting relationships by incorporating a
feedback factor.

This figure is not available online.

34
To review the competing models, the McKnight et al. (1998) model (Figure 5) and
the Mayer et al. (1995) model (Figure 6) have similarities. The factors of perceived
trustworthiness, the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity from the
Mayer et al. (1995) are consistent with the trust antecedents of Competence (Ability),
Benevolence, Honesty (Integrity) in the McKnight et al. (1998) model. Both models
consider our innate Propensity to Trust (Mayer et al., 1995); McKnight et al. (1998)
terms this our Disposition to Trust. Additionally, both models consider Risk,
McKnight et al. (1998) in terms of Predictability. Mayer et al. (1995) go further by
identifying the dynamic role that feedback plays when we make a decision to extend
trust in a particular relationship or situation. While both models incorporate five of
the six trust-themes that emerged from the review of literature, Context, Risk,
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity, only the Mayer et al. (1995) model adequately
considers the dynamic effect of the feedback we receive from our trusting inter-
relationships.

While the Mayer et al. (1995) model includes feedback from our trusting episodes, it
is argued that it inadequately considers the contextual difference in our trusting
episodes. Wekselberg (1996) criticises the Mayer et al. (1995) model because it fails
to adequately consider that the social context in which a trusting episodes occurs can
have an important impact on how we trust. In countering this criticism, Schoorman
et al. (1996b) assert that none of the variables in their dyadic model needs to change;
the model merely needs the addition of moderators or mediators to adjust for context.
In support of Schoormans (1996b) assertion, a plethora of supportive results, from
differing contextual situations, attest to the Schoorman et al. (1996b) affirmation that
the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity do provide a solid
foundation for the study of trust development (Bell et al., 2002; Cardona & Elola,
2003; Costa et al., 2001; Davis, 1999; Davis et al., 2000; Franta, 2000; Gill et al.,
2005; Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003; Martin,
1999; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002;
Schoorman et al., 1996a; Serva et al., 2005; Tan & Tan, 2000).

Given the significant level of scientific support for the Mayer et al. (1995) integrative
model of organizational trust, it has been selected to form the theoretical foundation
for this study. However, in consideration of the significant evidence (Bigley &

35
Pearce, 1998; Currall & Inkpen, 2002; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003; McKnight
et al., 1998; Rousseau et al., 1998; Schoorman et al., 1996b; Serva et al., 2005) that
trust studies should be not undertaken without adequately considering the context in
which the trust takes place, an extra dimension has been added to the trust
antecedents in the Mayer et al. (1995) model.

The extra dimension added to the Mayer et al. (1995) model addresses the dynamics
associated with initial trust development in the context of this study, newly forming
work-teams. This addition addresses the concerns of Williams (2001, p.379) who
states that while current models clarify many of the processes that are fundamental
to interpersonal trust development,(sic) they do not jointly address both the cognitive
and the affective influences of social group membership on trust. In the context of
this study, a potential team member would cognitively assess what they know about
team members before making a decision to join the team. This is as far as this cross-
sectional study goes; it does not proceed into the dynamic life of the team wherein
ongoing feedback may bring about affective changes in the trust of fellow team
members. This is not to say that the affective factor of feedback should not be
included in the model for future studies; particularly those longitudinal studies that
expose trustors and trustees to multiple trusting episodes over time. Given the cross-
sectional nature of this study, and the single trusting context of a new member
making the decision to join a newly formed work-team, the affective factor of
feedback will not be included in the model for this particular study.

What has been included in this study is a context moderation factor that incorporates
the different types of information we could expect to receive about the members of a
new team we were considering to join. For example, if asked to join a team of
students working on an assignment, we would seek information about their
knowledge (Ability), whether they complied with university rules about plagiarism
(Integrity), and whether they looked after the best interests of fellow team members
(Benevolence). Some students do work to a high standard, others to a lower standard.
Thus, there are levels of information that could be communicated concerning a work-
teams Ability, Benevolence, or Integrity. The question is how to operationalise
antecedent information levels.

36
In seeking to clarify the relationship between trust and its antecedents, Kramer &
Cook (2004) propose numerous contextual moderators of the trust antecedents,
Situational Strength among them. Gill et al. (2005) defined Situational Strength as
the quantity and type of information about the trustee available to the trustor prior to
the trustor extending trust to the trustee in a given situation. For example, a trustor
may be informed that a team is highly skilled and experienced. Perceiving a team
with high levels of Ability, the trustor may have Intention to Trust the team in the
expectation of an acceptable outcome. Alternatively, if the trustor is advised that the
team have low Ability, the trustor may choose not to trust the team. Gill et al. (2005)
incorporated a Situational Strength factor into their study by providing levels of
information about a trustees Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity; they termed the
levels Strong, Weak and Ambiguous (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Example dimensions of Situational Strength; adapted from (Gill et al., 2005)

In the (Gill et al., 2005) study, when all the antecedent information was bad (Low),
the situation was viewed as Weak and when there was a mix of good (High) and bad
(Low) information, the situation was seen as Ambiguous. When the trustor
considered all the information about the trustee was good (High), the situation was
termed Strong. The Gill et al. (2005) notion of Situational Strength is flawed because
a situation where all the trust antecedent information is bad could also be considered
as strong, strongly negative. It is argued that we would be ambivalent about
Integrity Benevolence Ability
Situational
Strength
(Moderator)
Weak
Ambiguous
Strong
Low High Low High Low High
Situational
Strength
(Moderator)
Weak
Ambiguous
Strong
Low High Low High Low High

37
ambiguous information. We humans naturally focus on marginal differences when
we make decisions {Easterlin, 2005 #960}). In the context of this study, we would
focus on the margin of the trust information, the good or bad information we assess
when making a decision to join a work-team.

Therefore, unlike the Gill et al. (2005) study, it is asserted that under normal
circumstances a trustor would consider the marginal Information Level about a
trustee on two dimensions; good (High) and bad (Low) (Figure 8). For this study, the
terms of good and bad will be avoided because goodness or badness is in the eye of
the beholder, what some consider good, may be considered bad by others with
different values and beliefs. Instead, the notion of High and Low Information Level
is applied.

Figure 8: The proposed Information Levels of the trust antecedents

Let us view some examples of High and Low Information Levels. A person who
always looks after the best interests of their fellow team members could be seen to
exhibit High Benevolence. The same person could possess fewer skills and therefore
be considered to have Low Ability. While having fewer skills, if we viewed this
person as an honest person, they would attribute them with High Integrity. In this
way, the antecedents of trust have varying information levels that affect our personal
decision to trust. Therefore, it is offered that under a context where we can choose to
join a newly forming work-team, we would rationally consider {van Praag, 1999
#961} the marginal difference in the trust-related information communicated about
the teams. Based our cognitive assessment of the marginal difference, the level of
information, we would make our decision to extend trust and join the work-team, or
Information
Level
Low
High
Information
Level
Low
High

38
vice versa. Therefore it is proposed to incorporate High and Low Information Levels
into the Mayer et al. (1995) Integrative Model of Organisational Trust (Figure 9).

Figure 9: The proposed theoretical model for the study of how the antecedents of trust affect our
Intention to Trust in the context of newly forming work-teams

Figure 9 identifies the theoretical model for this study. In selecting formal definitions
for the factors in the study model, consideration of the competing definitions of trust
has identified that the Mayer et al.'s (1995) trust theory incorporates the six themes of
trust distilled from the review of the literature (Chapter 2). Therefore, this research
will build on the previous work of Mayer et al. (1995) and others who have
subsequently sought to advance the integrative model of organisational trust.
Consistent with their research, the definition of Intention to Trust applied to this
study is:

Ability
Benevolence
Trustors
Intention To Trust
Integrity
Antecedent
Factors of the
Trustee
Contextual
Information
Level
+
+
+
Ability
Benevolence
Trustors
Intention To Trust
Integrity
Antecedent
Factors of the
Trustee
Contextual
Information
Level
+
+
+

39
the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another
party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular
action important to the trustor, irrespective of the Ability to monitor or
control that other party (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712).

The trust antecedents are defined as:

Ability is the skills competencies and characteristics that enable a party to have
influence over some specific domain (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717)

Benevolence is the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the
trustor (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 718).

Integrity is the trustors perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles
that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719).

In consideration of the proposition that the level of information about a trustee
affects our Intention to Trust, this study contributes Information Level which is
defined as the dimensional combinations (High to Low) of the good or bad
information communicated to a trustor about the Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity of a trustee prior to the trustor initially extending trust to that trustee.

3.2 Chapter Three Summary
Chapter 3 compared and contrasted two competing models to develop the study
model of initial trust formation between a potential team member and a newly
forming work-team. In doing so, it was shown that the kernel of the McKnight et al.
(1998) model was similar to the Mayer et al. (1995) integrative model of
organisational trust but that the McKnight et al. (1998) model failed to adequately
consider the role that the themes of Context and Dynamics play in the formation and
development of our Intention to Trust. It was identified that the Mayer et al. (1995)
model better addressed Dynamics by incorporating a Feedback loop which informs
the trustor about the probability of success or risk in future trusting episodes.
However, the Mayer et al. (1995) model inadequately considered the context in

40
which trusting episodes occur. In consideration of the varying levels of the good or
bad information that feeds back to a trustor after extending trust to a trustee, a High
and Low Information Level was incorporated into the study model and model
variables were subsequently defined in preparation for hypotheses development.

41

Chapter Four
4.1 Further Developing the Hypotheses for this Study
One thing becomes apparent from a review of the literature and the selection of a
study model; scholars operationalise trust differently depending upon the focus and
phase of the trust study. On the one hand, trust could be operationalised as a single
phase; a one-off transaction that is typically derived from a weighed calculus of how
much we think we will gain and lose (Williamson, 1975). On the other hand, we
have an intra- or interpersonal trust continuum (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395) that
operationalises trust as an ongoing relationship where we question not "How much
do I trust?" but "In what areas and in what ways do I trust?" (Lewicki, McAllister,
& Bies, 1998, p. 443). While it is acknowledged that some ongoing relations are
transactional, with a focus on gains and losses, Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 398) remind
us that both history and the nature of the interaction between the parties can shape
the form that trust takes. This study operationalises the theoretical model identified
in Figure 9 of Chapter Three and focuses on the contextual situation where the new
team member (trustor) and the newly formed work-team (trustee) are unknown to
one another. In this context, the trustor needs to cognitively assess how the High and
Low Information Levels of information about the trustee affect their decision to
initially extend trust to the trustee.

Prior to the trustor having any information about the trustee, it has been argued that a
trustors Propensity to Trust should be most salient. Our Propensity to Trust is our
general willingness to trust others (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 715). Propensity to Trust
is that level of trust we extend before we have any information about the trustee, akin
to our innate or natural trust (Raths, 1972). The information or feedback that we
receive from our relationships and interactions with others readjusts our trust
perception. Considerable research effort has identified that, once we receive
information about a trustee, our Propensity to Trust wanes in favour of or Intention to
Trust (Costa, 2003; Costa et al., 2001; Gill et al., 2005; Huff & Kelley, 2003; Mayer
& Davis, 1999; Serva et al., 2005; Tan & Tan, 2000). Because considerable research
effort has previously been applied to understanding Propensity to Trust, this study

42
focuses on how we cognitively determine our Intention to Trust in the context of a
trustor receiving initial information about a trustee.

So what happens when we initially receive information about a trustee, which trust-
antecedents most affect our Intention to Trust? Table 1 identifies results from a
recent study by Serva et al. (2005). This longitudinal study was conducted in the
setting of two interacting teams developing software for a website. What is
interesting about this study is that the dynamic nature of trust that was revealed via
the changing correlation of Intention to Trust (ITT) with its antecedents. At Time T1,
the forming stage of team development when the management team communicated
functional requirements to the development team, the trust antecedents of Ability (r
= .70, p = .001), Benevolence (r = .51, p = .05) and Integrity (r = .62, p = .001)
correlated with Intention to Trust. At Time T2, the antecedent data from the previous
time, T1, no longer significantly correlated with ITT. Similarly, at Time T3, the
antecedent data from the previous time, T2, no longer significantly correlated with
ITT. The Intention to Trust of the teams had changed over time. Depending on the
stage of team development, the antecedents appeared to have varying effects on trust.

43
Table 1: Research results from a recent study by Serva et al. (2005)

This table is not available online.

44
This is not surprising because there has been scholarly disagreement over the relative
strength of the relationship between trust and its antecedents. In 1999, Davis found
that Integrity (r = .818, p = .01) had the strongest relationship with Intention to Trust.
More recently, Gill et al. (2005, p. 99) proposed that it is possible that Ability,
Benevolence, and Integrity contribute differently to the establishment of trust. The
results of the Serva et al. (2005) study supports this proposition but, unlike this study,
their research did not measure trust and its antecedents in the pre-stage. This study
seeks to address the gap in the Serva et al. (2005) study by clarifying our
understanding of how the trust antecedents affect our Intention to Trust during the
pre-stage of the life of a work-team. Just as the effect of the trust antecedents differed
in the later stages of team development, it is hypothesised that:

H
2
: At the pre-stage of team development, the trust antecedents of
Ability Benevolence and Integrity will have differential effects on our
Intention to Trust members of a newly forming work-team.

Pursuing this hypothesis avails us of an opportunity to better understand trust by both
clarifying and the contributing to our current knowledge of trust development in the
context of newly forming work-teams. As a person with an opportunity to join a
newly forming work-team, we would seek information about the other group
members. How competent (Ability) are they? Will they lie (Integrity) and get me into
trouble with authority? In addition, will they do what is in my best interests
(Benevolence)? From the perspective of Ability, it would be easy for us to gauge the
knowledge of team-members; we could simply assess physical examples from their
previous work assignments; reports, products or perhaps customer feedback. A team
member devoid of the necessary skills and experience would not normally be able to
produce examples of previously completed quality work.

While manifestations of Ability would be physically obvious, it would be more
difficult to gauge the Integrity or Benevolence of other team members. Benevolent
behaviour would be less obvious than Integrity because issues of Integrity should
emerge during the employee hiring process. If we exhibit low Integrity behaviour by
lying and deceiving our peers we may get away with it on the first or perhaps the
second occasion, but it would be reasonable to assume that our peers would be less

45
likely to trust us after each additional episode of low Integrity behaviour.
Deceitfulness and dishonesty are memorable events (Arvey & Wanek, 2006); our
honesty image reflects our honest and dishonest behaviours and these are highly
visible to others (Van Iddekinge, Taylor, & Eidson Jr., 2005). We can all recall
episodes where someone has disappointed us when they do not do what they say they
will do. Because humans tend to have a behavioural trait towards trustworthiness
(Rotter, 1980), if we were contacted by an employer checking on the credentials of a
person previously in our employ, most of us would truthfully inform the new
employer if our past employee had exhibited low Integrity behaviour (Bulmash,
2006). Therefore, we would be more likely to find out about episodes of Low
Integrity.

Identifying Benevolent behaviour would be more difficult. For example, we first
need to extend trust to a person, group or organisation and wait for the feedback that
informs us that they have, or have not, behaved in our best interest (Benevolence).
This takes time. For example, when we first meet a new member of a work-team, we
have not previously trusted them; we have not received feedback from a previous
trusting episode. We could ask other people who had worked with them, but, with so
many of todays teams comprising temporary, part-time or contract staff, we may not
have the opportunity to gather the information we need to adjudge other team
members Benevolence. They are strangers to us. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:

H
3:
Ability will have a more salient effect on our Intention to Trust
members of a newly forming work-team than Integrity and
Benevolence.

46
4.2 Chapter Four Summary
Chapter Four applied the study model to the context of a member making a decision
to extend trust by joining a newly forming work-team. At this stage of trust
development, the feedback that informs us that the trustee performed as we expected
has not come into play because we have not yet shared a trusting episode. Before we
make a decision to join a team we would request information about the Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity of the other team members. In seeking to understand
which of these factors is most salient in the development or our Intention to Trust,
previous studies have provided different results. There is scholarly disagreement over
which antecedent of trust is most important in trust development between members
of a team. In the context of this study, it was hypothesised that the salience of the
antecedents of our Intention to Trust is Ability, Integrity then Benevolence. The
research design is now justified.

47

Chapter Five
5.1 The Research Design
The research design is the plan that structures the investigation to obtain answers to
the research questions (Punch, 2000). Holistically, this research is to be conducted in
three stages (Figure 10).

Figure 10: The Three study Stages

To gain an understanding of the study setting and to collect data to assist with the
development of the scales and the vignette manipulation, the Vignette Development,
Stage 1, involved structured interviews. Additionally, descriptive statistics from
similar trust-related studies were applied to identify typical effect sizes that were
used to estimate sample size requirements for the subsequent study stages. The Pilot
Stage 2 pre-tested the vignettes, experimental manipulations, and measurement
scales on a sample frame from the population. The Final Data Collection stage
applied the refined scales and vignettes to collect data for final analysis. The
following pages seek to justify and define the research design choices for the study
setting, the type of measures, the unit of analysis, the time horizon, and, the research
paradigm (Cavana, Sekaran, & Delahaye, 2001, pp. 285-382).
Study Stage 1 Study Stage 2 Study Stage 3
Vignette Development
Qualitative
Structured Interview
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Final Data Collection
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis

48
5.1.1 The Research Paradigm
Past trust studies have applied qualitative methods of action research (Levin et al.,
2002) and the quantitative methods of field experiment (Costa et al., 2001;
Korsgaard et al., 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Schoorman et al., 1996b; Serva et al.,
2005; Tan & Tan, 2000; Whitener, 2001 ; Wong, Wong et al., 2002). Fewer studies
used laboratory experiments (Buchan et al., 2002; Earley, 1986; Gill et al., 2005).
While practitioners can gain increased understanding and benefit from the more
generalisable field studies (Sekaran, 2003), to maintain rigour this study seeks to
exclude the numerous confounding factors that could possibly affect trust
development in a typical work environment. For example, in a field study, our trust
with other employees could emerge from our work interactions or that trust could
arise from the social contact we have with them as friends, outside of work hours.
Laboratory experiments generally have higher internal validity than field studies
because the researcher seeks tighter control by excluding these confounding influences
that can potentially contaminate study results (Christensen, 2004, pp. 5-26). This study
mandates high internal validity because it seeks theory development by clarifying our
understanding of trust by validly testing Intention to Trust behaviour with its
antecedents. Sekaran (2003) supports a decision to select a laboratory experiment
strategy for this type of study because it seeks to understand relationship and
possibly causal effects while maintaining high internal validity.

5.1.2 Time Horizon
This experimental research design seeks constancy and control wherein a comparison
is produced between two or more levels of the independent variable (IV) while all
other aspects of the experimental situation are held constant (Kantowitz, Roediger, &
Elmes, 1994). Causality is often only accepted in a longitudinally designed study that
measures pre and post effects of an experimental IV manipulation on a dependent
variable (DV); the dimension of change over time must be invoked (Cavana et al.,
2001). This cross-sectional designed experiment, that collects data at a single point in
time, does not claim causation but does seek strong relationship evidence by
applying Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
analysis techniques. Causation based on SEM analysis is not claimed, even though
Bollen (1989b, pp. 40-79) argues that analysis techniques such as Structural Equation

49
Modelling satisfy the causation requirements for isolation, association and direction
of causality. Even if all influences on the DV are excluded except the manipulation
of the IV variable, pragmatically, it is almost impossible to have absolute certainty
that a change in one variable

is only caused by another; extraneous factors can
confound results.

Previous trust research may have not isolated the extraneous factors that can
confound results. For example, the field research by Serva et al. (2005) had similar
objectives to this study in a setting involving university students working in groups.
While the development of trust was clearly observed, why and how that trust
developed was opaquely explained. Did trust emerge from the day-to-day
interactions between the workgroup members? Perhaps the trust emerged, at some
other time, from social activities outside of the university context. Perhaps trust was
evident prior to the experiment. Isolation of extraneous effects is at question. While
this cross-sectional designed research does not claim causation, it seeks to clarify our
understanding of how to develop trust in newly forming work-teams by satisfying the
need for isolation, association and direction of causation. The research design path
leads towards Structured Equation Modelling and ANOVA of the final data to
strengthen claims for, but not necessarily prove, causation. The experimental
methodology, the Analysis of Variance and SEM analysis techniques designed into
this study seek to isolate and exclude extraneous variables to identify the association
between the antecedents of trust and directionally depict how these exogenous
factors relate to our Intention to Trust in a study setting of a newly forming work-
team.

50
5.1.3 The Study Setting
This research seeks to build on the effort and knowledge derived from similar trust
studies (Costa et al., 2001; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003; Gill et al., 2005; Mayer
& Gavin, 2005; Serva et al., 2005) by more clearly identifying how trust develops
between members of a work-team in the pre-stage of development. In examining
trust development, a university is considered a suitable study setting because
university students need to regularly form new work-teams in order to complete their
group-based assessments. Like the increasing number of part-time and temporary
employees that are populating todays business and government organisations, the
success of a university student often depends upon their decision to join, or not to
join, a particular work-team. Their individual success or failure is a function of the
combined efforts of their team members (Spreitzer et al., 1999). If the work-team
performs well, all team-members are rewarded as high performers. In the case of the
part-time employee, they could be rewarded with a pay rise, bonus or perhaps the
offer of additional work. On the other hand, if a hard-working team-member, with
high achievement expectations, chooses to join an underperforming work-team, there
is a risk of failure and under-achievement; loss of expected reward. When a student,
or part-time worker, needs to choose a work-team, they need to select a group that is
most likely to satisfy their expectations.

While this expectation of success is synonymous with that of permanent employees,
there is one important difference between a newly forming work-team drawn from
fulltime employees and those drawn from a temporary/part-time workforce or a
student population. The students and part-timers have not been previously socialised,
they do not know one another; they have no shared previous work experiences. Over
time, permanent employees develop shared values and beliefs, the basis for the
integrity antecedent of trust (Rotter, 1967). Similarly, permanent employees have
probably seen the quality of their colleagues work and are therefore in a better
position to judge whether the skills and abilities of those colleagues. At the same
time, permanent employees would have received feedback from their work
colleagues about which staff make good team members, can be relied upon to do the
right thing by the team and treat other team members decently. This is the basis for
Benevolence.

51
Thus, permanent employees are in a better position to make decisions on whether to
extend trust to work colleagues because they have priori information about the
ability, benevolence and integrity of potential team members. This is not the case
with temporary/part-time employees or students in a university. In a population of
containing thousands of students and hundreds of thousands of part-time workers, the
probability that a student or part-time worker has worked with potential team
members would be low; they would not have the benefit of the a priori information
that we applied when deciding whether to extend trust. Therefore, with the context of
a student population analogous to a temporary/part-time workforce, a university
setting containing students that have not shared work-team experience is considered
an appropriate study setting for this research.

The study setting of a student who needs to choose a work-team satisfies the
theoretical foundation (Mayer et al., 1995) for this study; notions of competence,
expectation, principles, risk and trust identified earlier as integral to trust formation
are involved in the dyadic relationship between the student and the work-team. The
students grade expectations are at risk if they choose a group with low competence
(Ability). As trustor, the student expects to benefit (Benevolence) from a work-team
relationship wherein principled members of the group meet their commitments by
truthfully (Integrity) delivering work when it is due and to the agreed standard.
Therefore, the study setting reflects the theoretical foundation for this study. The
antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity are present within the context of a
students cognitive assessment of their Intention to Trust members of a newly
forming work-team. In the group-assessment context of this study, a student needs to
think carefully about the team they will join because all team members will receive
the same grade for their work-teams assignment submission. The choice of a
Business Faculty Undergraduate Student population of an Australian university fits
the theoretical foundation for this study and satisfies the need to engage in a simpler
experimental design. The selection of a student population also has the advantage of
reducing data collection effort. Sampling students in their scheduled lectures and
tutorials is convenient, less disruptive to teaching, and involves little additional cost
to the students or the researcher.

52
Population
It has been identified that the study setting of university students undertaking group-
based assessment is an appropriate study setting and it naturally follows that students
within that setting are the appropriate population. The sampling frame was selected
from the Business Faculty Undergraduate Student population of a metropolitan
Australian university. Similarly, university student populations from North America
were recently sampled to provide data for similar trust-related studies (Gill et al.,
2005; Serva et al., 2005; Williams, 2001). In particular, this research seeks to address
the gap in the research by focussing the pre-stage of group development, the stage
not addressed by Serva et al. (2005). Both this and the Serva et al. (2005) research
draw on samples from a population of university students.

5.1.4 Sampling Strategy
The sampling strategy seeks a representative sample with parameters reflective of a
normally distributed university undergraduate student population. The students who
volunteer to participate in the study will do so without compensatory reward. The
sampling process (Tilley, 2004) will seek subjects who satisfy the parameters of
interest to the study; students without previous shared teamwork experience. Because
all students from the population of the Business Faculty satisfy this requirement, a
number of sampling frames will be drawn from first and second year subjects. While
it would be optimal to pursue a probability sampling method involving
randomisation wherein each person from the 15,000 member population had a
known and equal chance (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 257) of selection, this is logistically
impossible; instead, the subjects will self-select by voluntarily responding to a
request to complete a questionnaire. Randomisation will emerge from each subject
randomly receiving one of a number of questionnaires incorporating a manipulation
that communicates a different Information Level about the Ability, Benevolence or
Integrity of a work-team that they could choose to join.

53
5.1.5 The Manipulation
To explain and enhance our understanding of how combinations of the antecedents
of trust relate to our Intention to Trust, subjects will be exposed to combinations of
High and Low Information Levels of the Ability, Benevolence or Integrity describing
the group they could choose to join. This intervention is required to facilitate
examination and assessment of the treatment effects and relationships that are
expected to result from the manipulation of the independent variables (IV) on the
dependent variable (DV) (Cavana et al., 2001, pp. 269-269). Previous trust related
studies applied various manipulation techniques. These included the change of a
human resource system (Mayer & Davis, 1999), an in-basket task (Earley, 1986),
teams interaction during a software development project (Serva et al., 2005), and,
the use of vignettes (Gill et al., 2005).

Manipulation using vignettes is considered an unobtrusive measure. Kerlinger
defines vignettes as, brief concrete descriptions of realistic situations so constructed
that responses to them will yield measures of variables (1986, p. 475). Vignettes are
considered appropriate for this study because they facilitate a low cost method
(Hughes & Huby, 2004) and make it easier to manipulate variables (Gliner, Haber,
& Weise, 1999, p. 314). Information portrayed in a vignette is generally less
ambiguous than real-life situations; there are fewer interfering influences to
confound an experiment and the result is stronger signal strength. In the case of this
study, the IV effect of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity on Intention to Trust could
be perceived as a stronger relationship than would otherwise be the case. A study by
Murphy, Herr, Lockhart and Maguire (Murphy, Herr, Lockhart, & Maguire, 1986)
comparing vignette and behavioral observation identified that the signal strength was
indeed amplified when using vignettes; the mean was 30% higher and the standard
deviation was 60% higher. In this study, we propose to use this enhanced signal
strength to our advantage. With higher mean scores, we expect an amplified

54
relationship between Intention to Trust and its antecedents. As a result, our analysis
of the data should detect smaller and more significant relationships between the
variables than would be the case with alternative manipulation methods.

A vignette also simplifies manipulation in low budget research like this study, the
sampling and manipulation costs are low for both the researcher and the subject(s).
There are no additional costs involved in organising the subjects; the data will be
collected in the students normal lecture or tutorial setting. After reading the vignette
manipulation, the anonymous subjects are expected to complete the questionnaire in
less than ten minutes.

In an experiment, the manipulation process must remain under the systematic control
of the researcher (Christensen, 2004). Instrumentation effects that arise from
changing the measuring instruments can introduce confounding variables and
threaten the internal validity of a study (Sekaran, 2003). A common error in studies
applying a vignette manipulation method is to present respondents with multiple
vignettes followed by comparisons across vignettes; this invokes vignette response
fatigue wherein respondents tire, lose interest, and, the quality of results suffers
(Hughes & Huby, 2004). Responding to multiple vignettes also risks a carry over
effect from one vignette to another (Sniderman & Grob, 1996). Even if the order of
the vignettes is randomised issues with order, additive or interaction effects cannot
be overcome because of the logical order of the vignette narratives (O'Connor &
Hirsch, 1999). The simultaneous manipulation with multiple cases inextricably
confounds study results (Zellman, 1990). This study takes advantage of this vignette-
related limitation. To minimise the confounds that can contaminate experimental

55
results; each subjects will only be exposed to a single vignette. Depending upon the
quality of the vignettes (Hughes & Huby, 2004), the subjects are expected to
cognitively respond to a vignette that succinctly projects a single combination of the
trust antecedents. By exposing each subject to information describing just one work-
team, the limitations of vignette manipulation are expected to advantage this study.

The reasoning behind manipulating each subject with a single vignette has been
justified. This means that each subjects needs to respond to the questionnaire
subsequent to reading a single vignette that depicts one of a number of dimensional
combinations of the High or Low Information Levels concerning the Ability,
Benevolence or Integrity of a work-team they could choose to join. Therefore, these
dimensional combinations lead to an a priori 3x2 factorial design; six groups that are
defined by three (3) trust antecedents each depicted with two (2) Information Level
combinations, High or Low. Consistent with the literature (Gill et al., 2005), a High
Information Level will identify a High Ability work-team that exhibits a high level of
knowledge and competence. A Low Information Level is the opposite. Similarly,
High Benevolence information depicts a work-team that exhibits concern for other
team members and High Integrity information conveys a work-team with high
principles and values that, for example, does not resort to lying. Thus, it is initially
planned to expose each subject to a single manipulation projecting a combination of
a High or Low Information Level of all three of the Intention to Trust antecedents;
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity.

56
Identifying the number of manipulation options or work-teams in a factorial design
study provides useful group information to assist with determining sample size
requirements (Cohen, 1977). This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, the
magnitude of the effort involved in this experimental study revolves around the time-
consuming logistical exercise of data collection. The magnitude of that effort is
predicated on sample size requirements. Sample size is also considered important
because it impacts on the precision, reliability, internal validity and ultimately affects
how confident we are that the sample results truly reflect population parameters
(Cavana et al., 2001, pp. 272-273). Secondly, too small a sample size interacts with
the power of the statistical tests to negatively impact upon the probability of
achieving statistically significant results (Cohen, 1988). On the positive side, the use
of vignettes for this behavioral observation should amplify the signal strength by
increasing the means and standard deviations of the variables under test (Murphy et
al., 1986). Vignette manipulation should help to assist in minimizing the sample size
requirements of the analysis methods proposed for this study.

Based on a strategy of employing ANOVA-based statistical analysis, first and second
moment information, from recent trust-related research employing similar samples,
measures and analysis methods to this study, was used to identify an average effect
size of .75; at a significance level of p < .05 (Table 2). G*Power software (Buchner,
Erdfelder, & Faul, 1997; Paul & Erdfelder, 1992) was used to estimate the minimum
number of subjects for each group. For the proposed between-subjects ANOVA
analysis, a minimum of seven subjects were required to achieve the small-medium
effect size of .75 (Cohen, 1988). For an eight-group factorial design using ANOVA
analysis, computations identified that a minimum total sample size of 56 subjects
was required for the Pilot stage of this study.

57

Table 2: Effect and sample size estimates calculations from similar trust-related studies

Example Study Total n n per Group
Mayer & Gavin (1999) trust PM v TMT 3.21 2.72 0.77 0.64 ANOVA 108 4 Assumptions:
Mayer & Gavin (1999) ability PM v TMT 3.45 2.94 0.82 0.62 ANOVA 135 5 power = 0.95
Mayer & Gavin (1999) benevolence PM v TMT 3.14 2.59 0.93 0.59 ANOVA 135 5 p = 0.05
Mayer & Gavin (1999) integrity PM v TMT 3.23 2.79 0.85 0.52 ANOVA 162 6 Groups= 27
Gill et al., 2005 high trust v total trust 6.33 4.73 1.68 0.95 ANOVA 81 3
Gill et al., 2005 total trust v low trust 4.73 2.79 1.68 1.15 ANOVA 81 3 d = 1
Mayer & Gavin (1999) trust PM v TMT 3.21 2.72 0.77 0.64 ANOVA 64 8 Assumptions:
Mayer & Gavin (1999) ability PM v TMT 3.45 2.94 0.82 0.62 ANOVA 72 9 power = 0.95
Mayer & Gavin (1999) benevolence PM v TMT 3.14 2.59 0.93 0.59 ANOVA 72 9 p = 0.05
Mayer & Gavin (1999) integrity PM v TMT 3.23 2.79 0.85 0.52 ANOVA 96 12 Groups= 8
Gill et al., 2005 high trust v total trust 6.33 4.73 1.68 0.95 ANOVA 40 5
Gill et al., 2005 total trust v low trust 4.73 2.79 1.68 1.15 ANOVA 32 4
Levels of the Study
Variable
Mean
(m
1)
Mean
(m
2)
Standard
Deviation
(sd)
Effect Size
(d=(m
1
-m
2
)/sd)
Sample Size Estimates ex G*Power
Assumptions:
Power = .95
alpha = .05
Number of Groups
= 27
Assumptions:
Power = .95
alpha = .05
Number of Groups
= 8
Analytical
Test

58
Subsequent to the Pilot Stage, the research design proposed to enhance the analysis
method in Stage 3 by adding Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis. This
required a review of the sample size requirements. A sample size for SEM is not
determined using G*Power, the number of subjects required for SEM is a function of
the complexity of the model under test.

SEM is a large sample analysis technique (Kelloway, 1998, p.20) and the adequacy
of the sample size can affect the parameter estimate significance (Joresborg, 1997).
The success of a study could be jeopardised if subject data is collected and the
Critical N (CN) results from the SEM analysis results identifies that the sample size
is insufficient to yield an adequate model fit (Hoelter, 1983). With studies like this
that employ models of a moderate complexity, a sample size minimum of 200 is
recommended (Kelloway, 1998, p. 20). Additionally, sample size can also be
considered adequate if it satisfies recommended guidelines for the sample size to the
estimated parameters ratio of at least 5:1 to 10:1 (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Using this
guideline and dummy data, the preliminary test of a moderate complexity SEM
model of Intention to Trust with ten variables and 20 parameters computed a (Critical
N) sample size requirement of 98 subjects. However, the above ratios of 5:1 and 10:1
indicate a need for 100 to 200 subjects. Consistent with the sample size used in
similar trust-related studies (Mayer & Gavin, 2005), a conservative decision was
made to seek 200 subjects for Stage 3 of this study. The next section identifies why
both the subject and the group are the units of analysis for this study.

5.1.6 The Unit of Analysis
The analysis techniques used in studies based on the (Mayer et al., 1995) trust theory
have evolved from the earlier research that applied ANOVA and similar relationship-
based analysis techniques that used the group as the unit of analysis (Mayer & Davis,
1999; Schoorman et al., 1996a; Tan & Tan, 2000). More recent studies (Costa et al.,
2001; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Serva et al., 2005) sought stronger relationship
evidence by applying the analysis techniques facilitated by Structured Equation
Modelling (SEM) software such as LISREL (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). Both
ANOVA and SEM analysis are to be employed in this study; SEM is a statistical
methodology that takes a confirmatory (hypothesis-testing) approach to the

59
multivariate analysis of a structural theory bearing on some phenomena (Byrne,
1998, p. 3). For SEM, the unit of analysis is the subject because the raw data from
the individual subject generates the observed covariance matrix that forms the basis
for model comparison.

While the unit of analysis for SEM analysis techniques is the subject, the unit of
analysis for the ANOVA analysis will be the groups that emerge from the (3 x 2)
factorial design that dimensionally depicts groups with combinations of High or Low
Information Levels of the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity
(Figure 11). The four corners, dimensional, distribution of variable-responses from
the factorial design used in this study should also help to satisfy the multivariate
normality requirement of SEM (Byrne, 1998; Rigdon, 2006). This is important
because multivariate normality is essential to maximizing SEMs power to detect
both main and interaction effects (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The next
section discusses the measures and addresses issues with scale development.

Figure 11: Initial 3x2 factorial design depicting Information Levels of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity

Information
Level
Low
High
Information
Level
Low
High

60
5.2 Issues in Scale Development
Suitable measurement instruments are required to generate the variable data required
for SEM analysis (Byrne, 1998, pp. 135-137). In the context of this study,
measurement instruments need to facilitate accurate observation and recording of
how the antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity relate to the development
of our Intention to Trust a newly forming work-team. In order to minimise construct
validity errors, valid and reliable measures are needed to ensure a scientific approach
to the experiment. Researchers should use instruments that fit the theoretical
framework of the experiment to be conducted (Christensen, 2004). Previous studies
have utilized a range of different scales to measure trust. Julian Rotter (1967)
developed a much-used 25 item Likert-type scale (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 205)
measuring interpersonal trust, which he theoretically defined as a generalized
expectancy that the verbal statements of others can be relied upon. As discussed in
the review of literature, Mayer integrative model of organisational trust is an
evolution of Rotters (1967) trust theory. The following is an example from the
original Rotter (1967) interpersonal trust scale:

Q1: In dealing with strangers one is better off to be cautious until
they have provided evidence that they are trustworthy.

When researchers applied the Rotter (1967) interpersonal trust scales issues of
reliability began to emerge (Fitzgerald, Pasewark, & Noah, 1970; Pasewark,
Fitzgerald, Sawyer, & Fossey, 1973). There were calls for further research to develop
testing instruments that provided better predictions than Rotter's (1967)
interpersonal trust scale (Wright & Tedeschi, 1975, p. 476). Low Cronbach Alpha
values for the Rotter (1967) measures were considered reflective of inter-item
consistency issues (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 211); did all the questionnaire items in the
scale focus on measuring just trust or were they measuring something else?

61
The Schoorman et al. (1996a) study simplified the 25-item Rotter (1967) scale to
develop Propensity to Trust and the Intention to Trust scales that have been applied
to much of the research based on the Mayer et al. (1995) theory of integrative trust.
A Cronbach Alpha of .8 or above strongly indicated that the instruments employed in
the earlier studies were consistent measures (Sekaran, 2003, p. 327). While the trust
scales customised for the Schoorman et al. (1996a) study setting resulted in
acceptable to good Cronbach Alpha results, more recent studies that employed the
scales are again exhibiting issues with internal consistency (Table 3).

Table 3: Examples of the low Cronbach Alpha results for the trust scales from recent studies

Study
Propensity to
Trust
Intention to
Trust
(Schoorman et al.,
1996a)
.71 .82
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) .55 .59
(Kiffin-Petersen &
Cordery, 2003)
- .63
(Gill et al., 2005) .64 .70
(Serva et al., 2005) - .56
Cronbach Alpha measure of inter-item consistency reliability:
> .8 = good; > .7 = acceptable; < .7 = low.

There was concern that idiosyncratic items in the scales were inducing random
measurement error and thereby reducing the likelihood of detecting relationships
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, pp. 211-230). In seeking to resolve this issue, Serva et
al. (2005) cited Nunnally (1978) in recommending the lowering of reliability
standards to .60 for exploratory measures. The Ability, Benevolence, Integrity and
Intention to Trust scales proposed for in this research could hardly be considered
exploratory; over the past ten years they have been designed into numerous studies
based on the Mayer et al. (1995) integrative theory of organisational trust. Other
studies like those of Gillespie (2003), that use scales customised to the study setting,
appear not to exhibit issues with trust measurement; All scales had acceptable
reliability, ranging from .83 to .95 (Cronbach Alpha) (Gillespie, 2003, p. 15). The
issue would appear to be scale-related, not the accepted standards for alpha
measurement of reliability. As a contribution to method, this three-stage study
pursues a scale development process that has the potential to result in much
improved trust scale reliability.

62

While the scales can affect internal reliability, measurement issues can also emerge
from the number of items used to tap each factor. Multi-item measures, like stimuli
emerging from the questions used in an experiment, can detrimentally affect the
reliability of the measurement instrument and can reduce detected effects leading to
measurement error that can obscure or attenuate the lawfulness of nature
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p.240). Additionally, a large number of questions in a
questionnaire can fatigue the respondents leading to inaccuracy and incompletion
(Cavana et al., 2001, pp. 225-246). While the Confirmatory Factor Analysis used as
part of the SEM analysis allows exclusion of variables that do not sufficiently
explain a factor, to minimise questionnaire-induced fatigue it was decided that the
number of questions in each measurement instrument would be capped at twelve
items. In support of this decision, item selection examples from (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994, pp. 306-308) identify that, on average, increasing the number of
items above ten to twenty has minimal effect on improving scale reliability.

Reliability is critical to the internal validity of an experimental study (Winer, 1999)
and context is important when measuring trust (Child & Mollering, 2003). Rotter
(1967, p.37) reminds us that the psychological situation is extremely important
determinant of behaviour and depends not only on personal characteristics but also
on situational considerations that emerge from the context of a study. This is
particularly the case in trust studies like this that are based on theory that involves
trustor expectations; expectations that change depending upon the context in which
the trustor finds herself (Rotter, 1967, pp. 38-41). With respect to the Mayer-based
studies noted in Table 3; they were conducted in different contextual situations. In
the context of trust and empowerment in a veterinary clinic, the initial Schoorman et
al. (1996a) study exhibited good trust scale reliability. Using the same scales, the
Mayer & Davis (1999) study involved a field quasi-experiment measuring employee
trust in management. Similarly, the Gill et al. (2005) study used the same scales and
involved university students. Both exhibited less than acceptable trust scale
reliability (Table 3).

63
To enhance scale reliability Tan & Tan (2000) measured trust in supervisor with a
scale developed by Gabarro & Athos (1976) and modified the scale to fit the context
by replacing the word employer with supervisor; the resulting Cronbach Alpha was
good; .93. Gillespie (2003) conducted two pilot studies to develop a reliable scale
that successfully measured trust in the context of a research facility; the scales were
customised to suit the context of the study. A decision was made to follow the
example of Tan & Tan (2000) and Gillespie (2003) and customise the scales to suit
the context of this study.

To begin, the scale customisation process sought to optimise the face validity of the
trust scales by phrasing the questionnaire items so they were easier for the subjects to
understand (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 214). The methodology in Study Stage 1 calls for
structured interviews with convenience-sampled subjects drawn from the Business
Faculty Undergraduate Student population of a metropolitan Australian university.
The transcripts from those interviews will be used to customise the questionnaire
items so that the subjects better identify with their content. The subsequent Pilot
Stage will pre-test the customised questionnaire items on a representative sample
from the population. The Final Stage will apply the updated scales to measure the
independent (IV) and dependent (DV) variables in the theorised study model. The
data collection plan is next considered.

64
5.3 The Data Collection Plan
In preparation for refining the scales, the data collection plan calls for three stages of
data collection. It is normal for student workgroup formation to be initiated in
university lectures or tutorials. Because this scenario exactly fits the context for this
study, the Stage 1 data will be collected at the beginning of scheduled lectures or
tutorials. The study plan calls for the structured interviews to be conducted as the
students waited for their lecture to begin. This approach offers a convenient data
collection method that is ideal for quick response by student subjects. Additionally,
the succinct, easy to answer, structured questionnaires are expected to help maximise
subject participation. In an experiment, a questionnaire provides a low cost, promptly
answerable, test instrument that can be used to easily assess subjects attitudes.

In an experiment, threats to construct validity can come from the conduct of the
experimenter whilst conducting the experiment; this is known as the experimenter
attribute. Experimenter attribute refers to the physical or psychological
characteristics of the experimenter that may affect the independent variables due to
an unexpected change in behaviour of the subjects (Christensen, 2004). To minimise
these effects, the researcher should remain isolated from the subjects. Because
disruption of the subjects normal behaviour and activities needs to be avoided, the
subjects will be to free to take, or not take, a questionnaire as they enter their
scheduled lecture or tutorial. Subjects will be given sufficient time to compete the
questionnaire in normal lecture time, prior to the lecture commencement. Instructions
on how to complete the questionnaires will be communicated using a single
PowerPoint (Microsoft, 2006) slide projected onto the lecture theatre screen. To
maintain anonymity, the subjects will place the completed questionnaires under their
seats; the questionnaires will be collected after all subjects have exited the room. The
data collection plan calls for the researcher to maintain a remote, arms length
relationship, isolated from the subjects throughout the study.

65
5.4 Analytic Strategy
To review, this study incorporates three stages (Figure 12).

Figure 12: The Study Stages

The analysis method varies in each study stage. To develop measurement scales and
the vignettes, Stage 1 will involve thematic analysis of the transcripts from structured
interviews. To test and refine the vignettes and scales, the Stage 2 data is to be
analysed using the correlation and ANOVA-based techniques employed in earlier
studies based on the (Mayer et al., 1995) integrative model of organisational trust.
The results of Stage 2 analysis will be used to update the vignettes and scales. In
seeking to explain the direct and indirect effects of the antecedents on the
development of trust, Stage 3 data will be analysed using descriptive statistics,
ANOVA and SEM analysis techniques.

Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis

66
5.5 Chapter Five Summary
Chapter Five has explained and justified the research design for this three stage
experimental study. The Vignette Development, Stage 1, will thematically analyse
the transcripts from structured interviews to identify the vignette and questionnaire
wording to be applied in the subsequent study stages. The Pilot Stage 2 will pre-test
the vignettes and questionnaires and refine them for the Final Data Collection Stage
3. The research design choices for study setting, the type of measures, the unit of
analysis, the time horizon, and, the research paradigm were defined and justified. In
the study context of newly forming work-teams, the appropriateness of a population
of Business Faculty Undergraduate Students from a metropolitan Australian
university was justified. The sampling design was justified in terms of the
randomised application of eight different vignette manipulations and the sample size
requirements were supported by calculations that considered the effect size evident in
similar trust-related studies and the planned ANOVA and SEM analysis techniques.
Finally, the data collection process was explained. The application of this research
design is next detailed for each Study Stage.

67

Chapter Six
6.1 Methodological employment of the Research Design - the Three
Study Stages
6.1.1 Analysis and Results for Study Stage1: Vignette Development
Stage 1 sought to develop the vignettes that would be used to manipulate the levels
of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity as well as to customize the questionnaire items
to the study context (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Study Stage 1

The vignette development process involved the thematic analysis of structured
interviews. The thematic analysis of each structured interview did not seek to extend
or inform the current theoretical foundations for trust. The progressive thematic
analysis of each interview sought to classify the subjects statements in terms of the
antecedents of trust; Ability, Benevolence and Integrity. The structured interviews
continued until no new themes emerged from the thematic analysis; this resulted in
twenty interviews. The specific goal of the thematic analysis was to identify
interviewee statements that could be included in the vignette text; because vignettes
written in familiar speech are easier to understand (Elsbach & Elofson, 2000, p.
81). The use of familiar language positively influences a reader's comprehension
(Carpenter, Miyake, & Just, 1995) of vignettes.
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis

68
To maximise the external validity of the vignettes (Gliner et al., 1999), the thematic
analysis sought to identify and formulate vignette content that satisfied the
informational and rationale requirements (Shapiro, Buttner, & Barry, 1994) that a
potential team member would normally use to fairly decide (Bies, Shapiro, &
Cummings, 1988) if they would join a newly forming work-team. Therefore, to make
the vignettes more believable, the subjects statements were incorporated into the
vignettes used to manipulate the dimensions of the antecedents of Intention to Trust.

To begin vignette development, Undergraduate Student subjects from the Business
Faculty population of a metropolitan Australian university were convenience
sampled as they entered the main entrance of the Business Faculty building. The
nature of the study was not revealed to the subjects, the structured interview
technique sought to avoid projecting the purpose of the study and the attitude of the
researcher onto the subject. Consistent with the goal for Stage 1 of the study,
capturing the subject's attitudes towards group work was the stated goal of the
interview. Without reward, the anonymous subjects voluntarily agreed to participate,
or not participate, in the individual structured interview that initially confirmed they
were undergraduate students from the Business Faculty. Those who satisfied the
undergraduate student criterion and confirmed their previous experience with
working in teams on group assignments were considered suitable for Stage 1 of this
study. Those persons who did not meet the criterion were thanked and advised that
they did not satisfy the parameters of the study population of Undergraduate Student
from the Business Faculty of a metropolitan Australian university.

Having confirmed they were part of the target population, the subjects were cued by
asking them to caste your mind back to your group assignment experiences where
all members of the group received the same grade. This statement sought to
cognitively position the subjects ready to respond to the following three questions:

1. Do you consider there are risks associated with working on group
assignments?

This closed question (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 142) sought to confirm that the subject
perceived there was, or was not, risk associated with group work. Risk is a

69
theoretical foundation for trust, without risk in an interrelationship there is no need to
trust (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975). Subjects who did not confirm there were
risks associated with group work would not need to extend trust to another and
therefore were considered unsuitable for this trust-measuring study. Interestingly, all
those who agreed to participate in a structured interview perceived risks with group
work; all subjects stated there was more to lose than gain. It would appear that
students might not like group assignments; perhaps this is a future research
opportunity.

Those subjects who perceived risks with group work were then asked the open-ended
question:

2. What were they?

The subjects were neither prompted nor interrupted; a remote position was
maintained with respect to the subjects. In seeking to avoid invoking researcher bias,
the interviewees exact comments were recorded. The final question sought to
confirm a second theoretical foundation for Intention to Trust, expectation (Deutsch,
1960):

3. What do you expect from other team members when working on a
group assignment?

Responses were recorded in exactly the same manner as question two. The subjects
were asked if they had any other comments, these were recorded. Finally, the
subjects were thanked for their participation. On average, each structured interview
was completed in ten minutes.

With just three factors to consider, the interviewee statements were analysed and
sorted using a Microsoft Excel database (Microsoft, 2007). Excels database, sorting
and other data manipulation routines were more than adequate for this qualitative
analysis task. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts synonymously identified
the words and phrases associated with each of the trust antecedents from the

70
theoretical foundation for this study; Mayer et al.'s (1995) integrative model of
organisational trust (Table 4).
Table 4: Theoretical basis for the thematic analysis of the structured interview transcripts

Trust
Antecedent:
High High High
High High Low
High Low High
High Low Low
Low High High
Low High Low
Low Low High
Low Low Low
competent incompetent do good not do good high principled low principled
skilled unskilled helpful not helpful
acceptable
standards
non-acceptable
standards
knowledgeable un-knowledgeable altruistic selfish high integrity low integrity
expert less expert good behaviour bad behaviour similar values dissimilar values
good judgement bad judgement good intentions bad intentions similar beliefs dissimilar beliefs
dependent independent openness closed
group goals self goals fair unfair
caring uncaring congruent non-congruent
reliable unreliable moral immoral
doesn't lie lies
consistent inconsistent
Benevolence Integrity Ability
Synonyms:
Based on the
Integrative Model of
Organisational Trust
(Mayer et al., 1995)
High Low
Synonym
Dimensionality:
Low
High Low High Low
Information
Level:
High Low High High Low

The interviewee statements were categorised as pertaining to Ability, Benevolence or
Integrity based on the largest number of words in the statement that concurred with
the synonyms for each factor. For example, a statement such as sometimes the other
students dont tell the truth, they dont do what they say they will do was themed as
an Integrity-related statement. Statements like they dont consider my opinion and
they dont care about what is important to me were themed as a negative comment
relating to Benevolence. Other statements such as they may not have the necessary
knowledge and the group may have lower grade expectations than me were
themed as Ability-related. The largest number of comments, 75, related to the
Integrity sub-themes (Table 5); many subjects appeared to be concerned that other
students did not share their values and standards. Benevolence sub-themes came
second, 51; many students had emerged dissatisfied from previous group assessment
encounters. Surprisingly, the trust antecedent that attracted the fewest number of
comments, 9, was Ability. If the volume of the comments is any guideline to the
salience of the trust antecedents, Integrity may be more important than Benevolence
and Ability could be viewed as least relevant.

71
Table 5: Summary of results for the thematic analysis of the structured interview transcripts

Antecedent of Trust
Ability Benevolence
Integrity
Number of Comments
(+ positive; - negative)
Ability
Sub-themes
Benevolence
Sub-themes
Integrity
Sub-themes
+ - + - + -
Competency 5 4 Cooperative 3 4 Reliability 7 4

Group
participation
3 1
Delivering
work to the
standard
promised
3 5

Rapport between
team members 3 4
Delivering
work when it
was promised
2 9

Sharing in
decisions
3 5
Commitment
8 3

Communication
9 6
Share the
workload
13 13

Recognition
1
Accepting
responsibility
for outcomes
2 3

Contribution
involvement
3
Honesty
1 2

Treatment of
fellow team
members
6

Subtotals: 5 4 31 20 36 39
Totals: 9 51 75

At this stage of the study, this researchers interpretation of the interviewee
transcripts varies considerably from the study hypotheses and the results that
emerged from the Final Stage data analysis. However, this is understandable because
the interviewees had not been exposed to the experimental manipulation; one would
expect their responses to the structured interview questions to be reflective of their
past group assignment experiences. Interim research observations aside, selected
comments from the structured interviews were included in the wording of the
vignettes and the questionnaire items for the Intention to Trust, Ability, Benevolence,
Integrity and Propensity to Trust scales.

72
6.1.1.1 The Propensity to Trust Scale
The Propensity to Trust (PTP) scale, used in Stage 2 of this study, was founded upon
modified items from Gillespie (2003), Schoorman et al. (1996a), Mayer & Davis
(1999) and Rotter (1967). Based on the thematic analysis of the structured
interviews, it was determined that certain items from the original scale were not
applicable to the study setting. For example, most salespeople are honest in
describing their products (Mayer & Davis, 1999, p. 136) is clearly out of context for
a university study setting. In replacement, more applicable items were incorporated.
For example, issues with reliance on the work of other students were consistently
raised during the structured interviews. Therefore, the following item was included
from the Gillespie (2003, p.32) scale; I would rely on task-related judgements made by
others. Table 6 lists the twelve Propensity to Trust (PTP) items.

Table 6: The five-point Likert-scaled Propensity to Trust items used in the Pilot Stage of the
study

The following questions ask about your general trust in
others:

Disagree
Strongly
Disagree Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Agree
Strongly
1. In dealing with strangers, it is better to be
cautious until they have provided evidence that
they are trustworthy ..............................................................

2. Most people keep their promises ................................
3. Most people answer questions honestly................................
4. Most people say what they believe themselves
and not what they think you want to hear ...............................

5. Most people tell the truth about the limits of their
knowledge ................................................................

6. Most people cannot be counted on to do what
they say they will do...............................................................

7. These days, you must be alert or someone is
likely to take advantage of you................................

8. I normally rely on the task-related skills and
abilities of others................................................................

9. I would not follow the advice of others on
important issues................................................................

10. I confidently allow other people to make
decisions for me during an absence................................

11. I would rely on task-related judgements made by
others ....................................................................................

12. I usually monitor others when they have to do
something for me................................................................

73
Reviewing Table 6, items 1 and 2 were derived directly from the Rotter (1967) scale.
Items 3 to 7 came from the original PTP scale of Schoorman et al. (1996a) and were
modified for study context. Items 8 to 11 are from the Gillespie (2003) study and
addressed trust-affecting issues raised by subjects during the structured interviews;
namely the risk of having to rely on the advice and judgement of others to make
decisions. Item 12 was added because the need to monitor the work of fellow group
members emerged as a strong theme during the structured interviews. Item 12 was
also included because the Mayer et al. (1995) definition of trust identifies monitoring
behaviours as a reflection of a lower Propensity to Trust. The notion of monitoring is
also included in Mayer et al. (1995) Intention to Trust scale.

74
6.1.1.2 The Intention to Trust Scale
The Intention to Trust (ITT) scale was constructed upon the foundation of items from
the initial Mayer et al. (1995) theory-based studies (Schoorman et al., 1996a; Mayer
& Davis, 1999). The ten ITT items were modified to reflect the study setting (Table
7). Currall & Inkpen (2002) recommend that context and the level of theorizing
needs to be considered for proper trust measurement. In line with that
recommendation, the questionnaire items used in this study were adjusted to reflect
the contextual issues that emerged from the thematic analysis of the structured
interviews with the student subjects during the Vignette Development Stage of this
study. For example, to mimic a theme that arose during the structured interviews,
item 38 was modified by removing the words top management and replacing them
with this group.

If I had my way I wouldnt let top management have any
influence over issues that were important to me (Mayer & Davis, 1999)

was modified to:

38. If I had my way I wouldnt let this group have any
influence over issues that were important to me

Interviewees in Stage 1 were not concerned about university management; they were
concerned that the behaviour of fellow group members would detrimentally affect
the grade they expected to receive for their group work. Other trust-related issues
raised by the subjects during the structured interviews were incorporated into the ITT
questionnaire items. These issues included: students proving they could do the work;
whether or not the other group members could be counted on to complete the work;
whether the students would be honest about their knowledge; whether social loafers
would leave the other group members to do all the work; whether the skills, abilities
and efforts of the other group members would result in work of an acceptable
standard, and; whether members would take notice of the opinions of fellow group
members or force decisions on them.

75
To make the questions understandable and more relevant to the student subjects, the
face validity of the questionnaire items 42 through 47 were improved (Cavana et al.,
2001, p214) by using the words and phrases spoken by the subjects when describing
issues raised during the structured interviews. Table 7 lists the ten Intention to Trust
questionnaire items employed in the Pilot and Final stages of the study.

Table 7: The five-point Likert-scaled Intention to Trust items used in the Pilot and Final stages
of this study

Think about the information presented in the
email and answer the following questions
about how you perceive this group:

Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Agree
Strongly
38. If I had my way I wouldnt let this group have any
influence over issues that were important to me
..............................................................................................

39. I would be willing to let this group have complete
control over an assignment that was critical to me.................

40. If I joined this group, I feel I need to keep an eye
on what other group members do
..............................................................................................

41. I would be comfortable giving this group a task or
problem which was critical to me, even if I could
not monitor the groups actions................................

42. In dealing with this group, it would better to be
cautious until they have provided proof that they
are trustworthy ................................................................

43. I feel this group could be counted on to do what
they say they will do
..............................................................................................

44. This group should be honest about their
knowledge
..............................................................................................

45. I will be cautious or this group could take
advantage of me
.............................................................................................

46. I feel I could rely on the skills and abilities of this
group
..............................................................................................

47. I would allow this group to make decisions for me

..............................................................................................

76
6.1.1.3 Ability, Benevolence and Integrity Scales
With the composition of the DV scales for Propensity to Trust and Intention to Trust
complete, a decision had to be made concerning the IV scales for the trust
antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity. Previous studies based on the
Mayer et al. (1995) trust theory have used the IV scales developed for the initial
Schoorman et al. (1996a) study; they have consistently exhibited good scale
reliability (Table 8).
Table 8: Examples of the good Cronbach Alpha results for the Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity scales used in recent studies

Study
Ability Benevolence Integrity
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) .85 .87 .82
(Serva et al., 2005) .96 .84 .85
(Gill et al., 2005) .96 .95 .94
(Mayer & Gavin, 2005) .91 .92 .89
Cronbach Alpha measure of inter-item consistency reliability: >
.8 = good; > .7 = acceptable; < .7 = low.

Because of their good reliability, the same scales were used in this study. Tables 9,
10, and 11 itemise the Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity questions employed in
both Stages 2 and Stage 3 of this study. Like the PTP and ITT scales, they were
modified to reflect the study setting. For example, the subject in items 48 to 53 was
changed from manager to group.

Table 9: The five-point Likert-scaled Ability items used in the Pilot and Final stage of this study

Continue to think about the information
presented in the email and answer the
following questions about how you perceive
this group:

Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Agree
Strongly
48. The group is very capable of performing its job
.............................................................................................

49. The group appears to be successful at the things
it tries to do................................................................

50. The group has much knowledge about the work
that needs to be done ............................................................

51. I feel very confident about the groups skills
..............................................................................................

52. The group has specialized capabilities that could
increase my performance.......................................................

53. The group is well qualified
..............................................................................................

77
Table 10: The five-point Likert-scaled Benevolence items used in the Pilot and Final stages of
this study

Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Agree
Strongly
54. The group will be very concerned about my
welfare...................................................................................

55. My needs and desires will be very important to
the group ................................................................

56. The group would not knowingly do anything to
hurt me ..................................................................................

57. The group will really look out for what is
important to me................................................................

58. The group will go out of its way to help me
..............................................................................................

Table 11: The five-point Likert-scaled Integrity items used in the Pilot and Final stages of this
study

Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree Agree
Strongly
59. The group has a strong sense of justice
..............................................................................................

60. I will never have to wonder whether the group will
stick to its word ................................................................

61. The group tries to be fair in dealings with others
..............................................................................................

62. The group's actions and behaviours are not very
consistent ................................................................

63. I like the groups values
..............................................................................................

64. Sound principles seem to guide the groups
behaviour................................................................

78
6.1.1.4 Vignette Development
Like the scales, the vignettes were similarly developed from the thematic analysis of
the structured interviews. The research design called for all three antecedents of trust
to be concurrently manipulated within each vignette. With the goal of optimising a
subjects comprehension, the vignettes were theoretically founded and composed to
reflect the specific words and phrases used by the subjects during the structured
interviews in Stage 1. For example, the theoretical foundation for this study (Mayer
et al., 1995) proposes that confidence in anothers Ability and their intent to act on
your behalf lies at the core of trusting another individual, group or organisation.
These issues emerged in the structured interviews conducted in Stage 1. There were
concerns that group members would deliver inferior work or that they lacked the
knowledge or would not consider the welfare or the needs and desires nor act in
the best interests of other group members. The customisation of vignette content
was expected to enhance subject understanding of vignette content; this tends to
maximise relevance to the subjects and engages their interest (Hughes & Huby,
2004, p. 40). The following is an example of how the subjects words and phrases
were incorporated into a vignette depicting High Ability and High Benevolence:

The group has good subject knowledge.

In the past, the members of this group have shown concern for the welfare of
other group members.

Your needs and desire should be important to the group.

The group members really look out for what is important to other group
members.

The following vignette is an example of the concurrent manipulation of three trust
antecedents in a vignette depicting a work-team with High Ability, High
Benevolence and Low Integrity.

79
6.1.1.5 Example Preliminary Vignette

Please read the following case and imagine that you are in the situation described.
Then answer the questions in the following questionnaire.

You are an undergraduate student enrolled in a compulsory unit for your Business
Degree. The unit assessment includes a group assignment worth forty percent. You
receive the following email from the unit coordinator:

From: unit_coordinator@uni.edu.au
Sent: Monday, 10 May 2006 9:02 AM
To: BSB311_student@ student.uni.edu.au
Subject: BSB311 Assessment item #2: The Group
Assignment

As unit coordinator, I reviewed the records for the unit and noticed that you are not
currently assigned to a group for the written assignment. Receiving a pass grade for
the assignment is a mandatory unit requirement. The Unit Outline states that
Students who do not receive a pass mark for their group assignment will fail the
unit. To receive your degree, you must pass this unit.

Therefore, to pass the unit, you must immediately join an existing group. The
assignment is due in three weeks; all members of a group receive the same mark for
the assignment. A couple of the groups have room for another student. Group #6
members volunteered the following information about their group.

The group has good subject knowledge.
The group exhibits good time management and decision-making skills.
The groups written work is good.
Based on official University records, authenticated by me, the group
members volunteered the following information concerning their grades:

Student Grades from their last three Group
Assignments

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Student
Average for
their Group
Assignments
Student
Grade
Point
Average
Student A 6 5 6 5.67 5.70
Student B 7 7 5 6.33 6.30
Student C 6 7 5 6.00 5.90
Overall Group Assignment Average: 6.00
Overall Student Grade Point Average for the Group: 5.97

The group communicates well. For example, all group members promptly
answer emails.

Group members show concern for the welfare of others. For example, group
members always arrive on time for meetings and never make hurtful
comments to other group members.

80

The members of this group are team-orientated and cooperative. For example,
they listen to the ideas of the other group members, are flexible, and openly
discuss and resolve differences of opinion. They learn from one another and
go out of their way to help fellow group members.

With this group, things should get done the way you want them to be done.

Some group members can have a questionable sense of justice. For example,
some group members may bend university rules and they may not value the
extra effort put in by other group members.

When it comes to doing the work, some group members can be unfair. For
example, when they finally agree on what has to be done, they wont share
the work equally.

Sometimes, a group member may be untruthful; they sometimes dont do
what they say.

The weaker principles of this group will let you do anything you want.

Now complete the following questionnaire. It will indicate to me if you should join
the group or whether I need to arrange for you to join another group.

Please begin the questionnaire now; it will be collected in about ten minutes.

Thank You
BSB311 Unit Coordinator
Faculty of Business

81
6.1.1.6 Reason for changing from a 3x2 to a dual 2x2 factorial design
Piloting the initial vignettes proved problematic, concurrent manipulation of the three
trust antecedents was a flawed design strategy; the vignettes suffered from face
validity issues. While the vignettes were written in familiar speech, that was easier to
understand and used oft-repeated familiar words and phrases from the structured
interviews, pre-test subjects had difficulty comprehending their meaning; they voiced
confusion. It became obvious that concurrent manipulation of all three antecedents
was illogical. The subjects doubted the validity of vignette content that depicted a
group with dimensionally opposite attributes of Integrity and Benevolence. The
following is an example of the vignette content for:
Low Integrity
Some group members can have a questionable sense of justice. For example,
some group members may bend university rules and they may not value the
extra effort put in by other group members.

When it comes to doing the work, some group members can be unfair. For
example, when they finally agree on what has to be done, they wont share
the work equally.

Weaker principles guide the behaviour of this group. Sometimes, a group
member may be untruthful; they sometimes dont do what they say.

High Benevolence
In the past, the members of this group have shown concern for the welfare of
other group members.

Your needs and desire should be important to the group.

The group has not knowingly done anything to hurt anyone in the past.

The group members really look out for what is important to other group
members.

Subjects voiced concern that the initial vignettes were not believable. This is not
unusual, because adults consistently detect lies and anomalies in vignettes (Bussey,
1992). A review of the above example revealed that; on the one hand it is easy to
imagine that group members of High or Low Ability could exhibit attributes of Low
Benevolence by, in the words of the vignettes, being untruthful and showing little
concern for fellow group members. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that a
Low Integrity group that are untruthful and unfair could exhibit High

82
Benevolence at the same time by looking out for what is important to other group
members. To satisfy the basic prerequisite for a trustworthy vignette, the vignettes
must depict a believable situation familiar to the subjects (Bussey, 1992). In response
to pre-test subject feedback, the factorial design of the study was altered to facilitate
dimensional manipulation of the independent variables without compromising the
believability of the vignettes. The a priori 3x2 factorial design, where the three trust
antecedents were concurrently manipulated, was changed to a dual 2x2 factorial
design. In the (2x2) factorial design, four different vignettes manipulated High and
Low Information Levels of Ability and Benevolence (Table 12) and the other four
vignettes manipulated High and Low Information Levels of Ability and Integrity
(Table 13).

Table 12: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of the dimensions of Ability and
Benevolence

Trust Antecedent
Ability Benevolence
High Low High Low
X X
X X
X X
X X

Table 13: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of dimensions of Ability and Integrity

Trust Antecedent
Ability Integrity
High Low High Low
X X
X X
X X
X X

83
The vignettes were rewritten to concurrently depict High or Low Ability with either a
dimension of Benevolence or a dimension of Integrity. The updated vignettes were
piloted on different pre-test subjects; none provided feedback that the new vignettes
were unbelievable or confusing. The dual 2x2 factorial design was applied in study
stages two and three.

With the design updated plus the vignettes and scales completed, the last page of the
questionnaire requested demographic information. The demographic questions
initially sought confirmation that the subject was a student from the target population
of Business Faculty undergraduate students. To ensure that the same subject did not
submit multiple questionnaires, personal information was requested; gender, age,
birth month and year, and mothers maiden name. The students were advised they
would remain anonymous, no names or student numbers were collected. The subjects
were provided with sufficient questionnaire space to voluntarily provide feedback
and comment. The resulting Stage 2 questionnaire incorporated the Propensity to
Trust items prior to the vignette manipulation and the Intention to Trust, Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity items post the vignette. The demographic items were
included at the end of the questionnaire. To provide data for future research, items
addressing the following variables were included prior to the vignette manipulation:

Preference for Teamwork (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001)
Individualism (Maznevski & DiStefano, 1995 in Kiffin-Petersen &
Cordery 2003)
Self-assessed Ability (developed for this study and based upon
Schoorman et al. (1996a)
Self-assessed Benevolence (developed for this study and based upon
Schoorman et al. (1996a)
Self-assessed Integrity (developed for this study and based upon
(Schoorman et al., 1996a)
Locus of Control from Carlopio, Andrewartha, Armstrong, & Whetten
(2001, p. 99) based on Rotters (1967) internal-external Locus of Control
Scale

84
6.1.1.7 Summary of Stage 1 Results
The thematic analysis of the transcripts from the structured interviews identified
words and phrases synonymous with the theoretical foundation for this study.
Once categorised, interviewee comments were applied to develop the vignettes
that would manipulate the levels of the independent variables, Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity. Similarly, the questionnaire items for the IVs and the
DVs were refined to reflect the context of the study. In pre-testing the
questionnaires, the concurrent manipulation of all three IVs appeared
unbelievable to the respondents. In response, the planned 3 x 2 factorial study
design was re-engineered to a two 2x2 factorial design. Ability and Benevolence
were manipulated together and Ability and Integrity were concurrently
manipulated with separate vignettes. Finally, demographic items were added to
the questionnaire to be used for data collection in Stage 2.

85
6.1.2 Analysis and Results of Study Stage 2: Pilot of the Test Instruments
The goal of Stage 2 was to strengthen internal validity and make the vignettes
realistic, by piloting and refining them (Hughes & Huby, 2004) prior to their final
application in stage three of this study. One hundred and eighty seven Undergraduate
Student subjects from the Business Faculty population of a metropolitan Australian
university were sampled to test the vignette manipulations and questionnaire items
developed in Stage 1 (Figure 14).


The 100 female and 87 male respondents, not involved in Study Stage 1, satisfied the
experimental requirement for previous experience with group-based assessment
where all team members received the same grade from their group work. The
respondents individually completed the questionnaire prior to their scheduled lecture
or tutorial. The subjects self-selected by choosing to accept or reject a questionnaire
as they entered their classroom. The subjects were offered neither recognition nor
reward for completing a questionnaire. Randomisation occurred via the random
nature of the subjects arrival at their class and their equal chance of receiving one of
the randomly sorted questionnaires that contained one of the eight different vignette
manipulations.

Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis

86
The subjects were directed to complete the questionnaire in a consistent manner; a
single overhead projection slide was used to convey completion instructions. This
process sought to normalise the process that all subjects would go through in
completing the questionnaire. The instructions directed the participants to respond
from the beginning of the questionnaire and proceed page by page to the
demographic items on the last page of the questionnaire. To maintain respondent
anonymity, the subjects placed the completed questionnaire under their lecture
theatre or tutorial room seat; the questionnaires were collected after the subjects had
exited the room.

6.1.2.1 The Data were Prepared for Analysis
Each questionnaire was assigned a sample identification code and the data were
entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in preparation for upload and analysis
using SPSS for Windows version 13 (SPSS, 2004). To ready the data for analysis,
the missing values were pre-processed using the maximum likelihood with EM
Missing Variable Analysis function in SPSS (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 62-
72). The rationale behind the choice of method for the replacement of missing
questionnaire data is discussed in more detail in the Final Stage results section of this
thesis. Subsequent to missing data replacement, the negatively worded items in the
Propensity to Trust, Integrity and Intention to Trust scales were recoded and data
analysed using SPSS for Windows version 13 to produce (Table 14) descriptive and
bivariate correlation statistics (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 56-58).

87
Table 14: Descriptive statistics and correlations from Study Stage 2, N = 187

Mean
Standard
Deviation
Propensity
to
Trust
Intention
to
Trust Ability Benevolence Integrity
Propensity
to Trust
34.36 4.64 1
Intention to
Trust
28.70 5.10 .272 ** 1

Ability
20.11 3.83 .168 ** .538 ** 1

Benevolence
14.56 3.19 .206 ** .465 ** .329 ** 1

Integrity
18.49 3.75 .136 ** .593 ** .459 ** .687 ** 1

Level of significance: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

In support of hypotheses H
1,
Ability (r = .538, p = .01), Benevolence (r =.465, p =
.01) and Integrity (r = .593, p =.01) were found to have a positive relationship with
Intention to Trust (Table 14). Overall, these results were consistent with previous
studies (Table 15); there was a positive relationship between the trust antecedents,
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity, and Intention to Trust.

similar measurement scales based on the Mayer et al. (1995) theoretical foundation

Correlation
of
Intention to Trust
with

Ability

Benevolence Integrity
Stage 2 Results from this Study .538 * .465 ** .593 **

Previous Studies
(Davis et al., 2000) .561 *** .595 *** .655 ***
(Davis, 1999) .796 ** .818 ** .759 **
(Gill et al., 2005) .60 ** .71 ** .68 **
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) .61 ** .60 ** .58 **
(Mayer & Gavin, 2005) .74 ** .72 ** .76 **
(Tan & Tan, 2000) .75 ** .83 ** .85 **


88
However, the significance of the Ability relationship with Intention to Trust was
lower than previous studies. A lower than expected level of significance prompted a
check of the effect of the vignette manipulation and a review of subject comments. A
review of questionnaire feedback comments identified that some subjects perceived
little or no significant difference between the High Ability and Low Ability
information in the vignettes (Tables 16 and 17).

Table 16: Ability information provided in the Pilot Study Low Ability vignette

Assignments

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Student
Average for
their Group
Assignments
Student
Grade
Point
Average
Student A 4 4 4 4.00 4.30
Student B 4 4 5 4.33 4.42
Student C 5 4 5 4.67 4.57

Table 17: Ability information provided in the Pilot Study High Ability vignette

Assignments

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Student
Average for
their Group
Assignments
Student
Grade
Point
Average
Student A 6 5 6 5.67 5.70
Student B 7 7 5 6.33 6.30
Student C 6 7 5 6.00 5.90

In response to this qualitative information that appeared to identify that subjects
similarly perceived the Low and High Ability vignette information, the vignettes
were referred for expert review. The expert, who had extensive experience in
lecturing and teaching students from the target population, suggested that the
students would view the low grades depicted in the Low Ability vignettes as
acceptable grades. This may occur because the university allows students to graduate
with a small number of failing grades; a conceded pass of 3 (Table 18); the
phenomenon that students may accept substandard marks as a passing grade is
worthy of further pedagogical research.

89

Table 18: Grading scale for the university population

Grade
Example Grade
Percentages
1 Fail 0 to 14%
2 Fail 15 to 29%
3 Conceded Pass 30 to 49%
4 Pass 50 to 64%
5 Credit 65 to 74%
6 Distinction 75 to 84%
7 High Distinction 85 to 100%

In response to the advice of the vignette expert, the Information Level in the Low
Ability vignettes was changed to include more failing grades (Table 19).

Table 19: Updated Low Ability vignette content reflecting failing grades

Assignments

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Student Average
for their Group
Assignments
Student
Grade
Point
Average
Student A 3 4 3 3.33 3.8
Student B 4 4 4 4.00 4.0
Student C 4 4 4 4.00 4.0

In addition to the failing grade issue, some Pilot Stage subjects commented that the
one and a half page vignettes were too long. Some subjects mentioned that, by the
time they had progressed to the questionnaire items, they were experiencing
difficulty recalling the vignette information about the group. This is unacceptable
because subjects optimally respond to succinct vignettes (Murphy et al., 1986).
Additionally, the vignette expert considered that some of the vignette information
was verbose and inexplicit; as a result, the vignettes may not have had the desired
effect. In response, the length of each piece of vignette information was shortened,
large words that were more difficult to remember (Tehan & Tolan, 2007), and
information identified as confusing was omitted from the revised vignettes.

90
From the testing process perspective, there was a concern that the single Pilot Stage
questionnaire that consecutively measured PTT then ITT was potentially invoking
pre-testing effects that could compromise the internal validity of the study (Cavana et
al., 2001 , p. 295). In correction, the final data collection in Stage 3 was split into two
phases. Phase 1 collected Propensity to Trust and the data for future studies; Locus of
Control, Individualism, Preference for Teamwork, and, Self-assessed Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity. Phase 2 was a much shorter questionnaire incorporating
the vignette manipulation, the Intention to Trust items, then the items for Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity. The same demographics were collected in both phases.

6.1.2.2 Summary of Stage 2 Results
The goal of Stage 2 was to strengthen the internal validity of this vignette
experiment. The experimental process was piloted on 187 subjects. Results from
descriptive statistics were reflective of similar trust-related studies. However, lower
than expected mean differences between the High and Low levels of Ability, together
with comments from the subjects, flagged a possible issue with the vignette
manipulations. Subjects were experiencing difficulty perceiving difference between
the vignettes depicting High Ability from those depicting Low Ability. An expert
review identified that student subjects may have perceived the minimal passing grade
depicted in the Low Ability vignettes as High Ability. Additionally, subjects
commented that the vignettes and the questionnaire were verbose. In response, the
vignettes and questionnaire lengths were reduced and the grade projected in the Low
Ability vignettes was lowered to a failing grade. The refined questionnaires were
then applied in Study Stage 3.

91
6.1.3 Analysis and Results of Study Stage 3: the Final Data Collection
The questionnaires developed from Stage 2 were used in Stage 3 (Figure 15). Two
hundred and twenty four Undergraduate Student subjects from the same Business
Faculty population of the metropolitan Australian university participated in Stage 3;
a comparison of the demographic information was used to ensure that no subjects
had participated in the previous two stages of the study.


The one hundred and twenty six female and ninety-eight male respondents satisfied
the experimental requirement for previous experience with group-based assessment
where all team members received the same grade from their group work. The method
for administering the questionnaires was identical to Stage 2. However, to avoid pre-
testing effects that can threaten the internal validity of a study the two Stage 3
questionnaires were administered one week apart. From the demographic section of
the questionnaire, the subjects month of birth, the last two letters of their mothers
maiden name and the last letter of the subjects family name were used to
anonymously-match the two questionnaires. While this matching method was
considered an accepted method for matching data sources, it was not successful.
Sixty-five responses from the first phase and sixty responses from the second phase
could not be matched; 36% of the total Stage 3 responses. The identification and
testing of an optimal method for matching multistage data collections from
anonymous subjects offers an opportunity for future research.

Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis
Qualitative
Thematic analysis
n = 20
Vignette content
Effect size
Pilot
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 187
Refine vignette &
measures
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Manipulation
questionnaire
n = 224
Data analysis

92
Subsequent to data collection, the data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet in
preparation for analysis using SPSS for Windows version 13 (SPSS, 2004). To
satisfy the requirement for later Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis, the
data were prepared according to Tabachnick & Fidell (2007, pp. 682-684). This
process involved: 1) computing the missing data values; 2) checking the data for
outliers; 3) testing the data for normality using SPSS, and finally; 3) normality was
further tested using the PRELIS 2.30 software (Joresborg, 1997).

In computing the missing data values, the goal was to maximise the sample size and
thereby optimise the power of the statistical tests, (Cohen, 1977). Maximising the
sample size also aids in satisfying the large sample requirements of the SEM analysis
techniques (Byrne, 1998; Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001, p. 326). In replacing the
missing data values, traditional missing data approaches like list-wise deletion
(Cohen et al., 2003, p. 433), which removes variables or subjects, were discounted in
favour of a maximum likelihood imputation (ML) estimation technique using the EM
algorithm. ML-EM alternatively estimates and maximises missing values (Cohen et
al., 2003, pp. 433-451; Cortina et al., 2001 ;Enders, 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007, p. 680). In confirming selection of the ML technique, a number of criteria
were considered; the missing nature of the absent values; whether values were
missing in both independent and dependent variables, and, the sample size. The
Stage 3 sample size satisfied the initial ML-EM requirement for a large sample size
(n > 200) (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 440). Using the SPSS 13.0 for Windows software
(SPSS, 2004), the missing values were pre-processed using Missing Variable
Analysis with ML-EM. Post hoc analysis identified no patterns in the missing data
(Table 20).

93
Table 20: Univariate statistics from the missing variable analysis of the Stage 3 data

Item N Mean
Std.
Deviation Missing
No. of
Extremes(a, b)
Count Percent Low High
Itt1 224 2.84 1.007 0 .0 0 0
Itt2
224 2.19 .943 0 .0 0 4
Itt3
224 2.46 .979 0 .0 0 7
Itt4
223 2.66 1.031 1 .4 0 0
Itt5
223 2.42 .876 1 .4 0 3
Itt6
222 3.18 .989 2 .9 0 0
Itt7
223 4.01 .626 1 .4 . .
Itt8
223 2.85 .959 1 .4 0 0
Itt9
223 3.22 .999 1 .4 0 0
Itt10
224 2.67 .978 0 .0 0 5
Ab1
224 3.35 .940 0 .0 8 0
Ab2
224 3.39 .927 0 .0 2 0
Ab3
224 3.15 .928 0 .0 0 0
Ab4
224 3.04 .972 0 .0 0 0
Ab5
224 3.08 .978 0 .0 0 0
Ab6
223 3.13 .947 1 .4 0 0
Ben1
222 2.76 .962 2 .9 0 8
Ben2
224 2.74 .969 0 .0 0 6
Ben3
224 3.29 .920 0 .0 8 0
Ben4
224 2.75 .872 0 .0 0 4
Ben5
224 2.84 .877 0 .0 0 2
Int1
224 3.08 .887 0 .0 8 0
Int2
224 2.89 .933 0 .0 0 0
Int3
224 3.28 .850 0 .0 2 0
Int4
224 3.08 .836 0 .0 0 0
Int5
223 3.12 1.033 1 .4 0 0
Int6
224 3.19 .935 0 .0 0 0
JnGrp
224 3.11 1.119 0 .0 0 0
Enrol
224 .86 .346 0 .0 . .
Faculty
224 1.38 1.599 0 .0 . .
Gender
224 .56 .497 0 .0 0 0
AgeGrp
223 1.68 .674 1 .4 0 3
Birth
224 6.83 9.104 0 .0 0 47
Nation
224 5.14 7.647 0 .0 . .
InAus
224 2.10 1.782 0 .0 0 22
WorkExp
224 .50 .798 0 .0 0 9
GrpExp
224 .95 .217 0 .0 . .
Age
224 21.25 4.837 0 .0 0 18

a Number of cases outside range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR).
b indicates the inter-quartile range (IQR) is zero.

94
Subjects did not consistently fail to answer a particular question or sequence of
questions. From 224 responses, no item had more than two missing values; the
missing data appeared to be missing at random. Therefore, particular items were not
considered to be problematic (Cohen, 1988, 432-433). This was expected because
published and previously well-tested scales have been used (Robinson, Shaver, &
Wrightsman, 1991). The first two criteria for ML selection had been satisfied.

In addressing the last criteria for the appropriate use of ML, it was noted that values
were missing on not just independent variables, but also on the dependent variables.
For example, in the collected data there were seven values missing across six of the
ten ITT variables. When data are missing on more than one variable there is a
concern that study conclusions may be limited, particularly when the data are
missing on dependent variables. This raises the concern that a sample with missing
values may not be representative of the population (Cohen, 1988). However, in
support of the use of the ML procedure, ML doesnt care whether data are missing
on the independent or dependent variables; one is not limited in generalization of
ones findings; the ML model estimating procedure provides the best possible,
unbiased, estimates for each missing value by considering all the data values in a
model (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 442). The final criteria for ML was satisfied, data
values were missing across both the independent and dependent variables. Therefore,
with the sample meeting the large size requirement of n >200 (Cohen et al., 2003,
p. 440), the missing at random nature of the absent values, and because those absent
values occurred in both the independent and dependent variables, the decision was
made to retain the estimated missing values from the application of the maximum
likelihood imputation (ML) estimation technique using the EM algorithm (Cohen et
al., 2003).

However, while the missing data had been replaced, its use for SEM analysis is
founded upon a key assumption; the variables in an SEM model must be distributed
multivariate normal. This is particularly important because Maximum Likelihood
estimation technique, ML, was the chosen analytic strategy for assessment of the
structural equation models. Prior to using the PRELIS 2.30 software (Joresborg &
Sorbom, 1996) to satisfy the SEM requirement for multivariate normality, the
outliers in the variables were assessed using the SPSS Frequencies command. A

95
preliminary screen of the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007 pp. 72-74) identified the z
scores were all less than 3.29, p = .01, two tailed; there appeared to be no potential
outliers. Histograms of the data for each variable appeared normal and no univariate
outliers stood out in the box plots. Initial SPSS examination of the data for
univariate and multivariate normality applied conservative alpha levels of .01 or .001
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 80-810); the kurtosis and skewness statistics were
close to zero. In final preparation for SEM analysis, subsequent data screening used
the PRELIS 2.30 software (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). While the skewness and
kurtosis values are optimally zero, the demonstrated skewness of the IV and DV
variables fell within a PRELIS-accepted range of 2.00 to 3.00, and the kurtosis
values fell within the acceptable range of 7.00 to 21.00 (Curran, West, & Finch,
1996, p. 28). Repeating this analyses with and without missing data was considered
unnecessary because of the small number of missing values (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007, p. 72). Therefore, the data are generally approximating a normal distribution
(Byrne, 1998). To get a feel for the results to come, the descriptive statistics of the
normalised Stage 3 data were next analysed.

In gaining a feel for the normalised Stage 3 data, initial analysis using SPSS 13.0 for
Windows (SPSS, 2004) identified descriptive statistics similar to Stage 2 (Table 21)

Table 21: Descriptive statistics and correlations from Study Stage 3, N = 224

Mean
Standard
Deviation
Intention
to
Trust Ability Benevolence Integrity
Intention to
Trust
28.49 5.93

Ability
19.15 4.93 .653 ** 1

Benevolence
14.39 3.80 .357 ** .203 ** 1

Integrity
18.63 4.04 .639 ** .488 ** .678 ** 1

Similar to Stage 2, hypotheses H
1
was supported in Stage 3. In comparing Stage 2
and Stage 3 results (Table 22):
the positive relationship between Intention to Trust and Integrity
strengthened slightly from r = .593, p = .01, in Stage 2 to r = .639, p = .01 in
Stage 3;

96
Ability had similarly strengthened and the significance level improved from r
= .538, p = .05, to r = .653, p = .01, but;
the ITT relationship with Benevolence had weakened slightly from r = .465,
p = .01, to r = .357, p = .01.

These differences could have arisen from sample differences. Alternatively, the
differences could have arisen from the Stage 2 refinement of the vignettes and
questionnaire items which sought to contribute to the reliability of the trust scales.

similar measurement scales based on the Mayer et al. (1995) theoretical foundation; N = 224

Correlation of
Intention to Trust
with

Ability Benevolence Integrity
Stage 3 results from this Study .653 ** .357 ** .639 **
Stage 2 results from this Study .538 * .465 ** .593 **

Previous Studies
(Davis et al., 2000) .561 *** .595 *** .655 ***
(Davis, 1999) .796 ** .818 ** .759 **
(Gill et al., 2005) .60 ** .71 ** .68 **
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) .61 ** .60 ** .58 **
(Mayer & Gavin, 2005) .74 ** .72 ** .76 **
(Tan & Tan, 2000) .75 ** .83 ** .85 **

The refinement of the vignettes and questionnaire had improved the issues associated
with Stage 2 subjects differentiating between High and Low levels of Ability, A one-
way analysis of variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 20-27) was conducted on
the Stage 3 data to add weight to the evidence that the vignette refinement in Stage 2
had assisted subjects to better differentiate the levels of the trust antecedent
information communicated via the vignette manipulation. The ANOVA was
significant, F (7, 216) = 11.124, p = 0.00. The strength of the relationship between
the DV, Intention to Trust, and the varying levels of the IVs, Ability, Benevolence,
and Integrity, as assessed by
2
was strong, with the independent variables
accounting for 26% of the variance of the dependent variable.

97
Follow up ANOVA tests were conducted at the 95% confidence interval, to evaluate
pairwise differences among the means. Variances among the eight groups ranged
from 13.76 to 40.58 and were considered not to be homogeneous. Therefore, post
hoc comparisons were conducted using Dunnetts C. Figures 16 and 17 illustrate an
improvement between the means of the groups for Stages 2 and 3.

98

Figure 16: Box plot of Intention to Trust for Stage 2

Figure 17: Box plot of Intention to Trust for Stage 3

99
The refined Ability information in the Stage 3 vignettes contributed to an increase in
the mean difference between the High and Low Ability groups. For example, The
mean difference between a group manipulated with High Ability together with High
Integrity compared to a group manipulated with Low Ability together with High
Integrity has risen from mean difference = 3.83, n = 187 in Stage 2 to mean
difference = 5.02, n = 224 in Stage 3. While sample difference may have affected
these results, it seems reasonable to infer that the refined vignettes have contributed
to subjects better differentiating the levels of Ability communicated via the vignettes.

In addition to the improvements from the updated vignettes, the Cronbach Alpha
statistic for Intention to Trust had improved from acceptable in Stage 2 ( = .77) to a
good result ( = .83) in Stage 3. When compared with previous studies (Table 23), it
would seem reasonable to infer that the study goal of contributing to vignette
development methods and improving the published trust scales had been achieved.
The thematic analysis-based development of the questionnaire items and scales in
Stage 1 of this study and their piloting and refinement in Stage 2 has contributed to
improving the inter-item consistency and reliability of the Intention to Trust scale.

Table 23: A comparison with recent trust studied reveals the improved scale reliability for
Intention to Trust

Study
AB BEN INT
Intention to
Trust
Stage 2 Results from this Study .85 .87 .82 .77
Stage 3 Results from this Study .92 .88 .83 .83

(Mayer & Davis, 1999) .85 .87 .82 .59
(Gill et al., 2005) .93 .93 .93 .70
(Mayer & Gavin, 2005) .91 .92 .89 .70

Cronbach Alpha measure of inter-item consistency reliability:
.8 = good; > .7 = acceptable; < .7 = low

In summary, the descriptive statistics were similar in Stages 2 and 3. In support of
Hypothesis H
1
, the antecedents of trust were positively associated with Intention to
Trust. Increased mean-difference indicates that the rewording of the vignettes
appears to have contributed to subjects better differentiating between the High and
Low Ability manipulations. A method contribution arose from the improvement in
the inter-item consistency and reliability of the Intention to Trust scale. The Stage 3
raw data is now analysed using Structural Equation Modelling techniques.

100
6.1.3.1 SEM Analyses
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied in pursuit of two goals. Firstly, to
confirm that the data collected are reflective of the underlying trust theory of Mayer
et al. (1995) Secondly, to apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis techniques illustrate
the extent to which Study Stages one and two resulted in measurement scales that
reflected the underlying theory in the study setting. SEM was applied using the
maximum likelihood (ML) method of parameter estimation (Bollen, 1989b) in the
LISREL 8.3 software (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). In support of the use of SEM
with ML, Cortina et al. (2001, p. 326) identify that ML is robust with respect to
many types of violation of multivariate normality assumptions (Bollen, 1989) and the
ML technique results in a Goodness of Fit in an SEM model similar to those
provided by the robust Satorra and Bentler technique (Satorra & Bentler, 1988 in
Byrne, 1998). The SEM statistical methodology pursued in this study is a
confirmatory, hypothesis testing, approach to the multivariate analysis of the
structural theory underlying the integrative model of organisational trust (Mayer et
al., 1995, pp. 709-734). Unlike correlation-based statistical procedures that infer
relationship (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, pp. 56-57), SEMs confirmatory approach
has the advantage of seeking to simultaneously test all hypothesized relationships in
an entire system of variables by determining the extent to which the hypothesised
model is consistent with the observed data (Byrne, 1998). SEM offers the
opportunity to overcome the descriptive nature of traditional multivariate procedures,
like the exploratory factor analysis or other correlation or means-based analyses used
in many recent trust-related studies (Gill et al., 2005; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery,
2003; Serva et al., 2005). SEM does this by assessing and correcting for
measurement error in the observed variables and thereby providing explicit
parameter estimates of the unobserved latent factors (Byrne, 1998, pp. 4-5). In the
case of the integrative model of trust theory (Mayer et al., 1995), the exogenous
latent factors of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity, and their effect on the
endogenous latent factor, Intention to Trust were examined (Figure 18).

101

Figure 18: A priori conceptualisation of the study model to be tested using LISREL 8.3

To test that the postulated a priori model holds in the population of Business Faculty
Undergraduate Students, a three-step approach, based on Anderson & Gerbing
(1988), was applied to structural equation model fitting and assessment:

Step 1. The one-factor congeneric measurement models sought parsimony by
assessing the impact of the latent factors, Ability, Benevolence, Integrity and
Intention to Trust, on their set of observed variables.

Step 2. A first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Byrne, 1998, pp.
91-161) pursued measurement model reliability and validity, and sought to
operationalise the measurement model, by testing the multidimensionality of
the theoretical construct that Ability, Benevolence and Integrity are the
hypothesised antecedents of Intention to Trust .

Step 3. Finally, the full generalised structural equation model (Byrne, 1998,
pp. 231-255) applied path analysis to investigate the strength of the
relationship of the exogenous factors, Ability, Benevolence and Integrity, on
the exogenous latent factor, Intention to Trust.
Ability
Benevolence
Trustors
Intention To Trust
Integrity
Antecedent
Factors of the
Trustee
Contextual
(Moderators)
Information
Level
+
+
+
Ability
Benevolence
Trustors
Intention To Trust
Integrity
Antecedent
Factors of the
Trustee
Contextual
(Moderators)
Information
Level
+
+
+

102

The structural equation models were fitted and assessed using covariance matrices
generated from the questionnaire data by the PRELIS 2.30 software (Joresborg &
Sorbom, 1996). The results of the structural equations are expressed in standardized
scores. The measures of fit listed in Table 24 were applied to test the adequacy of the
models.

Table 24: Measures and suggested thresholds applied to assess SEM model fit

Measure
Class
of
Measure
Chi-squared (X
2
) Absolute
Degrees of Freedom (df ) Absolute
Significance Absolute
RMSEA Absolute
RMR Absolute
GFI Absolute
AGFI Absolute
CFI Incremental
IFI Incremental
NNFI Incremental
Normed chi-squared Parsimony
AIC Parsimony
Smaller values indicate better fit; < 0.10
indicates good fit; <0.05 very good fit;
<.001 indicate and outstanding fit to the
data.
<0.05 - 0.08
(overfit) 1.0 < X
2
/ df < 3.0 (underfit)
No defined level, smaller is better.
Data Fit to the Model
(Suggested Thresholds)
Non-significant; (at p < 0.05)
> 0.95
> 0.90
> 0.90
> 0.95
> 0.95
> 0
p > 0.05

The parsimony, incremental, and absolute measures of fit were employed in a theory-
driven approach that was applied to scientifically infer the adequacy of the
comparative fit of a model over its competing alternatives (Bollen, 1989b). The
absolute measures, that compare the hypothesised model with no model at all (Hu &
Bentler, 1995), were assessed at the five percent level of significance; p = .05. The
Chi-square statistic,
2
, was used to determine how well the hypothesised model
fitted the population.
2
tested the null hypothesis, H
0
: = (), that there was a
significant difference between the covariance matrix of the hypothesised model,
(), and the population covariance matrix, . This effectively tested the extent to
which the residuals in the structural equations were zero; - () = 0 (Byrne, 1998),
p.110). In seeking no difference between the models, that is non-significance at the p
= 0.05 level or greater, model saturation was avoided by maintaining the degrees of

103
freedom, 1/2(q)(q+1)-k, a function of the number of variables in the model, q, and
the number of parameters to be estimated, k, at one or above.

In addition to the
2
statistic, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Root Mean Residual (RMR), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) measures were also used to assess absolute
model fit. RMSEA was used to determine how well the model, with unknown but
optimally chosen parameter values, fit the population covariance matrix were it
available (Steiger & Lind, 1980 in Byrne, 1998, p. 112). RMSEA values below .05
were considered indicative of very good model fit to the data. To enable
interpretation of the average error or discrepancy between the sample observed and
the hypothesised correlation matrix (Hu & Bentler, 1995), standardised RMR values
of .05 or less were sought. Additionally, Goodness of Fit (GFI), at the 0.9 or above
level, was used to assess the relative amount of variance and covariance in the
observed data that was jointly explained by that data. Finally, the AGFI measure, at
the 0.9 or above level, was used to take into account the inclusion or exclusion of
additional parameters in the respecified models. To adjudge degrees between lack of
fit (0) and perfect fit (1), to maintain independence from the effect of sample size on
2
, and to assist with progressive improvement in model fit, incremental and
parsimony measures were considered (Kelloway, 1998, p. 26).

Incremental measures of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index
(IFI), and the Non-Normed-Fit Index (NNFI) were used as the basis for post hoc
analysis that sought to consider the alternative models and respecify those models
such that they fitted the data better than the baseline, the a priori model. The CFI
was used to assess whether the model under investigation was better than a
competing model(s) (Kelloway, 1998) and the NNFI was applied to assess the
progressive percentage improvement of the respecified model alternatives over the
baseline model. The IFI, instead of the Normed-Fit-Index, was used to progressively
assess incremental fit (Kelloway, 1998, p. 31) and parsimony in the model
alternatives, IFI accounts for sample size by taking into account the possibility that a
smaller sample size could possibly lead to an underestimation in model fit (Bollen,
1989a, p. 117). However, the sample size in this study satisfied the adequacy

104
requirements of being between five and ten times the size of the number of estimated
parameters (Kelloway, 1998, p. 20).

Other measures of parsimony applied in consideration of the model alternatives
better fitting the data included the Normed Chi-squared and the Akaike Information
Criteria (AIC) (Akaike, 1987 in Byrne, 1998). While the AIC has no predefined
value, it was used to assess progressive improvement in the parsimony by taking into
account the number of estimated parameters and the statistical goodness-of-fit of the
model alternatives (Kelloway, 1998, p.33). Finally, while some (Kelloway, 1998)
consider that the Normed Chi-squared, the ratio of the
2
statistic relative to its
degrees of freedom,
2
/df, to be highly dependent on modellers experience, this ratio
was only used as a general indicator that a model was in need of further modification
(Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996).

While the above-discussed measures of model fit provided empirical-based guidance
towards optimal model fit to the data, such data-driven analysis can lead to the
undesirable over-fitting of the models that can dilute their theoretical foundation
(Cliff, 1983). Therefore, a theory-driven approach, based on scientific inference, was
adopted to compare plausible models by using an elimination process to determine
the fittest to survive (Bollen, 1989b, p. 71). The next section initiates Step 1 of the
three-step approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) to the structural equation model
fitting and assessment process by testing the one-factor congeneric CFA
measurement models of trust and its antecedents.

105
6.1.3.2 The One-factor Congeneric Measurement Models of Intention to Trust
and its Antecedents
This Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) seeks parsimony by assessing the impact
of the exogenous latent factors, Ability, Benevolence, Integrity and the endogenous
latent factor, Intention to Trust, on their set of observed variables (Mayer et al.,
1995). CFA is the method of choice (Kenny & Kashy, 1992; Marsh & Grayson,
1995) and is based upon the taxonomy of nested models comparison (Widaman,
1985) and reflects the application by Byrne & Bazana (1996).

6.1.3.3.1 Intention to Trust Congeneric Model
6.1.3.3.2 The Initial Intention to Trust Model, All Y-Variables Included
The initial model included all questionnaire items from the published measure for the
Intention to Trust endogenous factor (Mayer & Davis, 1999). The items did not load
adequately onto the latent factor (Table 25). The individual standardised parameter
estimates varied between - .15 and .72 and questionnaire item Itt7 (
7,1
) parameter
was not statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a; Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). Ranging
between .00 and .52, the Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) were problematic (Table
25). These preliminary results indicated that the variables were not reliably serving
as adequate measures to the underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).

Table 25: YVariable Squared Multiple Correlations - initial model; N = 224

Item Itt1 Itt2 Itt3 Itt4 Itt5 Itt6 Itt7 Itt8 Itt9 Itt10
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
.53 .45 .57 .68 .62 .72 -.01 .63 .65 .65
R
2
.226 .240 .323 .466 .380 .512 .000 .400 .517 .425

Model fit to the data could only be achieved after the removal of six Y-Variables
and, subsequently, less than half of the variance extracted was explained by Intention
to Trust. Examination of the Y-Variables excluded from the models identified that
four of the six items were the negative-worded questions.

106
Negative-worded questionnaire items complicate the interpretation of CFA results
(Williams, Ford, & Nhung, 2002, p. 376). Studies have identified that wording
effects impact on the factor structure (Harvey, Billings, & Nilan, 1985) and this can
detrimentally affect construct variance. Negative-worded items have also been found
to complicate the interpretation of alternative analysis methods like Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA) (Williams et al., 2002, pp. 377-379). Negatively worded
questions introduce an affective factor that has the potential to reduce trait variance
by up to 20% (Rogelberg, 2002). The cognitive response from subjects differs when
questions are positive or negatively worded. For example, a subject tends to look for
how much is in the glass when we use a positive-worded question like; Is the glass
half full?. Alternatively, a negative-worded question like Is the glass half empty?
affects a subject differently and results in an altered cognitive response (Williams et
al., 2002).

To bypass the issue one could singularly use positively worded questionnaire items
to avoid the irrelevant construct factor (Rogelberg, 2002, pp. 377-379). However,
negatively worded questions contribute to the internal validity of a study by
minimising common method variance and consistency bias (Cavana et al., 2001, p.
229). Negatively worded questions make the subject think and provide direct
feedback to the researcher on whether the subjects understood the questions. An
alternative method provides for the benefits of negatively worded questions as well
as the inclusion of an item-wording factor that has been found to improve CFA
model fit and subsequent interpretation. The inclusion of an orthogonal Reverse-
Coded Method Factor (RCMF) has been has been shown to account for the affective
factor that can confound models incorporating negative-worded questionnaire items
(Williams et al., 2002, p.375). In consideration of a subjects altered cognitive
response to negative-worded questionnaire items and a resultant detrimental effect on
variance, an RCMF factor was included in the initial and respecified Intention to
Trust CFA models.

In support of retaining negatively-worded questionnaire items, the initial Intention to
Trust CFA model included all the questionnaire items and the RCMF factor that
sought to explain the negatively worded questionnaire items; Itt1, Itt3, Itt5 and Itt8.
Based on their standardised parameter estimates, these items loaded more adequately

107
onto the latent factor, Intention to Trust (Table 26). Other than item Itt7 which
remained non-significant, the individual standardised parameter estimates all
exceeded .41 and were statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a; Joresborg & Sorbom,
1996). The Squared Multiple Correlation (R
2
) for item Itt7 continued to be
problematic; the R
2
values for the other items ranged between .23 and .51. These
preliminary results indicated that the variables were more adequately serving as
measures to the underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).

Table 26: Squared Multiple Correlations for the YVariables in the initial model with the
RCMF; N = 224

Item Itt1 Itt2 Itt3 Itt4 Itt5 Itt6 Itt7 Itt8 Itt9 Itt10
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
with ITT
.43 .51 .47 .68 .45 .73 .02 .80 .67 .67
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
with ITT and
RCMF
.41 .44 .60 .41 .

R
2
with ITT

.226 .240 .323 .466 .380 .512 .000 .400 .517 .425

R
2
with
RCMF and
ITT

.358 .259 .409 .460 .596 .54 .000 .460 .64 .452

However, the overall measures of fit suggested problems with the model (
2

(31)

117.70 at p = .00; RMSEA = .112; AGFI = .831; CFI = .877; IFI = .877; NNFI =
.821). The covariance matrix of the hypothesised model was significantly different to
the covariance matrix of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a) and suggests that re-
specification is needed to improve the model fit to the sample data. Examination of
the modification indices identified that four items were problematic; Itt2, Itt3, Itt7
and Itt9. Item Itt2, I would be willing to let this group have complete control over an
assignment that was critical to me; item Itt3, If I joined this group, I feel I need to
keep an eye on what other group members do; item 7, This group should be honest
about their knowledge, and; item Itt9, I feel I could rely on the skills and abilities of
this group. Even though these items were theory-based, they were found to have
correlated errors and high fitted residuals. Therefore I conclude that, in the context

108
projected by the vignettes, this sample from the population of Business Faculty
Undergraduate Students are associating or confusing the meaning of these items.

The items could be classically dealt with by including within-variable correlated
errors to improve model fit (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). However, the correlation of
measurement errors and the additional parameters arising from their use generates
additional error terms, which can result in a corresponding loss of the meaning and
dilute the substantive conclusions that can be drawn from a model (Gerbing &
Anderson, 1984). A more parsimonious first order CFA structure with fewer
parameters to satisfactorily account for the observed covariance matrix is preferred
(Gerbing & Anderson, 1984, p. 579). Additionally, the use of fewer parameters
avoids degrees-of-freedom penalties that can detrimentally affect the GFI and AGFI
absolute indices (Byrne, 1998, p. 116; Kelloway, 1998, pp. 32-33). Therefore, it was
decided not to correlate the measurement errors in the models but instead to test a
series of plausible theory-based models (Bollen, 1989a, p. 71) that progressively
excluded Intention to Trust items Itt2, Itt3, Itt7 and Itt9 to identify a respecified
congeneric CFA model that optimally fitted to the observed covariance matrix.

109
6.1.3.3.3 The Re-specified Intention to Trust Congeneric Mode that excludes Items Itt2,
Itt3, Itt7 and Itt9
The respecified congeneric model excluded items Itt2, Itt3, Itt7 and Itt9 from the
published scale (Mayer & Davis, 1999) for the Intention to Trust endogenous factor
(Figure 19). The individual standardised parameter estimates for ITT (Figure 19) all
exceeded .46 and were statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a).

Figure 19: Standardised Solution for the respecified Congeneric CFA Model of the endogenous
factor Intention to Trust; items Itt2, Itt3, Itt7 and Itt9 excluded

The items appeared to load adequately onto the latent factor (Table 27). The Squared
Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged between .33 and .63 indicating
that the variables were reasonably serving as adequate measures to the underlying
construct (Bollen, 1989a). Additionally, the model-based measures of scale
reliability, construct reliability and variance extracted (Table 28) were within
suggested thresholds (Coote, 2006).

110
Table 27: YVariable Squared Multiple Correlations - the respecified ITT model; N = 224

Item Itt1 Itt4 Itt5 Itt6 Itt8 Itt10
R
2
.326 .449 .626 .540 .480 .393

Table 28: Model-based measures of scale reliability - the respecified ITT model, N = 224

Variance Extracted
(
2
)/(
2
)+() =
>0.5 0.530
Construct Reliability
()
2
/()
2
+() =
>0.7 0.916
Suggested Thresholds Measure of Scale Reliability

The overall measures of fit suggest that re-specification had improved model fit;
(
2
(6)
9.36 at p = .154; RMSEA = .05; AGFI = .952; CFI = .990; IFI = .991; NNFI =
.976). The Chi-square difference,
2
diff
=
(25)
108.34, between the initial and
respecified models (Table 29) was significantly larger than the
2
CRIT

(25)
p = .05:
37.6525; therefore re-specification had improved model fit to the data.

Table 29: Summary of model fit improvement between the initial ITT model and the respecified
ITT model; N = 224

Model 2 df p = .05
Non-
significant?
RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Initial Model 117.7 31 .0000 no .182
Respecified
Model
9.36 6 .154 yes .05 yes
Chi-square
Difference:
108.34 25 .05

There was no significant difference between the covariance matrix of the
hypothesised model and the covariance matrix of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a)
and suggested that further re-specification was not needed to improve the model fit to
the sample data. A congeneric CFA analysis follows for the Integrity, Benevolence
and Ability exogenous factors.

111
6.1.3.3.4 Ability Congeneric CFA Model
6.1.3.3.5 Initial Ability Model; All Questionnaire Items Included
The initial model included all questionnaire items from the published measure for the
Ability exogenous factor (Mayer & Davis, 1999). The items loaded adequately onto
the latent factor (Table 30). The individual standardised parameter estimates all
1996); and the Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged between
.62 and .79 indicating that the variables were reliably serving as adequate measures
to the underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).

Table 30: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables; N = 224

Item Ab1 Ab2 Ab3 Ab4 Ab5 Ab6
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
.84 .86 .82 .89 .79 .83
R
2
.71 .73 .68 .79 .62 .70

However, the overall measures of fit suggested some problems with the model
(
2

(9)
= 37 at p < .01; RMSEA = .118; AGFI = .878). The covariance matrix of the
hypothesised model was significantly different to the covariance matrix of the
sample data and suggested that re-specification was needed to improve the model fit
to the sample data (Bollen, 1989a). Examination of the modification indices
identified that three items were problematic: Item Ab1, The group is very capable of
performing its job; Item Ab5, The group has specialized capabilities that could
increase my performance; Item Ab6, The group is well qualified. These items had
correlated errors and high fitted residuals. Therefore it was concluded that, in the
context projected by the vignettes, this sample from the population of Business
Faculty Undergraduate Students are associating or confusing the meaning of these
items. The items could be classically dealt with by including within-variable
correlated errors to improve model fit (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). However,
consistent with the model trimming process applied to ITT, it was decided not to
correlate the measurement errors in the models but instead to test a series of plausible
theory-based models (Bollen, 1989a, p. 71) that progressively excluded Ability items

112
Ab1, Ab5 and Ab6 to identify a respecified congeneric CFA model that optimally
fitted the observed covariance matrix.

6.1.3.3.6 The Re-specified Ability Congeneric CFA Model that excludes Items Ab1, Ab5
and Ab6.
The respecified congeneric model excluded items Ab1, Ab5 and Ab6 from the
published scale for the Ability exogenous factor (Mayer & Davis, 1999). The
individual standardised parameter estimates (Figure 20) all exceeded .84 and were
statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a).

Figure 20: Standardised solution for the respecified congeneric CFA model of the trust
antecedent Ability; items Ab1, Ab5 and Ab6 excluded

All the items appeared to load adequately onto the latent factor (Table 31). The
Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged between .71 and .77
indicating that the variables were reliably serving as adequate measures to the
underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a). Additionally, the model-based measures of
scale reliability, construct reliability and variance extracted (Table 32) were within

113
Table 31: Table A3.1: Squared Multiple Correlations for the X Variables for the respecified
Ability Congeneric model; N = 224

Item
Ab2 Ab3 Ab4
R
2

.71 .71 .77

Table 32: Table A3.2: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Ability
Congeneric model; N = 224

Suggested Thresholds
>0.7
>0.5
Construct Reliability ()
2
/()
2
+() =
Variance Extracted (
2
)/(
2
)+() =
0.9
0.7
Measure of Scale Reliability

The overall measures of fit suggested that re-specification had improved model fit;
2

(1)
= .00 at p > .05; RMSEA = .000; AGFI = .989). The Chi-square difference,
2
diff
=
(8)
37, between the initial and respecified models (Table 33) was significantly
larger than the
2
CRIT

(8)
p = .05: 15.5073; therefore re-specification had improved
model fit to the data.

Table 33: Summary of model fit improvement between the initial and respecified Ability
models; N = 224

Model
2
df p = .05
Non-
significant?
RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Initial Model 37 9 .00003 no .118
Respecified
Model
0.00 1 .622 yes .0001 yes
Chi-squared
Difference:
37 8 .05

There was no significant difference between the covariance matrix of the
hypothesised model and the covariance matrix of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a)
and suggested that further re-specification was not needed to improve the model fit to
the sample data. A congeneric CFA analysis follows for the Integrity and
Benevolence exogenous factors.

114
6.1.3.3.7 Benevolence Congeneric CFA Model
6.1.3.3.8 Initial Benevolence Model; All X-Variables Included
The initial model included all the items from the published measure for the Ability
exogenous factor (Mayer & Davis, 1999). The items appeared to load adequately
onto the latent factor (Table 34). The individual standardised parameter estimates all
1996). However, the Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged
between .32 and .77 indicating that variable Ben 3 (R
2
= .32) was marginally serving
as adequate measure to the underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).

Table 34: Squared Multiple Correlations for X Variables; N = 224

Item Ben1 Ben2 Ben3 Ben4 Ben5
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
.88 .88 .57 .81 .72
R
2
.77 .77 .32 .66 .52

Additionally, the overall measures of fit suggested some problems with the model
(
2

(5)
41.75 at p < .01; RMSEA = .182; AGFI = .791; NNFI = .889). The covariance
matrix of the hypothesised model was significantly different to the covariance matrix
of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a) and suggested that re-specification was needed to
improve the model fit to the sample data. Examination of the modification indices
identified that two items were problematic: Item Ben2, My needs and desires will be
very important to the group and item Ben3, The group would not knowingly do
anything to hurt me. These items were found to have correlated errors and high
fitted residuals. In addition, Benevolence did not explain the majority, 68%, of the
variance associated with Item Ben3 (Table 34). Therefore it was concluded that, in
the context projected by the vignettes, this sample from the population of Business
Faculty Undergraduate Students are associating or confusing the meaning of these
items. The items could be classically dealt with by including within-variable
correlated errors to improve model fit (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). However,
consistent with the re-specification process for the Ability congeneric CFA model, it
was decided not to correlate the measurement errors but instead test a series of
plausible theory-based models (Bollen, 1989a, p. 71) that progressively excluded

115
Benevolence items Ben2 and Ben3 to identify a respecified congeneric CFA model
that optimally fitted to the observed covariance matrix.

6.1.3.3.9 The Re-specified Benevolence Congeneric CFA Model that excludes items Ben2
and Ben3.
The respecified model excluded items Ben2 and Ben3 from the published scale
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) for the Benevolence exogenous factor. The individual
standardised parameter estimates (Figure 21) all exceeded .78 and were statistically
significant (Bollen, 1989a).

Figure 21: Standardised Solution for the Re-specified Congeneric CFA Model of the trust
Antecedent Benevolence; items Ben2 and Ben3 excluded

Items appeared to load adequately onto the latent factor (Table 35). The Squared
2
that the variables were reliably serving as adequate measures to the underlying

116
Table 35: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables in the respecified Benevolence
model

Item Ben1 Ben4 Ben5
R
2
.62 .73 .60

Table 36: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Benevolence model

2
/()
2
+() =
2
)/(
2
)+() =
Suggested Thresholds Measure of Scale Reliability
>0.7
>0.5
0.8
0.6

(2
(1)
.08 at p > .05; RMSEA = .000; AGFI = .989). The Chi-square difference, 2
diff =
(3)
41.67, between the initial and re-specified models (Table 37) was
significantly larger than the 2
CRIT

(3)
p = .05: 7.8173.

Table 37: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified Benevolence
models; N = 224

Model

2
df p = .05
Non-
significant?
RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Initial Model 41.75 5 .0000 no .182
Re-
specified
Model
0.08 2 .7716 yes .000 yes
Chi-squared
Difference
41.67 3 0.05

The respecified model had significantly improved model fit to the data. There was
no significant difference between the covariance matrix of the hypothesised model
and the covariance matrix of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a) and suggests that
further re-specification was not needed to improve the model fit to the sample data.
The congeneric CFA measurement model for Integrity is now analysed.

117

6.1.3.3.10 Integrity Congeneric CFA Model
6.1.3.3.11 Initial Integrity Model; All X-Variables Included
The initial model included all six items from the published measure for the Integrity
exogenous factor (Mayer & Davis, 1999). All items loaded adequately onto the latent
factor except Int4 (Table 38). Other than Int4 (
x41
= .27), the individual standardised
parameter estimates all exceeded .60 and were statistically significant (Bollen,
1989a; Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). Additionally the Squared Multiple Correlations
(R
2
) for each variable, except Int4 (R
2
= .075), ranged between .36 and .79 indicating
that all variables except Int4 were reliably serving as adequate measures to the
underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).


Item Int1 Int2 Int3 Int4 Int5 Int6
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
.76 .60 .64 .27 .89 .80
R
2
Value 0.578 0.364 0.475 0.075 0.789 0.643

However, the overall measures of fit suggest some problems with the model
(
2

(9)
= 31.63 at p < .01; RMSEA = .106; AGFI = .895). The covariance matrix of
the hypothesised model was significantly different to the covariance matrix of the
sample data (Bollen, 1989a) and suggested that re-specification was needed to
improve the model fit to the sample data. Examination of the modification indices
identified that three items were problematic: Int4, Int5 and Int6. In particular, the
estimate of a structural relationship capturing the impact of a latent variable,
Integrity, on the observed variable, item Int4, was low at 0.27. In addition, perhaps
because Int4 it was the only negatively worded item and not clearly understood by
this sample from the Business School Undergraduate Student population, 92% of the
variance associated with Int4 was unexplained by Integrity. Item Int6, Sound
principles seem to guide the groups behaviour and item Int5, I like the groups
values were also problematic; these items were found to have correlated errors and
high fitted residuals. Therefore it was concluded that, in the context projected by the
vignettes, this sample from the population of Business Faculty Undergraduate
Students are associating or confusing the meaning of these items. The items could be
classically dealt with by including within-variable correlated errors to improve model

118
fit (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996). However, consistent with the re-specification
process for the Ability congeneric CFA model, it was decided not to correlate the
measurement errors but instead to test a series of plausible theory-based models
(Bollen, 1989a, p. 71) that progressively excluded Integrity items Int4, Int5 and Int6
to identify a respecified congeneric CFA model that optimally fitted to the observed
covariance matrix.

6.1.3.3.12 The Re-specified Integrity Congeneric Model that excludes items Int4, Int5 and
Int6
The respecified model excluded items Int4, Int5 and Int6 from the published scale
(Mayer & Davis, 1999) for the Integrity exogenous factor. The individual
standardised parameter estimates (Figure 22) all exceeded .69 and were statistically
significant (Bollen, 1989a).

Figure 22: Standardised Solution for the respecified Congeneric CFA model of the trust
Antecedent Integrity; Items Int4, Int5 and Int6 excluded

The items appeared to load adequately onto the latent factor (Table 39). The Squared
2
that the variables were reliably serving as adequate measures to the underlying

119


Item Int1 Int2 Int3
R
2
Value 0.51 0.48 0.54

Table 40: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified Integrity model
0.515
0.761
2
/()
2
+() = >0.7
2
)/(
2
)+() = >0.5

2

(2)
= .65 at p = 0.214; RMSEA = .000; AGFI = .994). The Chi-square difference,
2

(7) =
30.98 at p = 0.5, between the initial and re-specified models (Table 41) was
significantly larger than the
2
CRIT

(7),
p = .05: 14.0671.

Table 41: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified Integrity
models; N = 224

Model
2 df p = 0.05
Non-
significant?
RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Initial Model 31.63 9 0.00003 no 0.106
Respecified
Model
0.65 2 0.72168 yes 0.000 yes
Chi-squared
Difference
30.98 7 0.05

The respecified had significantly improved model fit to the data. There was no
significant difference between the covariance matrix of the hypothesised model and
the covariance matrix of the sample data (Bollen, 1989a) and suggested that re-
specification was not needed to improve the model fit to the sample data. The first
order CFA model of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity is now analysed.

120
6.1.3.3.13 First Order CFA Model of the Trust Antecedents
The First Order CFA model incorporated the resultant measurement models from the
preceding congeneric confirmatory factor analysis of the Intention to Trust
antecedents; Ability, Benevolence and Integrity. In seeking to operationalise the
measurement models, combinations of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity were
tested to support the hypothesis that a three (oblique) factor model optimally explains
Intention to Trust and its antecedents.
6.1.3.3.14 The Oblique Three-factor Model
A test of an initial model, that included all the X-variables for the trust antecedents of
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity, did not fit the covariance matrix of the observed
data (GFI = .846, AGFI = .797; NNFI = .892). This result supported the preceding
congeneric measurement modelling process that resulted in trimmed models that
excluded X-Variables to fit the covariance matrix of the observed data. It was
hypothesised that a respecified first order CFA model incorporating the resultant
item exclusions from the congeneric CFA modelling process of the trust antecedents
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity would better fit the covariance matrix of the
observed data (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Standardised Solution for the respecified first order CFA model of the trust
antecedents; Ability, Benevolence and Integrity; N = 224

121
The items in the respecified model loaded adequately onto the latent factors (Table
42). The individual standardised parameter estimates all exceeded .63 and were
statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a); (Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996); and the
Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged between .39 and .77
indicating that the variables were reliably serving as adequate measures to the
underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a). Additionally, the model-based measures of
scale reliability, construct reliability and variance extracted (Table 43) were within

Table 42: Squared Multiple Correlations for the XVariables for the respecified three-factor
CFA model; N = 224

Item Ab2 Ab3 Ab4 Ben1 Ben4 Ben5 Int1 Int2 Int3
Standardised
Parameter
Estimates
.84 .84 .88 .76 .87 .83 .79 .63 .70
R
2
0.704 0.709 0.775 0.584 0.670 .685 0.626 0.391 .497

Table 43: Model-based measures of scale reliability for the respecified three-factor CFA model;
N = 224
2
)/(
2
)+() = >0.5 0.605
2
/()
2
+() = >0.7 0.937

For the respecified model, all measures of absolute, incremental fit improvement,
and parsimony were within acceptable thresholds (Kelloway, 1998) (RMSEA = .053;
GFI = .963; AGFI = .930; NNFI = .976). However, the respecified model reflecting
the congeneric CFA models of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity failed to achieve
non-significance (
2
=
(24)
= 38.82, p = 0.029) at the p = 0.05 or higher level (Table
44).

Table 44: Summary of model fit difference between the respecified three-factor CFA model and
the
2
threshold for 24 degrees of freedom at p = 0.05

Model
2 df p = 0.05
Respecified three-factor CFA model 38.82 24 0.029
2
THRESHHOLD
(24) p = 0.05 36.42 24 0.05
Chi-square Difference at p = .05 2.40 0 0.05

There was a difference between the covariance matrix of the hypothesised model and
that of the observed data (Bollen, 1989b). However, the Chi-square difference

122
(
2
(1)

= 2.4, p = 0 .05) was considered insufficient to warrant model refitting. Model
differences in the order of 2 are considered insufficient justification for the re-
specification of a model (Kelloway, 1998). Given the minimal Chi-squared
difference, the model was assessed as supporting the hypothesis that the respecified
three-factor CFA model fits the covariance matrix of the observed data. The
following section seeks to operationalise the model by comparing rival models.

6.1.3.3.15 Operationalising of the CFA Model
To clarify relationships between the observed variables and the exogenous factors,
rival models comparison tested the multidimensionality of the hypothesised three-
factor (oblique) CFA model. The comparison of the rival CFA models with the
hypothesised three-factor (oblique) CFA model sought to support the foundation
theory for this study, that the antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity
explain our Intention to Trust. However, the high positive correlation (.86) between
Benevolence and Integrity (Figure 23) indicate that, when a member joins a newly
formed work-team, Benevolence and Integrity could collapse into a single exogenous
factor. This was tested using a Two-factor oblique model (Table 45).

Table 45: Variable loading combinations for the comparison of rival First Order CFA Models

Model
Ability variables
Ab2, Ab3 and Ab4
loaded on
Benevolence
variables Ben1,
Ben4 and Ben 5
loaded on
Integrity variables
Int1, Int2 and Int3
loaded on
Hypothesised Model:
Three-factor
(oblique)
Ability BEN INT

Two-factor (oblique)

Ability BENINT

123
The Fit indices from the rival models converged, suggesting that the hypothesised
(three oblique factor) model reflecting the theoretical foundation for this study was
superior (Table 46).

Table 46: Fit indices for the competing First Order CFA models of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity identifying the superiority of the three-factor oblique CFA model; N = 224

Model:
2
df RMSEA RMR GFI AGFI CFI IFI NNFI
Hypothesised
Model:
Three-factor
38.82 24 .053 .036 .963 .930 .984 .984 .976
Two-factor
Ability-
BENINT
73.41 26 .09 .051 .932 .882 .960 .961 .943

In particular, comparison with the rival nested model identifies that the hypothesised
three-factor oblique model provides a superior fit to the data than the competing two-
factor model; the RMSEA measure of absolute measure of fit error has increased to
.09 in the two-factor model (Table 46). The three-factor oblique model better fits the
population covariance matrix from the sample data; all its fit indices are within
acceptable limits.

In conclusion, subsequent to fitting the measurement models of the exogenous
factors and consideration of rival first order CFA models, consistent with the
underlying theory for this study (Mayer et al., 1995), the hypothesised three-factor
(oblique) model better fitted the covariance matrix of the observed data from the
population of Business Faculty Undergraduate Students. The next section pursues a
path analysis of the complete model hypothesising that Ability Benevolence and
Integrity are antecedents of Intention to Trust.

124
6.1.3.3.16 Path Analysis of the Intention to Trust Model
The goal of the path analysis model was a test of Hypothesis H
1
that Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity are antecedents of Intention to Trust. The initial path
analysis model that included all the X and Y-Variables did not adequately fit the
covariance matrix of the data: (
2

(318)
= 898.1, p = .000; RMSEA = .09; GFI = .77;
AGFI = .73; CFI = .85; IFI = .85; NNFI = .84). Subsequently, it was hypothesised
that a respecified model concatenating the results of the congeneric models and the
first order CFA models would better fit the covariance matrix of the observed data
(Figure 24).

Figure 24: Standardised solution for the respecified path analysis model of Intention to Trust
and its antecedents Ability, Benevolence and Integrity; N = 224

The items in the respecified model loaded adequately onto the latent factors (Table
47). The standardised parameter estimates of the X and Y-Variables in the
measurement model were statistically significant (Bollen, 1989a); (Joresborg &
Sorbom, 1996); and the Squared Multiple Correlations (R
2
) for each variable ranged
between .32 and .83 indicating that the variables were reasonably serving as adequate
measures to the underlying construct (Bollen, 1989a).

125
Table 47: Squared Multiple Correlations for the X and YVariables in the respecified path
analysis model; N = 224

X-Variable Ab1 Ab2 Ab3
R
2
0.683 0.668 0.827
X-Variable Ben1 Ben4 Ben5
R
2
0.585 0.670 0.684
X-Variable Int1 Int2 Int3
R
2
0.605 0.425 0.493
Y-Variable Itt1 Itt4 Itt5 Itt6 Itt8 Itt10
R
2
0.318 0.389 0.668 0.669 0.483 0.358

The LISREL output results identified that the fit of the respecified model to the
observed data had significantly improved (
2

(81)
142, p = .000; GFI = .92; CFI = .96;
IFI = .96; NNFI = .95; RMSEA = .058). Additionally, the Chi-square difference,
2
diff
=
(237)
= 755.93, p = 0.05, between the initial and respecified models (Table 48)
was significantly larger than the
2
CRIT

(237)
p = 0 .05: 236.33, the respecified path
analysis model has improved fit to the covariance matrix of the observed data.

Table 48: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the initial and respecified path analysis;
N = 224.

Model
2
df p = .05 RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Initial Model
898.01 318 .00 .106
Respecified
Model
142.08 81 .00 .058 yes
Chi-squared
Difference
755.93 237 .05

However, the AGFI (.88) measure of absolute fit was marginally outside the
acceptable limit of .9 (Kelloway, 1998, p. 26). In addition, above limit modification
indices (18.65) were associated with item Int2. A model re-specification that
excluded Int2 from the model did not improve the model fit (Table 49).

126
Table 49: Summary of Model Fit Improvement between the respecified path analysis model and
the re-specified path analysis model excluding item Int4; N = 224

Model
2
df p = .05 RMSEA
RMSEA
Improved?
Respecified
Model
142.08 81 .00 .058
Respecified
Model
excluding
item Int2
116.76 68 .000 .057 NO
Chi-squared
Difference
25.32 13 .05

The Chi-square difference,
2
diff
=
(13)
25.32, between the models (Table 53) is
smaller than the
2
CRIT

(13)
p = 0 .05: 38.8852. Therefore, the respecified model that
tentatively excluded item Int2 did not significantly improve model fit. Additionally,
in consideration of model re-specification, (Kelloway, 1998, p. 37) argues that
model differences of one measure probably do not provide sufficient information to
warrant such action. Therefore, the hypothesised path analysis model in Figure 25
was considered to better fit the covariance matrix of the observed data.

While the measures of fit could be considered acceptable, the test statistic ratio of the
parameter estimate and its standard error,
Est
/
SE
, using maximum likelihood
estimation (Bollen, 1989a; Joresborg & Sorbom, 1996), indicated that all parameter
estimates in the structural model were not statistically significant. Benevolence
appeared not to adequately explain Intention to Trust. The parameter (
12
= - .40, t
value
(81)
= - 1.88) estimate marginally failed to achieve statistical significance at t
(1,
.05)
=
+
/- 1.96 (Kelloway, 1998, p.29). A non-significant parameter could indicate that
Benevolence was unimportant to the model (Byrne, 1998). A competing Two Factor
Model 1, that excluded the Benevolence exogenous factor, was tested (Table 50).
The absolute measures of model fit indicated the models similarly fitted the
covariance matrix of the observed data; the RMSEA and RMR values of the
competing models were within .002. From a theoretical perspective there is
considerable support for Benevolence as an antecedent of Intention to Trust (Davis,
1999; Serva et al., 2005; Schoorman et al., 1996a); exclusion of Benevolence from
the model would contradict the theoretical foundation for this study (Mayer et al.,
1995) and previous correlation-based support that Benevolence is an antecedent of
Intention to Trust.

127
Table 50: Fit indices identifying the superiority of the hypothesised three-factor path analysis model; N = 224

Trust Antecedents
Model: Ability BEN INT
2
df RMSEA RMR GFI AGFI CFI IFI NNFI
Hypothesised
Model Three-
factor
FR FR FR 142.08 81 .058 .047 .922 .884 .959 .959 .946
Two-factor
Model 1
FR 0 FR 150.48 82 .060 .049 .917 .879 .956 .956 .943

128
Reviewing the hypothesised Three-factor model (Figure 25), the non-significant
negative parameter (
12
= -.40) between Benevolence and Intention to Trust together
with the high Integrity to Intention to Trust parameter (
13
= .92) appeared to be
evidence of suppression effect. Suppression effect is present when a parameter is much
larger than the sum of its contributing factors or when positive contributory factors result
in a negative parameter (Cohen, 1988, pp. 76-79; MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood,
2000). In the case of the hypothesised Three-factor model (Figure 24), the variables
explained by Benevolence had positive parameters but resulted in a negative parameter
between Benevolence and Intention to Trust. Additionally, in relation to the correlation
of Intention to Trust with its antecedents of Ability (r = .653), Benevolence (r = .357)
and Integrity (r = .639), the Integrity to Intention to Trust parameter was
disproportionately large (
13
= .92). This evidence, together with the high correlation (r
= .86) between the exogenous factors of Benevolence and Integrity in the first order
CFA model of the trust antecedents, support the presence of suppression effect.

One way to deal with suppression effect is to follow the method of Yuan et al. (2005)
and combine the two highly correlated measures; in this case Benevolence and Integrity.
This method was tested earlier and was unsuccessful; a Two-factor CFA model was an
inferior fit to the covariance matrix of the observed data (Table 45). The hypothesised
Three-factor model better fitted the covariance matrix of the observed data. Consistent
with the theory, Ability, Benevolence and Integrity are considered antecedents of
Intention to Trust. While, the preceding tests supported the hypothesis that Benevolence
does have an effect on Intention to Trust and discounted the (Yuan et al. (2005) method
of dealing with suppression effect, these analyses do not provide evidence concerning
Hypothesis H
3,
which of the Intention to Trust antecedents is most salient. The following
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) seeks evidence by examining the simple main and
indirect effects of the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity on
Intention to Trust.

129

6.1.4 ANOVA of Intention to Trust and its Antecedents of Ability, Benevolence
and Integrity

To review the reasons for the dual 2x2 ANOVA; Stage 1 of the study identified that
vignettes depicting dimensionally opposite Information Levels of Benevolence and
Integrity were perceived by the subjects as being unrealistic. This resulted in a dual 2x2
factorial design where a subject was exposed to a single vignette depicting High or Low
Information Levels of Ability and Benevolence or a vignette depicting High or Low
Information Levels of Ability and Integrity (Tables 51 and 52).

Table 51: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of the High and Low Information Levels for
Ability and Benevolence

Trust Antecedent
Ability Benevolence
High Low High Low
X X
X X
X X
X X

Table 52: 2x2 Factorial design for the manipulation of High and Low Information Levels for Ability
and Integrity

Trust Antecedent
Ability Integrity
High Low High Low
X X
X X
X X
X X

130
6.1.4.1 Manipulation Checks
To add weight to the SEM analysis that identified that the experimental manipulations
embedded in the vignettes had been effective, a series of manipulation checks were
conducted using SPSS for Windows version 13 (SPSS, 2004). Each experimental
condition was assessed using a series of t-tests that supported a claim that the
participants rated the groups differently and congruent with the direction of
manipulation. For each test, the IV value was the summated scale for the variable as
completed after the participant read the vignette. The results indicate that:

The High Ability Information Level group exhibited a significantly different
mean than the Low Ability Information Level group; (t
(178.62)
= -15.061, p =
.000).

The High Benevolence Information Level group exhibited a significantly
different mean than the Low Benevolence Information Level group; (t
(119)
=
-9.237, p = .000).

The High Integrity Information Level group exhibited a significantly different
mean than the Low Integrity Information Level group; (t
(89.687)
= -5.73, p = .000).

These results support the previous claim that all three experimental manipulations had
been successful. The effects of Ability and Integrity on Intention to Trust is next
analysed.

131
6.1.4.2 ANOVA of the effects of Ability and Integrity on Intention to Trust
A 2x2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of combinations of High and Low Information
Levels of Ability and Integrity on Intention to Trust. The means and standard deviations
for Intention to Trust as a function of the two variables are presented in Table 53.

Table 53: Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable: Intention to Trust for Groups with High
and Low Information Levels of Ability (ability) and Integrity (integ)

ability integ Mean Std. Deviation N
1.00 low
26.0000 6.25833 25
2.00 high
27.7452 5.12036 26
1.00 low
Total
26.8897 5.71711 51
1.00 low
30.0400 6.37293 26
2.00 high
32.7597 3.88109 26
2.00 high
Total
31.3998 5.40168 52
1.00 low
28.0596 6.57781 51
2.00 high
30.2524 5.16191 52
Total
Total
29.1667 5.97880 103

A Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances indicated that the error variance of the
dependent variable was homogenous across the four groups and suggests this stated
assumption of ANOVA was not broken; (F
(3,99)
= 1.623, p = .189). The ANOVA
indicated a significant between-subjects main effect for Ability (F
(3,99)
= 17.485, p =
.000,
2
= .19); 19% of Intention to Trust was explained by Ability. Integrity also had a
significant main effect (F
(3,99)
= 4.252, p = .042) but the effect size (
2
= .04) was small
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 55). The interaction between Ability and Integrity was
trivial (
2
= .002) and not significant (F
(3,99)
= .203, p = .65). Plots (Figures 25 and 26)
of the interaction between the independent variables on the dependent variable identified
that High and Low Information Levels of Ability and Integrity made a significant
difference in the estimated marginal means of the DV, Intention to Trust.

132

Figure 25: Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to Trust with Low or High Integrity

high low
Ability
33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Integrity
high low
Ability
33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Integrity

133

Figure 26: Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to Trust for groups with Low or High Ability
high low
Integrity
33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Ability
high low
Integrity
33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Ability

134
6.1.4.3 ANOVA of the effects of Ability and Benevolence on Intention to
Trust
The 2x2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of combinations of High and Low Information
Levels of Ability and Benevolence on Intention to Trust. The means and standard
deviations for Intention to Trust as a function of the two variables are presented in Table
54.

Table 54: Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable: Intention to Trust for Groups with High
and Low Information Levels of Ability (ability) and Benevolence (benev)

A Levenes Test of Equality of Error Variances indicated that the error variance of the
dependent variable was homogenous across the four groups and suggests this stated
assumption of ANOVA was not broken; (F
(3,117)
= 1.202, p = .312). The ANOVA
indicated a significant between-subjects main effect for Ability (F
(3,121)
= 47.293, p =
.000,
2
= .29); 29% of Intention to Trust was explained by Ability. Benevolence also
had a significant main effect (F
(3,121)
= 4.533, p = .035) but the effect size (
2
= .04) was
small (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 55). The interaction between Ability and
Benevolence was small (
2
= .04) but significant (F
(3,121)
= 4.722, p = .032). Based on
these results, the Intention to Trust of the sample appears to be affected to a greater
extent by Ability than Benevolence, which appears to have a weak effect on Intention to
Trust.

22.8433 5.46458 29
26.6552 5.12191 29
24.7493 5.59035 58
30.8622 5.08779 31
30.8233 3.70887 32
30.8425 4.40494 63
26.9864 6.60786 60
28.8418 4.87389 61
27.9218 5.84919 121
benev
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
ability
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
Mean Std. Deviation N
22.8433 5.46458 29
26.6552 5.12191 29
24.7493 5.59035 58
30.8622 5.08779 31
30.8233 3.70887 32
30.8425 4.40494 63
26.9864 6.60786 60
28.8418 4.87389 61
27.9218 5.84919 121
benev
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
ability
1.00 low
2.00 high
Total
Mean Std. Deviation N

135
A plot (Figure 27) of the interaction between the independent variables on the dependent
variable identified that High and Low Information Levels of Ability has a significant
difference on Intention to Trust for groups with High (F
(1,117)
= 40.641, p = .000) and
Low (F
(1,117)
= 11.149, p = .001) Information Levels of Benevolence. However, the
effect of a High Information Level of Ability was so high (Observed Power = 1.0) that
High or Low Information Levels of Benevolence had little or no effect on Intention to
Trust

Figure 27: Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to Trust with Low or High Benevolence

high low
Ability
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Benevolence
high low
Ability
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Benevolence

136
However, High and Low Information Levels of Benevolence resulted in a significant
difference in the estimated marginal means of Intention to Trust for groups with Low
(F
(1,117)
= 8.887, p = .003) but not High (F
(1,117)
= .001, p = .975) Information Levels of
Ability (Figure 28); the Benevolence of a work-team appeared not to affect Intention to
Trust. On the one hand, for participants in the High Ability condition, the level of
Benevolence had no effect on their Intention to Trust. On the other hand, for those in the
Low Ability condition, High Levels of Benevolence resulted in higher Intention to Trust.
The perception is that work-teams with High Ability appears to buffer against any effect
their Benevolence has on Intention to Trust.

high low
Benevolence
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Ability
high low
Benevolence
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
high
low
Ability
Figure 28: Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to Trust with Low or High Ability

137
6.2 Summary of the Stage 3 Results
Two hundred and twenty four subjects were matched to both phases of the data
collection. From the perspective of the secondary goal of this study, contribution to
method, the application of the SEM provided strong evidence that this three-stage study
had developed vignettes, questionnaires and scales that were firmly based on the theory
under test. Subsequent omnibus ANOVA results supported the inference that the refined
vignettes had contributed to subjects better differentiating the High and Low levels of
Ability communicated via the vignettes. In seeking to overcome limitations in similar
trust-related studies, the refinement of the Intention to Trust questionnaire items had
significantly contributed to improving the inter-item consistency and reliability of the
Intention to Trust scale.

Subsequent SEM analysis continued method contribution by exampling a process to
refine the trust scales to optimally reflect a study context. This process involved
Congeneric CFA models that identified the variables explained by the exogenous
factors, Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity as well as the endogenous factor, Intention
to Trust. The application of a Reverse Coded Method Factor contributed to overcoming
the affective factor that arose from the negatively worded Intention to Trust
questionnaire items. The subsequent test of rival First Order CFA models supported the
hypothesis that the earlier defined Congeneric CFA models of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity reliably explained the trust antecedents. Subsequently, the First Order CFA
Model was applied to a full LISREL model to analyse the path analysis of the Intention
to Trust model. Rival single and two-factor models converged towards a fitted model
that provided support for the hypothesis that the three trust antecedents, Ability,
Benevolence and Integrity, explain Intention to Trust. However, a marginal non-
significant negative Benevolence-Intention to Trust parameter and an Integrity- Intention
to Trust parameter that appeared larger than the sum of its contributory factors heralded
the possibility of suppression effect in the model. A subsequent ANOVA sought to
explain hypothesis H
3
by examining the simple main and indirect effects of the trust
antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and Integrity on Intention to Trust.

138
In pursuit of the primary study goal of answering the research questions, the between-
groups ANOVA supported the inference that our Intention to Trust increases when a
Low Integrity work-team has High Ability. Similarly, our Intention to Trust further
increases when a team has High Integrity together with High Ability. Ability had a
similar effect on groups with High and Low Levels of Benevolence. However,
Benevolence had little effect on Intention to Trust when a work-team had a High
Information Level of Ability. To the participants in this study, the competence,
knowledge and skills of a High Ability work-team appears to buffer against the work-
teams Benevolent traits. Therefore, one could conclude that the study sample from the
population of undergraduate students from the Business Faculty of an Australian
university appear to consider Ability most important when cognitively assessing their
Intention to Trust a work-team that they could choose to join.

139

Chapter Seven
7.1 Overall Summary of Study Findings
In the dyadic relationship of a subject choosing to join a work-team, this research sought
to address a gap in our current understanding of the antecedents that affect co-worker
trust development. In doing so, this study pursued two goals. The first goal of the study
was to enhance our understanding of trust development in newly forming groups by
focussing on the research questions and the hypotheses. From the perspective of the
secondary goal, the three-stage methodology employed in this study improved the
reliability of the published trust scales by customising them to reflect the context of the
study. The Cronbach Alpha statistic for Intention to Trust improved from the low levels
of previous studies ( = .56) to an acceptable level in Stage 2 ( = .77) and further
improved to a good result ( = .83) in Stage 3. The resultant trust scale for Intention to
Trust improved the internal validity of this study and strongly supported the claim that
instruments, particularly vignette manipulations, employed in a study need to
realistically reflect the study context. This supports the argument that context is
inexorably linked to our Intention to Trust.

While the research design of this vignette experiment offers method and scale
improvement alternatives that could be useful for future research, the primary study goal
was to address the research gap that identified a need to enhance our understanding and
seek explanation to the research questions:

R1: How do we develop interpersonal trust in the context of newly forming work-
teams?
Or more specifically
R2: Which trust antecedents are more important when initiating trust development
between the team members?

140
Three hypotheses provided the primary focus for the study effort:

H
1
: Benevolence and Integrity and Ability will be positively associated
with our Intention to Trust members of a newly forming work-team.

Hypotheses H
1
was supported: in Stage 2, Ability (r = .538, p = .01) and Benevolence (r
=.465, p = .01) and Integrity (r = .593, p =.01), and; in Stage 3 Ability (r = .653, p =
.01), Benevolence (r =.357, p = .01) and Integrity (r = .639, p = .01). In the context of
newly forming work teams, Benevolence and Integrity and Ability are positively
associated with Intention to Trust.

H
2
: At the pre-stage of team development, the trust antecedents of
Ability, Benevolence and Integrity have differential effects on our
Intention to Trust members of a newly forming work-team.

Study Stages 2 and 3 supported Hypothesis H
2
. Stage 2 results identified differential
correlation relationships between the trust antecedents and Intention to Trust; Ability (r
= .538, p = .05), Benevolence (r =.465, p = .01) and Integrity (r = .593, p = .01).
Similarly, different IV correlations were witnessed in Study Stage 3; Ability (r = .653, p
= .01), Benevolence (r =.357, p = .01) and Integrity (r = .639, p = .01). More
importantly, the results from ANOVA and pairwise comparisons of the main and
interactive effects of the trust antecedents identified that the sample from a population of
undergraduate students from the Business Faculty of an Australian university appear to
consider Ability more important than Benevolence or Integrity when cognitively
assessing their Intention to Trust a work-team that they could choose to join. These
results support the hypothesis that the trust antecedents of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity have differential effects on our Intention to Trust.

141
H
3:
Ability will have a more salient effect on our Intention to Trust
members of a newly forming work-team than Integrity or Benevolence.

Based on correlation results, support for Hypothesis H
3
was initially inconclusive. The
pilot of the test instruments in Study Stage 2 resulted in a marginally stronger Intention
to Trust relationship with Integrity (r = .593, p = .01) than Ability (r = .538, p = .05) or
Benevolence (r =.465, p = .01). This correlation relationship was reversed in Stage 3; the
Intention to Trust relationship with Ability (r = .653, p = .01) was marginally stronger
than Integrity (r = .639, p = .01) and Benevolence (r =.357, p = .01). However, focusing
on Ability and Integrity, the results from ANOVA and pairwise comparisons of their
main and interactive effects provided stronger support for a claim that Ability is more
salient than Integrity in the development of Intention to Trust. The ANOVA indicated a
significant between-subjects main effect for Ability (F
(3,99)
= 17.485, p = .000,
2
= .19);
19% of Intention to Trust was explained by Ability. Integrity also had a significant main
effect (F
(3,99)
= 4.252, p = .042,
2
= .04) but it explained less (4%) of the variance
associated with Intention to Trust. The interaction between Ability and Integrity was
trivial (
2
= .002) and not significant (F
(3,99)
= .203, p = .65). Therefore, in the context
of members of newly forming work-teams, Ability is considered to have a more salient
effect on Intention to Trust than Integrity.

Similarly, Ability has a more salient effect on the development of Intention to Trust than
Benevolence. The ANOVA indicated a significant between-subjects main effect for
Ability (F
(3,121)
= 47.293, p = .000,
2
= .29); 29% of Intention to Trust was explained
by Ability. Benevolence also had a significant main effect (F
(3,121)
= 4.533, p = .035) but
the small effect size (
2
= .04) indicated that Benevolence only explained 4% of the
variance associated with Intention to Trust. The interaction between the independent
variables and the dependent variable identified that High and Low Information Levels
of Ability has a significant difference on Intention to Trust for groups with High (F
(1,117)

= 40.641, p = .000) and Low (F
(1,117)
= 11.149, p = .001) Information Levels of
Benevolence. However, the effect of a High Information Level of Ability was so high
(Observed Power = 1.0) that High or Low Information Levels of Benevolence had little

142
or no effect on Intention to Trust. Based on these results, the Intention to Trust of the
sample appears to be affected largely by Ability than Benevolence, which appears to
have a weak effect on Intention to Trust.

In summary, for study participants in a sample from the population of undergraduate
students from the Business Faculty of an Australian university, the Benevolence of a
work-team has no effect on their Intention to Trust a work-team with High levels of
Ability but does have a minimal effect on their Intention to Trust a Low Ability work-
team. Additionally, Integrity has a lesser effect on Intention to Trust than Ability. The
ANOVA results support Hypothesis H
3
; in the context of a member joining a newly
forming work-team, Ability has a more salient effect on Intention to Trust than
Benevolence or Integrity.

143
Chapter Eight
8.1 Discussion, Limitations and Future Research
It has been argued that understanding how to better develop trust has the potential to
assist management to realise the positive outcomes that can benefit an organisation, its
employees and the customers they serve. This research sought to contribute to the
success of our organisations by deepening our understanding of trust development, the
foundation for high performing individuals, teams, and their organisations.. The
contributive-effort focused on two gaols. Firstly, an experimental method has been
tested and is offered for consideration by researchers who seek to satisfy the requirement
for vignette-based manipulations that must appear realistic to the study participants and
optimally reflect a study setting (Murphy et al., 1986). This method contribution also
sought and improved published trust-related scales because it is important that our scales
consistently and accurately measure the variable they purport to measure (Christensen,
2004, pp. 185-198). By improving the quality of the measurement scales, this study
contributed by providing a three-stage methodology that could prove helpful to others
who seek to refine questionnaire item wording and vignette development. In particular,
the method led to improvements in the internal consistency of the previously
problematic Intention to Trust measure by increasing its Cronbach Alpha reliability
coefficient to a magnitude not evidenced in recent trust-related studies. The method is
offered for consideration by other researchers.

While the method contribution may be useful to other researchers, the primary goal of
this study was to contribute to our knowledge of how to develop the trust that leads to
higher performing employees, the teams they work in, and the organisations that engage
them (Ana Cristina Costa, 2003; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003). This is particularly
important in todays work environment because of the predominance of part-time and
contract employees (ABS, 2005) who do not benefit from the trusting work environment
that emerges from the culture of organisations with permanent employees (Misztal,
2002). Today, the number of part-time and temporary employees in Australian
workplaces is increasing (ABS, 2006). In the shadow of contemporary work

144
environments that exhibit disparate views of trust (Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Jones &
George, 1998), this study effort addressed a gap in the literature. Previous studies have
not addressed the pre-stage of team development. This is understandable because as
permanent employees we would transition this pre-stage once, when we first join a new
organisation.

As a permanent employee, we would go through a pre-stage induction or training
process designed to socialise us into our new work-team environment. From the training,
we would gain an understanding of what the organisation expected of us, the principles
and standards that underpin the integrity of the organisation. As we interacted with our
fellow team members, we would gain an understanding of their strengths and
weaknesses, those areas where they had particular abilities or skills. The feedback we
received from our multiple interactions with fellow employees would inform us of how
they treated fellow team members, how benevolent they were to others. Having
progressed through this initial pre-stage of team development, we would join our work-
team. Even if we moved throughout the organisation, we would be joining teams who
shared similar principles and values to ourselves. In environments where permanent
employees are pre-socialised, the pre-stage of team development would be almost non-
existent. This is not the case with part-time or temporary employees. They would need
to go through the pre-stage of team development every time they accepted a temporary
position with people whom they had not previously worked. These temporary employees
would have no information upon which to found expectations about what team members
had what skills, who was reliable, and, how they would be treated by other team
members. If we accept that increased levels of trust leads higher performing work-teams,
then it is important to understand the pre-stage of team development and how to
optimally develop trust between work-teams of temporary or part-time employees.

This and a plethora of previous studies have provided considerable evidence that our
consideration of the abilities, benevolence and integrity of others contributes to our
decision to extend trust to others. Like this study, much previous research was based
upon the integrative model of organisational trust (Mayer et al., 1995) which equitably

145
viewed the trust antecedents of ability, benevolence and integrity (Costa et al., 2001;
Davis et al., 2000; Gill et al., 2005; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Schoorman et al., 1996a;
Serva et al., 2005). However, these studies did not address the pre-stage of team
development. This raises the question addressed by this research; which trust antecedent
is most salient in the pre-stage of team development? In pursuing this question, this
study built upon the existing integrative model of organisational trust by incorporating
the contextual moderation factor of Information Level that accounts for the type and
volume of information a trustor applies when cognitively making a decision to extend
trust to a trustee. Experimental manipulation of high and low Information Levels about
potential team members provided insight into what trust related attributes we expect in
our fellow team members. In the context of a member joining a newly forming work
team, this study found that Ability had a greater effect on our Intention to Trust than
Benevolence or Integrity.

More specifically, while our Intention to Trust a Low Ability team increased when the
team exhibited either a High level of Benevolence or a High level of Integrity, this was
not the case when the team exhibited High Ability. When the team exhibited a High
level of Ability, Integrity had a lesser effect on our Intention to Trust but more
importantly High or Low Information Levels of Benevolence had little or no effect on
our Intention to Trust a High Ability team. This result was unexpected and is counter to
the current literature. We would reasonably expect that the way we are treated, our level
of Benevolence to fellow team members, would in some way affect how we extend trust.
These results would have us believe that fellow team members do not care about how
they are treated by fellow team members. Clearly, this is not the case. As we work with
people we seek the acceptance and recognition through our everyday interactions (Blau,
1964). Working with people who we like and who reciprocate by liking and treating us
fairly is a much more desirable work environment. So how did this unexpected result
emerge?

146
This discussion has identified that it is not normal for us to ignore how we are treated by
others. Previous studies identified that Ability Benevolence and Integrity are all
important in the development of trust (Costa, 2003; Costa et al., 2001; Earley, 1986;
Gill, Boies, Finegan, & McNally, 2005; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Schoorman, Mayer, &
Davis, 1996b; Serva, Benmati, & Fuller, 2005; Tan & Tan, 2000; Whitener et al., 1998).
Perhaps the lack of effect from Benevolence is a reflection of the research design for this
study. After all, in Study Stage 1, the thematic analysis of structured interviews
identified eight times more participant statements relating to the Integrity, and five times
more statements relating to the Benevolence, than the Ability of a work-team. Based on
this qualitative evidence, one could conclude that Ability is the least important of the
trust antecedents. However, in Study Stages 2 and 3, quantitative results identified that
Ability was perceived to be more salient than Benevolence or Integrity. In seeking
explanation, Murphy et al. (1986) remind us that vignettes, like those applied in Stages 2
and 3, project information that is less subject to the confounds that can contaminate
experimental studies. The design of this study specifically sought to exclude confounds
from Study Stages 2 and 3. Having excluded these confounds, it would be reasonable to
expect that the salience of the trust antecedents could be different from the qualitative
Stage 1.

While vignettes help to minimise confounds, they can amplify the signal strength of a
manipulation above that of real-life situations (Murphy et al. 1986). This can affect the
power of a statistical test and could have caused one or more of the trust antecedents to
have a greater effect on Intention to Trust than the other antecedents. This may have
occurred with Ability. The observed power for Ability was nearly twice the result of
Benevolence and Integrity. This was unexpected because a priori calculation of effect
size and power predicted similar levels for Ability, Benevolence and Integrity. However,
the studies used as a basis for the priori power calculations did not address the pre-stage
context of team development; this study focussed on the pre-stage. Rousseau et al.
(1998, p. 398) assert the importance of considering context in trust-related research, the
importance of certain factors change depending upon the situation in which we find
ourselves. Therefore, the unexpected result could be reflective of the pre-stage context

147
of this study. Seeking another explanation, perhaps the subjects perceived stronger
Ability information in the vignettes than Benevolence and Integrity information.

Great care was taken to ensure a balanced projection of Ability, Benevolence and
Integrity information in the vignette content. However, the Ability information did use
more physical page-space in the vignettes. Perhaps the tabular depiction of the grade
history of the other work-team members may have caused the subjects to retain the
Ability information more prominently in their short-term memory and prompted them
make an Ability-related decision to join the work-team (Lurie & Mason, 2007). Thus,
the subjects could have more readily recalled Ability information when responding to
the questionnaire. However, statistical tests supported the inference that Benevolence
and Integrity manipulations were successful. Benevolence and Integrity information did
affect a subjects Intention to Trust when the work-team had Low Ability. Of course,
this was not the case when the work-team had High Ability. Perhaps the information in
the High Ability vignettes was considerably stronger than the Low Ability information
in the vignettes. While this is a plausible explanation, it is considered unlikely because
the manipulation checks supported the effectiveness of the High and Low Ability
Information Levels depicted in the vignettes. Therefore, the strength of the High and
Low Ability information is considered balanced and equitable. While the strength of the
vignette information could have affected the salience of the trust antecedents, this is not
supported by the statistical tests. Another explanation is that subjects from a population
of undergraduate students from the Business Faculty of an Australian university do
consider Ability more important when considering their Intention to Trust a newly
forming work-team.

It somehow appears logical that students would consider Ability more important. After
all, they are at university to gain a professional qualification and the Australian
university constantly reminds them that, post graduation, their grade point average is
positively correlated with the starting salary they could expect from their initial
employer (Sandvig, Tyran, & Ross, 2005). Given that High Ability students have
superior skills and greater knowledge and is rewarded with higher grades, it would be

148
reasonable to assume that if we joined a work-team with High Ability we could expect
to increase the probability that we too would be rewarded with a higher grade; thus
increasing our overall grade point average and the chances of getting a higher paid job.
In responding to whether or not they would agree to join the group depicted in the
vignette, all subjects offered a group with high Ability agreed to join the group. This was
not the case with those offered a low Ability group. Just 15% of those subjects agreed to
join the group and they were subjects offered a group with Low Ability and a High level
of Integrity. Clearly students appear to focus on the Ability of fellow team members and
generally ignore the teams Benevolence and to a lesser extent their Integrity.

In general, we could conclude that students are more positively affected by a High
Ability work-team, will trust them more because of the higher probability of success and
reward, and, be more likely to join a High Ability work-team. In explanation, the
students could view the scenario depicted in the vignettes as an example of transactional
trust wherein they need to extend trust to the other members of their work-team for the
twelve-week duration of a semester after which they may never come into contact with
those students again. They do not care how they are treated, they just want a high grade.
This could be a manifestation of halo error (McShane & Travaglione, 2003) wherein a
students need, or what Enos (2002) terms their positive emotional attachment, to
achieve a high grade point average causes them to singularly focus on the Ability trait of
the work-team while ignoring the work-teams Benevolence and Integrity traits.

Of course, this beggars the question: does a similar situation arise in our workplaces that
are employing more and more part-time or contract employees. Given that context is
important in how we develop trust (Rousseau et al. 1998) perhaps a comparison between
a student environment and that of a part-time worker will help us understand the
applicability of this research to the general workplace. Firstly, the dynamics of the
trusting relationship is similar in both contexts; both the student and the part-time
workers come together for a finite period of time after which they may not meet again.
From the perspective of motivation and reward, both the part-time worker and the
student would view the trusting episode as a transaction. As a student, we would focus

149
on optimising our grade that on average should improve if we work with students of
higher ability. Given that our workplace tends to pay higher wages for higher
performance, a part-time worker would expect personal rewards to be maximised when
they joined a high ability work-team that would normally result in higher level of
performance. Therefore, the students and part-time workers could both view Ability as
most important; ability leads to a higher grade and higher monetary rewards. The repeat
of this study in a workplace context offers opportunity for ongoing research.

If Ability is more salient in the development of trust between members of a newly
forming work-teams, and higher levels of trust leads to higher performance teams, then
how should managers develop trust between team members? Should a manager just
ignore Benevolence and Integrity and focus on having everyone in the team exhort the
excellence of their Abilities? Clearly not, because the study of Gill et al. (2005) and
many other researchers has identified that the salience of the trust antecedents varies
over the life of a work-team. In the performing stage of a team Gill et al. (2005) found
that the importance of Ability waned in favour of Benevolence. Once the team members
had a clear understanding of the skills, expertise and Abilities of fellow team members,
they were more concerned about the other team members delivering the work to the
expected standard at a time when it was due. This is understandable because, in the short
life of a team project there would be little time to retrain team members. We would need
to identify who had the ability to do what, allocate tasks based on skills and expertise,
then trust in the benevolent nature of all team members to deliver as expected. The
willingness of students to join the High Ability groups would tend to indicate that this
was probably the thinking of the subjects in this study.

Of course, this is a very short-term view by the subjects in this study; they would very
quickly find out that not everyone does what they say they will do. After all, this is why
we have project managers within teams, to keep the work on time and to budget.
Therefore, as managers we should not ignore Benevolence and Integrity. It is our
Integrity, our values and principles, which underpin our expectations of, and compliance
with, group norms of behaviour (McShane & Travaglione, 2003, p. 270). Ability

150
Benevolence and Integrity are all important in trust development. What this study has
identified is that in the pre-stage of team development we have a propensity to be
blinded by the skills and expertise of others. As managers, we need to help our work-
teams over the halo effects of Ability. Managers could encourage unfamiliar team
members to not only share their knowledge and skills but more importantly, their past
group experiences. In sharing past group work experiences, team members could better
adjudge how a fellow team member is likely to perform later on in the project. Perhaps
the provision of references to past team members could help confirm the claims of our
fellow team members. Such manager-initiated actions could go some way to mitigating
the risk and help lower the risk of our work-teams underperforming. Some managers
could consider such get-to-know-you sessions a waste of time, particularly with teams
that are only together for a short time. However, this study has provide considerable
evidence to support a claim that a manager cannot just rely on the judgement of part-
time employees to develop the trust that leads to higher performing work teams, as
managers, we need to help them overcome their limitations.

Like our part-time workers, this study also has limitation. The most obvious limitation
emerges from the generalisability of the results; Business Faculty undergraduate
students from a metropolitan Australian university may not accurately reflect the
parameters of our part-time workforce. It has already been identified that future research
should consider trust development over the complete life of a work-team; the pre-stage,
the forming stage, the storming stage, the norming stage, the performing stage, and the
adjourning stage. Such research could help managers better understand how to fine-tune
their skills to continually develop greater levels of trust over the life of their work-teams.
Another limitation of this study is the use of vignette manipulation. Perhaps this vignette
experiment reveals a deeper method-related question; do we take more notice of written
information about how we will be treated by others or do we prefer personal contact?
Perhaps such a research question should focus on the psychometric limitation in this
study by questioning whether written vignette manipulations, paper people, are a valid
proxy for the interpersonal communication of information about fellow team members.

151
The use of vignette manipulation may not be single limitation in this experimental study.
A second limitation could be the thematic analysis of the structured interview transcripts
in Study Stage 1. They are the qualitative interpretations; analysis by another researcher
could reveal alternative meanings. A third limitation; because the study setting related
directly to a group assessment context the questionnaire responses of some student
subjects could have been positive or negatively affected by their previous assessment
experiences. In particular, a negative affective bias may have emerged because there
were more negative comments about group assessment in the feedback section of the
questionnaires than positive assessment-related comments. A fourth limitation arises
from a possible pre-testing bias in the Stage 2 questionnaire that concurrently collected
Intention to Trust and Propensity to Trust responses. However, future studies could
address this limitation by following the example of Study Stage 3 and collecting the data
at different times. The final limitation arises from Structural Equation Model fitting
interpretations and the decisions of this researcher to include or exclude certain
variables. Although the model fitting adjustments were theoretical and empirically
founded, it would be reasonable to expect that another researcher could make different
model trimming decisions. Such methodological refinements could lead to future
research opportunities.

This research has already revealed a plethora of future research opportunities. The first
is to strengthen the generalisability of the results by repeating this study across a
population that is more reflective of todays work environment. Secondly, the
phenomenon glimpsed in Study Stage 2 may worthy of future research; do universities
that allow students to graduate with a small number of failing grades result in students
and universities that are accepting of lower academic standards? The problems that
emerged in Stage 3, with respect of matching multistage data collections from
anonymous subjects, offers an opportunity for future research. Additionally, the
collection of additional data on personal attribute factors offers the opportunity to
identify the personality types that lead to certain trusting behaviours; such knowledge
could help management select the most suitable employees for work-team assignments.
The most obvious research opportunity emerges from the unexpected results that

152
identified the minimal effect of Benevolence and Integrity on Intention to Trust when a
work-team exhibits High Ability. This question in particular motivates a desire to pursue
evidence of causation, perhaps a longitudinal study in a more generalisable setting that
offers the opportunity to strengthen the notion and explain why the dynamic nature of
trust leads to transient and varying antecedent effects on our Intention to Trust.

153
Reference List

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal
trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4),
64-77.

ABS. (2003). Work - Paid work: Changes in labour force participation across
generations. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from
http://www.abs.gov.au.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/C39B36065
2A7A8BFCA256D39001BC355?Open

ABS. (2005). Labour Force, Australia, 6202.0.55.001. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from
http://www.abs.gov.au.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/1020492cfcd
63696ca2568a1002477b5/9ff2997ae0f762d2ca2568a90013934c!OpenDocument

ABS. (2006). Labour Force, Australia, 6202.0. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0?OpenDocument

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317-332.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411-423.

Arvey, R. D., & Wanek, J. E. (2006). Workplace honesty: an honest review.
PsycCRITIQUES.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange
model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-286.

Atwater, L. E. (1988). The relative importance of situational and individual variables in
predicting leader behavior: The surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group &
Organization Studies, 13(3), 290-310.

Audi, R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 16(1), 3-21.

Auh, S. (2005). The effects of soft and hard service attributes on loyalty: the mediating
role of trust. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 81-92.

Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness.
Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 154-161.

154
Bell, G. G., Oppenheimer, R. J., & Bastien, A. (2002). Trust deterioration in an
international buyer-supplier relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1-2), 65-
78.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78.

Bews, N. F., & Rossouw, G. J. (2002). A role for business ethics in facilitating
trustworthiness. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(4), 377-390.

Bhattacharya, R., & Devinney, T. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on
outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459-472.

Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing
organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault? Communication
Research, 15(4), 381-399.

Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization
science: problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
405-421.

Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus.
International Sociology, 20(3), 259-282.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.

Blum, S. D. (2005). Five approaches to explaining "truth" and "deception" in human
communication. Journal of Anthropological Research, 61(3), 289-315.

Bollen, K. A. (1989a). A new incremental fit Index for general structural equation
models. Sociological Methods Research, 17(3), 303-316.

Bollen, K. A. (1989b). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent
strangers: a cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social
exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 168-206.

Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Faul, F. (1997). How to use G*Power. Retrieved October
12, 2005, from http://www.psycho.uni-
duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/how_to_use_gpower.html

Bulmash, H. (2006). Corporate theft: crooks might be closer than you think. Canadian
Consulting Engineer, 47(7), 42-46.

Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children's definitions, standards, and
evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63(1), 129-137.

155

Butler Jr., J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS
: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum
Associates.

Byrne, B. M., & Bazana, P. G. (1996). Investigating the Measurement of Social and
Academic Competencies for Early/Late Preadolescents and Adolescents: A
Multitrait--Multimethod Analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(2), 113.

Cardona, P., & Elola, A. (2003). Trust in management: the effect of managerial
trustworthy behaviour and reciprocity. Working Paper. Unpublished manuscript.

Carlopio, J. R., Andrewartha, G., Armstrong, H., & Whetten, D. A. (2001). Developing
management skills : a comprehensive guide for leaders (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest,
N.S.W.: Pearson Education.

Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: sentence
and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91-100.

Casielles, R. V., Alvarez, L. S., & Martin, A. M. D. (2005). Trust as a key factor in
successful relationships between consumers and retail service providers. Service
Industries Journal, 25(1), 83-101.

Cavana, R. Y., Sekaran, U., & Delahaye, B. L. (2001). Applied business research :
qualitative and quantitative methods. Milton, Qld.: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Champy, J. A. (1997). Preparing for organisational change. In F. Heselbein, M.
Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The Organization of the Future (pp. 9-18). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers.

Chansler, P. A., Swamidass, P. M., & Cammann, C. (2003). Self-managing work teams -
an empirical study of group cohesiveness in "natural work groups" at a Harley-
Davidson Motor Company plant. Small Group Research, 34(1), 101-120.

Child, J. (2001). Trust--The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational
Dynamics, 29(4), 274-288.

Child, J., & Mollering, G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in
the Chinese business environment. Organization Science, 14(1), 69-80.

Christensen, L. B. (1994). Experimental methodology (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

156
Christensen, L. B. (2004). Experimental methodology (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(1), 115-126.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New
York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Coletti, A. L., Sedatole, K. L., & Towry, K. L. (2005). The effect of control systems on
trust and cooperation in collaborative environments. Accounting Review, 80(2),
477-500.

Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-
subordinate relationships: predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32(5),
569-587.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.

Coote, L. (2006). An introduction to structural equation modelling; course notes. St
Lucia: University of Queensland.

Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95-104.

Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:
examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research
Methods, 4(4), 324.

Costa, A. C. (2003). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of the trust
team inventory. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 120.

Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605-
622.

Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with
performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 10(3), 225.

157

Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust
in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 303-317.

Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., Gainous, J., & Kane, J. G. (2006). Winners, losers, and
election context: voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political
Research Quarterly, 59(4), 579-592.

Currall, S. C., & Inkpen, A. C. (2002). A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures.
Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 479-495.

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to
nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.

Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization theory and design (8th ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: South-
Western College Publishing.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001a). Relational risk and its personal correlates in strategic
alliances. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 449-465.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001b). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: an
integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251-283.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: a conceptual framework.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85-116.

Davis, A., & Rothstein, H. (2006). The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of
managers on employee attitudes: a meta-analysis. (Report No. 01674544):
Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

Davis, G. M.-T. W. (1999). A test of an interpersonal trust model. (integrity,
benevolence). Univ Microfilms International.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general
manager and business unit performance: empirical evidence of a competitive.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 563-576.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and thrust in
integrative negotiation: the disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(3), 407-422.

Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion.
Human Relations, 13, 123-139.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455.

158

Drucker, P. F. (1997). Introduction: toward the new organisation. In F. Hesselbein, M.
Goldsmith, R. Beckhard & Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit
Management. (Eds.), The organization of the future (1st ed., pp. xvi, 397). San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century (1st ed.). New York:
HarperBusiness.

Earley, P. C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work
performance: an examination of feedback in the United States and England.
Journal of Management, 12(4), 457.

Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. I. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 547-566.

Elsbach, K. D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations
affects perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1),
80-89.

Enders, C. K. (2006). Analyzing structural equation models with missing data. In G. R.
Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling : a second course
(pp. 313-344). Greenwich, Conn.: IAP.

Enos, M. (2002). Defining emotion with measures of intensity and range of experience.,
ProQuest Information & Learning, US.

Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for
constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608-
622.

Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust:
mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 18-31.

Fitzgerald, B. J., Pasewark, R. A., & Noah, S. J. (1970). Validity of Rotter's
interpersonal trust scale: a study of delinquent adolescents. Psychological
Reports, Vol. 26(1), 163-166.

Foster, G. (2006). Do students want to succeed? peer group choice, social influence, and
undergraduate performance, Working paper. Adelaide: University of South
Australia.

Franta, P. J. (2000). A validation study of Shaw's assessment of organizational
trustworthiness (Robert Shaw). Univ Microfilms International.

Frost, T., Stimpson, D. V., & Maughan, M. R. (1978). Some correlates of trust. Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 99(1), 103-108.

159

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust : the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New
York: Free Press.

Gabarro, J., & Athos, J. (1976). Interpersonal relations and communications.
Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies of trust. Harvard Business Review,
81(2), 88.

Gambetta, D. (2003). Can we trust trust? In E. Ostrom & T. K. Ahn (Eds.), Foundations
of social capital (pp. 274-290). Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Pub.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated
measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 572.

Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of
interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2),
104-120.

Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J., & McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents Of trust: establishing
a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to
trust. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19(3), 287-302.

Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring interpersonal trust in work relationships. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 55, 124.

Gliner, J. A., Haber, E., & Weise, J. (1999). Use of controlled vignettes in evaluation:
does type of response method make a difference? Evaluation and Program
Planning, 22, 313-322.

Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in
group processes. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131-
185). New York: Wiley.

Handy, C. B. (1996). Beyond certainty : the changing worlds of organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.

Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., & Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
Job Diagnostic Survey : Good News and Bad News. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70(3), 461-468.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2004). Strategic management : an integrated approach
(6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

160
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit Indices.
Sociological Methods Research, 11(3), 325-344.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and
philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling : concepts, issues, and applications (pp. xxii, 289).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus
collectivist societies: a seven-nation study. Organization Science: A Journal of
the Institute of Management Sciences, 14(1), 81-90.

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in
social research. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? antecedents
of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems,
14(4), 29.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust:
Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review,
23(3), 531-546.

Joresborg, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). Lisrel 8: user's reference guide. Chicago. IL.:
Scientific Software International.

Joresborg, K. G. (1997). Statistical significance of parameter estimates. In B. M. Byrne
(Ed.) (pp. 104, Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and
SIMPLIS : basic concepts, applications, and programming). Mahwah, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.

Kantowitz, B. H., Roediger, H. L., & Elmes, D. G. (1994). Experimental psychology :
understanding psychological research (5th ed.). Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Pub.
Co .

Keen, P. G. W. (1990). Telecommunications and organizational choice. In J. Fulk & C.
W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 295-
312). Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling : a researcher's
guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitraite multimethod matrix by
confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 165-172.

161
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Holt
Rinehart and Winston.

Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., & Cordery, J. L. (2003). Trust, individualism and job
characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 93-116.

Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow
of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-
versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1),
104-118.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002).
Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of
Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of team members' cultural values
on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 597-617.

Klein, K. J., Lim, B.-C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? an
examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(6), 952-963.

Koehn, D. (2005). Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 125-
136.

Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict:
the role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 312-319.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

Kramer, R. M. (2001). Organizational paranoia: origins and dynamics. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-42.

Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations : dilemmas
and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lawrence, T. B., & Corwin, V. (2003). Being there: the acceptance and marginalization
of part-time professional employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8),
923-943.

Letki, N. (2006). Investigating the roots of civic morality: trust, social capital, and
institutional performance. Political Behavior, 28(4), 305-325.

162
Levin, D. Z., Cross, R., & Abrams, L. C. (2002). The strength of weak ties you can trust:
the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Academy of
Management Proceedings, D1.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
Frontiers of theory and research. (pp. 114-139): Sage Publications, Inc.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: new
relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-
985.

Lurie, N. H., & Mason, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: implications for decision
making. Journal of Marketing, 71, 160177.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the
mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-
181.

Makridakis, S. (1992). Management in the 21st Century. London: Sage in association
with The Open University.

Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans start making decisions.
Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 76-84.

Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod
data. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications. (pp. 177-198): Sage Publications, Inc.

Marshall, E. M. (2000). Building trust at the speed of change: the power of the
relationship-based corporation. New York: American Management Association.

Martin, B. (2006). Fight or Flight. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/02/fight-or-flight/

Martin, D. F. (1999). The impact of trust on leader-member exchange relationships.,
Univ Microfilms International.

Mayer, R. C. (1990). Understanding employee motivation through organizational
commitment., Univ Microfilms International.

Mayer, R. C. (1998). Trust, an asset in any field. (Cover story). Baylor Business Review,
16(2), 8.

163
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on
trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(1), 123-136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who
minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management
Journal, 48(5), 874-888.

Maznevski, M. L., & DiStefano, J. J. (1995). Measuring culture in international
management: the cultural perspectives questionnaire. unpublished working
paper. The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38(1), 24-59.

McClelland, V. (1987). Mixed signals breed mistrust. Personnel Journal, 66(3), 24-27.

McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust
measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems
Research, 13(3), 334-359.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in
new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-
490.

McShane, S. L., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Organisational behaviour on the Pacific rim.
Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Microsoft. (2006). PowerPoint (Version Microsoft Office 2003). Seattle, USA:
Microsoft Corporation.

Microsoft. (2007). Microsoft Office Excel. Retrieved February 27, 2007
Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial dilemmas : the political economy of hierarchy.
Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment:
organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management
Review, 28(1), 143-153.

Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to
downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign.

164
Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in modern societies : the search for the bases of social
order. Cambridge, Mass: Polity Press.

Misztal, B. A. (2002). Trusting the professional: A managerial discourse for uncertain
times. London and New York: Whitehead, Routledge.

Mollering, G. (2005). The trust/control duality - An integrative perspective on positive
expectations of others. International Sociology, 20(3), 283-305.

Murphy, K. R., Herr, B. M., Lockhart, M. C., & Maguire, E. (1986). Evaluating the
performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 654-661.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance.
Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

O'Connor, T. G., & Hirsch, N. (1999). Intra-Individual Differences and Relationship-
Specificity of Mentalising in Early Adolescence. Social Development
Social Development J1 - Social Development, 8(2), 256-274.

Oliver, A. L. (1997). On the nexus of organizations and professions: networking through
trust. Sociological Inquiry, 67(2), 227-245.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z : how American business can meet the Japanese
challenge. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Owen, H. (1996). Building teams on a display of trust. People Management, 2(6), 34.

Parkhe, A. (1998). Understanding trust in international alliances. Journal of World
Business, 33(3), 219-240.

Pasewark, R. A., Fitzgerald, B. J., Sawyer, R., & Fossey, J. (1973). Validity of Rotter's
interpersonal trust scale: a study of paranoid schizophrenics. Psychological
Reports, 32(3), 982.

Paul, D. L., & McDaniel, R. R. (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust
on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183-
227.

Paul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: a priori, post-hoc, and compromise power
analyses for MS-DOS (computer program). Bonn, Germany: Bonn University.

165
Popa, C. L. (2005). Initial trust formation in temporary small task groups: testing a
model of swift trust., Univ Microfilms International.

Porges, S. W. (1998). Love: an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous
system. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 837-861.

Prahalad, C. K. (1997). The work of new age managers in the emerging competitive
landscape. In F. Heselbein, M. Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The
Organization of the Future (pp. 159-168). San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers.

Punch, K. (2000). Developing effective research proposals. London Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: SAGE.

Raths, L. E. (1972). Meeting the needs of children : creating trust and security.
Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in
virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.

Rigdon, E. E. (2006). 5-point variables, Structural Equation Modeling Discussion
Group. http://bama.ua.edu/archives/semnet.html: LISTSERV 14.5.

Robbins, S. P. (2006). Management (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education
Australia.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not
the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.

Rogelberg, S. G. (2002). Handbook of research methods in industrial and
organizational psychology. Malden, Mass. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35(4), 651-665.

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American
Psychologist, 35(1), 1-7.

Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning
theory of personality. New York London: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-
404.

166
Rus, A. (2005). Trust and performance: institutional, interpersonal and network trust. In
K. Bijlsma-Frankem & R. K. Woolthuis (Eds.), Trust under pressure : empirical
investigations of trust and trust building in uncertain circumstances (pp. 80-
104). Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of
honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and
reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 787-829.

Sandvig, J. C., Tyran, C. K., & Ross, S. C. (2005). Determinants of graduating MIS
students starting salary in boom and bust job markets. Communications of AIS,
2005(16), 604-624.

Santoro, M. D., & Saparito, P. A. (2003). The firm's trust in its university partner as a
key mediator in advancing knowledge and new technologies. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 50(3), 362-373.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in
covariance structure analysis. Paper presented at the American Statistical
Association, Business and Economics Section, Alexandria, VA.

Schoorman, P. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996a). Empowerment in veterinary
clinics: the role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11th Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

Schoorman, P. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996b). Organizational trust:
philosophical perspectives and conceptual definitions. Academy of Management
Review, 21(2), 337-340.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business : a skill-building approach (4th ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Serva, M. A., Benmati, J. S., & Fuller, M. A. (2005). Trustworthiness in B2C e-
commerce: an examination of alternative models. 36(3), 89-108.

Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: a
longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26(6), 625-648.

Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What Factors Enhance
Their perceived Adequacy? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 58(3), 346-368.

Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422-437.

167
Simon, L. S. (1995). Trust in Leadership: Its dimensions and mediating role., Univ
Microfilms International.

Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic
"remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367.

Sniderman, P. M., & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude
surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 377.

Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Cooke, W. N. (1999). Predicting
process improvement team performance in an automotive firm: explicating the
roles of trust and empowerment. In R. Wageman (Ed.), Research on managing
groups and teams: Groups in context, Vol. 2. (pp. 71-92): Elsevier Science/JAI
Press.

SPSS. (2004). SPSS 13.0 for Windows (Version Release 1 Sep 2004). Chicago: SPSS
Inc.

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common
factors. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society Annual meeting, Iowa City,
IA.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and
trust in organization. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs,
126(2), 241-260.

Tehan, G., & Tolan, G. A. (2007). Word length effects in long-term memory. Journal of
Memory & Language, 56(1), 35-48.

Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role
ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: unpacking the task conflict to
relationship conflict linkage. International Journal of Conflict Management,
15(4), 364-380.

Tilley, A. J. (2004). An Introduction to research methodology and report writing in
psychology (2nd edition. ed.). Brisbane, Qld.: Pineapple Press.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development
revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419-442.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Taylor, M. A., & Eidson Jr., C. E. (2005). Broad versus narrow
facets of integrity: predictive validity and subgroup differences. Human
Performance, 18(2), 151-177.

168
Wanek, J. E. (1996). The construct of integrity: Item level factor analysis of the
dimensions underlying honesty testing and big-five measures of personality.,
Univ Microfilms International.

Watson, G. W., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2002). Social capital and organizational
commitment. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(4), 537-552.

Wekselberg, V. (1996). Reduced ''social'' in a new model of organizational trust.

Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do "high commitment" human resource practices affect
employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear
modeling. Journal of Management, 27(5), 515-535.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding
managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-
530.

Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-
multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(1), 1-26.

Williams, L. J., Ford, L. R., & Nhung, N. (2002). Basic and advanced measurement
models for confirmatory factor analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Blackwell
handbooks of research methods in psychology ; 1. (pp. xi, 520). Malden, Mass.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: group membership as an affective context for
trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377-396.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications :
a study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.

Wong, Y.-T., Ngo, H.-Y., & Wong, C.-S. (2002). Affective organizational commitment
of workers in Chinese joint ventures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7),
580-598.

Wong, Y.-T., Ngo, H.-Y., & Wong, C.-S. (2003). Antecedents and outcomes of
employees' trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
20(4), 481-499.

Wong, Y.-T., Wong, C.-S., & Ngo, H.-Y. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor and trust in
supervisor of workers in Chinese joint ventures: a test of two competing models.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(6), 883-900.

Wright, T. L., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1975). Factor analysis of the interpersonal trust scale.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 470-477.

169
Yuan, Y., Fulk, J., Shumate, M., Monge, P. R., Alison, B. J., & Matsaganis, M. (2005).
Individual participation in organisational information commons. The impact of
team level social influence and technology-specification competence. Human
Communication Research, 31(2), 212-240.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does Trust Matter? Exploring the
Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance.
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 9(2),
123.

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and Managerial Problem Solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.

Zellman, G. L. (1990). Report decision-making patterns among mandated child abuse
reporters. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(3), 325-336.

Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 53-111.

Trust Measure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust Measure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust within Teams:

You might also like