Davis, Gerald Smith and Aks Zaheer for their helpful reviews and comments on earlier versions of this paper. Trust is a key enabler of cooperative human actions. Three main deficiencies about our current knowledge of trust are addressed by this paper. First, due to widely divergent conceptual definitions of trust, the literature on trust is in a state of construct confusion. Second, too little is understood about how trust forms and on what trust is based. Third, little has been discussed about the role of emotion in trust formation. To address the first deficiency, this paper develops a typology of trust. The rest of the paper addresses the second and third deficiencies by proposing a model of how trust is initially formed, including the role of emotion. Dispositional, interpersonal, and impersonal (system) trust are integrated in the model. The paper also clarifies the cognitive and emotional bases on which interpersonal trust is formed in early relationships. The implications

Our trust conceptualizations have benefited from discussions with Ellen Berscheid and Larry Cummings of the University of Minnesota. The authors also thank three anonymous reviewers from the Organizational Behavior division of the 1996 meeting of the Academy of Management for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. THE MEANINGS OF TRUST What does the word ‘trust ’ mean? Scholars continue to express concern regarding their collective lack of consensus about trust’s meaning. Conceptual confusion on trust makes comparing one trust study to another problematic. To facilitate cumulative trust research, the authors propose two kinds of trust typologies: (a) a classification system for types of trust, and (b) definitions of six related trust types that form a model. Some of the model’s implications for management are also outlined. 2 THE MEANINGS OF TRUST “...trust is a term with many meanings. ” (Williamson, 1993: 453) “Trust is itself a term for a clustering of perceptions. ” (White, 1992: 174) Scholars and practitioners widely acknowledge trust's importance. Trust makes cooperative endeavors happen (e.g., Arrow, 1974; Deutsch, 1973; Gambetta, 1988). Trust is a key to positive interpersonal relationships in

F14.33> Gemeinschaft. It does not give any new insight into the particularities of trusting relations. To gain such insights we need further conceptual clarification. Bernard Barber at least perceives this need. In his recent monograph The Logic and Limits of Trust (1983; see also Barber 1985) he tries for the first time to provide some kind of ordering. He proposes to distinguish between three different dimensions in which trusting expectations may fail: the continuity of the natural and the moral order, the <<95>> technical competence of actors in roles, and the fiduciary obligations of actors, that is, their duty and their motives to place the interests of others before their own. This distinction refers to the content of expectations and, indirectly, to causes of disappointment. It leaves unspecified, however, the social mechanisms which generate trust in spite of possible disappointment. It is this question, and in a more general sense the problem of the<F

Automation is often problematic because people fail to rely upon it appropriately. Because people respond to technology socially, trust influences reliance on automation. In particular, trust guides reliance when complexity and unanticipated situations make a complete understanding of the automation impractical. This review considers trust from the organizational, sociological, interpersonal, psychological, and neurological perspectives. It considers how the context, automation characteristics, and cognitive processes affect the appropriateness of trust. The context in which the automation is used influences automation performance and provides a goal-oriented perspective to assess automation characteristics along a dimension of attributional abstraction. These characteristics can influence trust through analytic, analogical, and affective processes. The challenges of extrapolating the concept of trust in people to trust in automation are discussed. A conceptual model integrates research regarding trust in automation and describes the dynamics of trust, the role of context, and the influence of display characteristics. Actual or potential applications of this research include improved designs of systems that require people to manage imperfect automation.

We propose a new theoretical framework for understanding simultaneous trust and distrust within relationships. grounded in assumptions of multidimensionality and the inherent tensions of relationships. and we separate this research from prior work grounded in assumptions of unidimensionality and balance. Drawing foundational support for this new framework from recent research on simultaneous positive and negative sentiments and ambivalence. we explore the theoretical and practical significance of the framework for future work on trust and distrust relationships within organizations.

similarities may be useful for some purposes (see Frost & King, 2001 [chapter 1]), but abstractions may present problems in actually accomplishing collaborative work. Second, the natural tendency to establish local territories may interfere with co-workers' identification with the larger collective, such as the distributed project group. Ambiguity of membership reduces group identity (Brown & Wade, 1987; see also Armstrong and Cole, 2001 [chapter 7]). Effects of Spontaneous Communication Distances between offices and work locations possibly have their highest impact on group functioning through their effect on informal, spontaneous communication opportunities (Brockner & Swap, 1976; Ebbesen, Kjos, & Konecni, 1976, Hays, 1985; Kraut & Streeter, 1995; Newcomb, 1981). That is, people who work in proximate offices run into one another at the water cooler, coffee machine, and copier. They see one another come and go to meetings. They meet in the lunch room. These casual encounters increase ...

In this paper we claim the importance of a cognitive view of trust (its articulate, analytic and founded view), in contrast with a mere quantitative and opaque view of trust supported by Economics and Game Theory. We argue in favour of a cognitive view of trust as a complex structure of beliefs and goals, implying that the trustor must have a “theory of the mind ” of the trustee. Such a structure of beliefs determines a “degree of trust ” and an estimation of risk, and then a decision to rely or not on the other, which is also based on a personal threshold of risk acceptance/avoidance. 1.

Building on the theory of swift trust, we empirically examine the dynamic nature of trust and its changing patterns in both cognitive and affective elements between high- and lowperforming teams over time (early, middle, and late stages of project). Using data from 38, fourperson student teams from six universities competing in a web-based business simulation game over eight-week periods, we found that both high- and low-performing teams started with similar levels of trust in both cognitive and affective dimensions. However, high-performing teams were better at developing and maintaining the trust level throughout the project life. Moreover, virtual teams relied more on a cognitive than an affective element of trust. These findings provide a preliminary step toward understanding the dynamic nature and relative importance of cognition-and affect-based trust over time.

In this paper we investigate the relationship between supplier trust in the buyer and transaction costs and information sharing in a sample of 344 supplier-automaker exchange relationships in the U.S., Japan, and Korea. Our findings indicate that perceived trustworthiness reduces transaction costs and is correlated with greater information sharing in supplier-buyer relationships. Moreover, the findings suggest that the value created for transactors, in terms of lower transaction costs, may be substantial. In particular, we found that the least trusted automaker spent significantly more of its face-to-face interaction time with suppliers on contracting and haggling when compared to the most trusted automaker. This translated into procurement (transaction) costs that were five times higher for the least trusted automaker. Finally, we argue that trust is unique as a governance mechanism because it not only minimizes transaction costs, but also has a mutually causal relationship with information sharing which also creates value in the exchange relationship. Other governance mechanisms (e.g., contracts, financial hostages) are necessary costs incurred to prevent opportunistic behavior but do not create value beyond transaction cost minimization. Our findings provide empirical evidence that

We report survey and experimental evidence on trust and voluntary cooperation from more than 630 non-student and student participants in rural and urban Russia. Our subjects have a diverse socioeconomic background that we relate to the answers of a survey on trust attitudes and to contribution behavior in a one-shot public goods game. We find that the socio-economic background affects trust attitudes, but we find no separate influence of socio-economic variables on cooperative behavior in a one-shot public goods experiment. However, cooperation is significantly positively correlated to trust toward strangers and beliefs about the fairness and helpfulness of others.