This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Cannon and Michael R. Mullen Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 601-620 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259297 . Accessed: 26/04/2013 06:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.
This content downloaded from 126.96.36.199 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Academy of Management Review 1998, Vol. 23, No. 3, 601-620.
OF THEINFLUENCE UNDERSTANDING ON THEDEVELOPMENT NATIONALCULTURE OF TRUST
PATRICIA M. DONEY Florida Atlantic University JOSEPH P. CANNON Colorado State University MICHAEL R. MULLEN Florida Atlantic University
Increasingly, researchers from a variety of business disciplines are finding that trust can lower transaction costs, facilitate interorganizational relationships, and enhance manager-subordinate relationships. At the same time, we see a growing trend toward establishing alliances, managing and hiring employees, and enterglobalization-in ing new markets. These trends suggest a need to view the concept of trust from the perspective of national culture. Drawing on theories from several disciplines, we develop a framework that identifies and describes five cognitive trust-building processes that help explain how trust develops in business contexts. We include a series of research propositions demonstrating how societal norms and values influence application of the trust-building processes, and we discuss implications for theory and practice.
Trust is a valuable contributor to many forms In interfirm relationships, reof exchange. searchers credit trust with lowering transaction costs in more uncertain environments (Dore, 1983; Noordewier, John, & Nevin, 1990), thereby providing firms with a source of competitive advantage (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Trust also facilitates long-term relationships between firms (Ganesan, 1994; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992) and is an important component in the success of strategic alliances (Browning, Beyer, & Shetler, 1995; Gulati, 1995). Within organizations, trust contributes to more effective implementation of strategy, greater managerial coordination (McAlliswork teams ter, 1995), and more effective (Lawler, 1992). Concurrent with the growing interest in trust, two related trends have focused scholars' attention on the role culture plays in exchange. First, an increasingly diverse and multicultural workforce, and corporate interest in harnessing the
We thank Special Issue Editor Denise M. Rousseau and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on previous drafts of this article. 601
benefits of diversity, have heightened awareness of how cultural differences impact organizational performance (Cox, 1991; Nemetz & Christensen, 1996). A second major trend is the increased globalization that has occurred in the business world during the last decade. More firms view the world as their market-in terms of establishing alliances, managing and hiring employees, entering new markets, and sourcing supplies. The importance and benefits of trust, and the emerging global and multicultural workplace, highlight the need for us to understand how trust develops and the ways national culture impacts the trust-building process. Although trust may form in a variety of ways, whether and how trust is established depend upon the societal norms and values that guide people's behavior and beliefs (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Since each culture's "collective programming" results in different norms and values, the processes trustors use to decide whether and whom to trust may be heavily dependent upon a society's culture. Indeed, one of the greatest impacts of culture is on how information is used to make decisions (Triandis, 1972).
This content downloaded from 188.8.131.52 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
g. in this article we focus on more rational.. 1992.227 on Fri. 1995).. 1988. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and underlying behavioral assumptions - Calculative Prediction Intentionality Capability Transference Trust L'L / A Other factors affecting the trust development processes Intermediate institutions Organizational Relational Individual N Noncognitive processes >*1 -> Links discussed in this article Links not discussed in this article This content downloaded from 188. emotional or blind trust. & Zanna.602 Academy of Management Review July FRAMEWORK ORGANIZING In this article we examine the extent to which cultural norms and values facilitate or inhibit the formation of trust. as we show in Figure 1. Doney & Cannon. cognitive trust-building processes. we describe five cognitive processes for developing trust and identify behavioral assumptions associated with each. intermediate institutions. Second.. 1995). Andaleeb. 1960. we begin with a selective literature review. The organization of this article moves from right to left along the top row of Figure 1.25. values. or individual factors (cf. In the concluding section we discuss implications of the framework for managers and theory development. our discussion centers on the influence of national culture on the development of trust. 1991). Given the many perspectives on the topic of trust (cf. TRUST Trust has received a great deal of attention from scholars in the base disciplines of social psychology (e.160. Next. 1997. & Schoorman.. see Fukuyama. Williamson.Relation to risk Norms. Deutsch. McAllister. Finally. and Rempel. 1985). certain noncognitive processes may influence the formation of trust (e. in this article we do not address cultural factors that may have a direct effect on the level of trust in a society (e. although these cognitive trust-building processes may be influenced by organizational. relational. Lewicki & Bun- FIGURE 1 Proposed Model of National Culture and the Development of Trust Cognitive processes National culture . First. discussing other integrative frameworks and introducing our definition of trust. we define and describe national culture and several taxonomies useful for identifying cultural norms and values. see Lewis & Weigert.Relation to self . In the section following that. 1985. Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of our proposed model and delimits the conceptual domain of this article.g. however.Relation to authority .g. Gambetta. 1995. We then turn our attention to a set of research propositions that illustrates how cultural norms and values affect the trust-building processes. Holmes. Mayer.. drawing on literature from several disciplines. Davis. as well as limitations and opportunities for future research.
or expectations about a target's trustworthiness (Pruitt. and we provide our working definition of trust. see also Deutsch. McAllister. 1987. psychologists benevolent behavior. Scott. Zaltman. Schlenker.g. sentiments.227 on Fri. 1981. Mayer et al. we uncovered two streams of thought: (1) trust as a set of beliefs or expectations and (2) trust as a willingness to act on those beliefs (e. Larzelere and Huston (1980) propose two qualities of trust: (1) benevolence and (2) honesty.. 1991). Fukuyama (1995) views trust as the expectation of regular. However. however. Barber. despite shortterm incentives and uncertainty about long-term rewards (e. 1995. given the vagueness and idiosyncrasies in defining trust across multiple disciplines and orientations (Andaleeb.g. A second perspective emphasizes a trustor's willingness to use trusting expectations as a basis for behavioral intentions and behavior (Luhmann. Lindskold.. Therefore. there have been surprisingly few attempts to on trust integrate the various perspectives (Lewicki & Bunker. stressing the need for consistency. 1985. However. Dwyer. 1978). Focusing on characteristics of the trustee. Anderson & Weitz. 1980). or (3) societal institutions. Lane & Bachman. and that such assessments may be along multiple dimensions. & Cheraskin (1992) propose that trust has three bases: (1) deterrence-based trust emphasizes costs and benefits. Gulati. 1988. 1995. Mayer et al. Lindskold.g.g. despite growing consensus that trust involves a belief or expectation. and integrity are the primary factors leading to trust. Dasgupta. there is little agreement about the content of those beliefs. because "if one were omniscient. 1958). 1989. advocates of this approach tend to focus on the nature of a trustor's beliefs. Some researchers suggest that both belief This content downloaded from 188. Thus.. the target of trust. Zucker (1986) suggests that trust may be based on (1) the process of exchange.g. In defining trust. although multidisciplinary interest has added to the richness of the construct.160. (2) knowledge-based trust requires getting to know the target. 1995). Sheppard. and Mullen 603 ker. see also Dasgupta. or characteristics of. Lewis & Weigert. 1996) and marketing (e. Deutsch defines trust as "actions that increase one's vulnerability to another" (1962: 276). Each of these bodies of literature offers unique insights into the nature of trust and the processes through which trust develops. Developing an integrated model of trust is particularly difficult. 1973. Others have emphasized one's beliefs about a partner's motives-a target perceived to be motivated to help a trustor will be trusted (e. 1988.. However. 1980). 1983. 1972). 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1995). (2) characteristics of the exchange partners. each base discipline emphasizes different beliefs as central to human behavior.. 1995. Strub & Priest. (1995) suggest that a target's ability. & Oh. For example.g. Finally. Luhmann emphasizes vulnerability in noting that a "fundamental condition of trust is that it must be possible for the partner to abuse the trust" (1979: 42.g. Together. Shapiro. or even possibility. McAllister. 1995. 1995. 1976). & Deshpande. and economics (e.. For example. some have defined trust as the expectation that an exchange partner will not engage in opportunistic behavior. For example. Rotter (1971) focuses on one party's ability to rely on another's word or promise. What Is Trust? Most perspectives on trust recognize that risk is required for trust to influence choice and behavior (Lewis & Weigert. as well as in more applied areas like management (e. Each model suggests that trustors make assessments about the trustworthiness of targets. Bradach & Eccles. in our review of the extant literature. Helm. Whereas economists emphasize costs and benfocus on consistent and efits. leaving no need. actions could be undertaken with complete certainty. Rotter. In trusting situations the sources of risk generally are related to vulnerability and/or uncertainty about an outcome. Deutsch. these approaches focus on beliefs about. Lewis and Weigert emphasize the need for uncertainty. benevolence. honest. 1973). and sociologists consider aspects of society. 1992. and (3) identification-based trust forms on the basis of common values. Moorman. & Tedeschi..1998 Doney. In one such effort. 1992). a trustor must develop enough confidence in a target's motives and future behavior to be willing to rely on that target in a situation that is potentially risky for the trustor. 1989). Schurr. one perspective is that trust reflects a trustor's beliefs. and cooperative behavior based on commonly shared norms and values. 1978). Cannon. Mayer et al. trusting behavior per Scott.. and Zand.. for trust to develop" (1985: 970. 1985.25. 1979. Williamson. sociology (e. 1971). In the next section we highlight commonalities and differences across the various bodies of trust literature.
1985) Social psychology (Deutsch. which involves trustors undertaking a risky course of action based on expectations that targets will act dutifully. trust involves more than just forming beliefs about another's trustworthiness.g. Individual behavior is consistent and predictable.provide some indication of whether a given behavioral assumption is tenable. Capability: Trustor assesses a target's ability to fulfill his or her promises. Lewis and Weigert (1985) refer to the "behavioral enactment" component of trust. Individuals differ in their competence.. Trust is established through a calculative process whereby one party calculates the costs and/or rewards of TABLE 1 Trust-Building Processes. we define trust as a willingness to rely on another party and to take action in circumstances where such action makes one vulnerable to the other party (for similar definitions see Mayer et al. 1988. However. motivated to seek joint gain). 1976) This content downloaded from 188. Accordingly. and both are necessary for trust to be present. 1995) Social psychology (Rempel & Holmes. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .160. A careful reading of this diverse literature also provides insight into the behavioral assumption(s) that underlie each trust-building process. 1986) Sociology (Barber. Our definition incorporates the notion of risk as a precondition for trust. which "govern the actions of people toward one another" (Hill. Sociology (Granovetter. These various theoretical perspectives form the basis of our framework of cognitive trust-building processes. Therefore. Butler & Cantrell. 1997:68). Individuals are geared toward others. 1985) suggests that developing trust involves a calculative process. and underlying behavioral assumptions in Table 1. Buckley & Casson. connections in a network are strong and reliable. Cultural norms.. Dasgupta.g. Lewicki & Bunker. ability. 1997.. 1985.. 1995. and Underlying Behavioral Assumptions Trust-Building Process Calculative: Trustor calculates the costs and rewards of a target acting in an untrustworthy way. Intentionality: Trustor evaluates target's motivations. expectations of a target's trustworthiness drive a trustor's behavior.g. Williamson. their base disciplines. there must be a willingness to act based on those beliefs. which express a group's beliefs about how things should be (Hill. Moorman et al. 1960. How a trustor comes to form trusting expectations we do not specify in this definition. a Primary Base Discipline Economics (Dasgupta.. we must have a single definition that encompasses each of these diverse perspectives. 1983.227 on Fri. Prediction: Trustor develops confidence that a target's behavior can be predicted.604 Academy of Management Review July and behavioral intention components must be present for trust to exist (e. To build an integrative model of trust. and Moorman et al. as opposed to themselves (e. Individuals and institutions can be trusted. and cultural values. The economics literature (e.25. Base Disciplines. 1992). Transference: Trustor draws on proof sources from which trust is transferred to a target.Mead. 1988. Developing Trust Different base disciplines emphasize at least five alternative processes by which trustors come to "choose" whom to trust. 1984) Underlying Behavioral Assumptions Individuals are opportunistic and seek to maximize self-interest. Calculative process. we argue that trustors engage in one or more cognitive processes in order to determine whether or not targets are trustworthy. In other words. 1988. Whether trustors form trust via a particular process is contingent upon these underlying behavioral assumptions being met. we provide examples of cultural norms and values that facilitate application of each trust-building process. and it includes both the belief and behavioral components of trust. 1992). the ability to deliver on their promises. In our view.. Strub & Priest. 1994). We outline the five cognitive trust-building processes. Williamson. thus. and/or expertise and.
1998 Doney. trust stems from expectations of how another party will behave based on that party's past and present implicit and explicit claims. Trust based on prediction depends on one party's ability to forecast another party's behavior (Deutsch.227 on Fri. Thus. as parties try to determine the nature what they will get of their interdependence. (1992) suggest that trust in business relationships first develops on a calculative basis. from the relationship and give to it. To the extent that the benefits of cheating do not exceed the costs of being caught (factoring in the likelihood of being caught). 1987). To establish trust via a prediction process. advancement. Therefore.'s (1992) knowledge-based trust is also grounded in the predictability of behavior. Were this not the case. and achievement. Thus.160.g. soci- This content downloaded from 188. For example. In other words. a prediction process is triggered by evidence increasing the trustor's confidence that the target's future behavior is consistent and predictable. Trustors assume that targets exhibit "trust-like" behavior (Husted. 1992). makthey are self-interest-seeking results ing net present value calculations-the of which indicate net benefits to refraining from opportunistic behavior. Prediction process. which leads to trust. Trust emerges when the trustor gains confidence in his or her ability to predict the target's future behavior with accuracy. a calculative process is triggered by evidence that targets are opportunistic and seek to maximize self-interest. Shapiro et al. a behavioral assumption central to a prediction process of trust building is that human behavior is. 1992). norms for individual initiative. and reward and control systems that allow parties to pursue selfinterest without a need to resort to guile (Beamish & Banks. a trustor must be able to determine the probabilities associated with a target's likely choice of future actions. 1978). Trust endures as long as a target remains predictable. 1989) because individuals. 1985). 1995). and wealth). incentives to engage in opportunistic behavior are minimized by shared profits.25. Zucker's (1986) process-based trust derives from repeated transactions.. 1960. and what their risks and vulnerabilities are likely to be. To establish trust via a calculative process. Were this not the case. According to Good (1988). most people act opportunistically and in their own self-interest (Williamson. Evidence that a target is prone toward opportunism is provided by societal norms supporting self-serving behavior (e. in the case of long-term joint ventures. so that party can be trusted (Akerlof. the greater the generated knowledge base and the more a target's behavior becomes predictable (Lewicki & Bunker. in fact. thereby confirming a trustor's knowledge (Shapiro et al. the trustor infers that it would be contrary to the other party's best interest to cheat. consistent and predictable. trust building via a prediction process requires information about a targreater the variety of get's past actions-the shared experiences. For example.. Trust is sustained to the degree that the deterrent is clear. Similarly. 1970). the economic calculus trustors use to establish whether a target is "trustworthy" is based on the behavioral assumption that. power. Shapiro et al. and norms for differential prestige. Rempel & Holmes. and Mullen 605 another party cheating or cooperating in a relationship (Lindskold. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Using a prediction process. and likely to occur if the trust is violated (Shapiro et al. and trustors would be unable to confer trust based on a calculative process. Trust emerges via a prediction process whereby a trustor determines that a target's past actions provide a reasonable basis upon which to predict future behavior. Dasgupta concludes that trusting another "implicitly means] that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of coordination with him" (1988: 217). 1986). Buckley and Casson (1988) suggest that assessment of costs and benefits leads to forbearance (refraining from cheating). In their parlance. Cannon. possible. given the chance. the trustor confers trust based on prior experiences demonstrating that the target's behavior is predictable. The consistency of the target's past actions and the extent to which the target's actions are congruent with his or her words affect the degree to which a trustor judges the target's behavior to be predictable. trustors must determine whether the targets' costs for opportunistic behavior exceed the benefits. joint decision making. there would be no reason for a trustor to expect a target's past actions to mirror future behavior. targets would have no reason to refrain from opportunistic behavior. Thus.. calculative trust is "deterrence do what they say they will do based"-people because they fear the consequences of doing otherwise.
trustors interpret targets' words and behavior and attempt to determine their intentions in exchange (Lindskold. and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain" (1995: 717). Trust based on a partner's expertise focuses on an expectancy held by an individual that he or she can rely on the partner's word or written statement (Lindskold.g. Capability process. and service. For example. Similarly. If one party perceives another to have only selfish intentions. and fairness (Kahneman. Stimpson. 1978). Trust building by means of a capability process involves a trustor's willingness to trust based on an assessment of the target's ability to meet his or her obligations as well as the trustor's expectations.. For example. Strub & Priest. Therefore. Similarly. Others have suggested benevolence as a basis for trust (Larzelere & Huston. solidarity.e. benevolent) people or groups usually will be considered trustworthy. Schurr & Ozanne. during which the trustor transfers trust from a known entity to an unknown one. Strub and Priest describe the "extension pattern" of gaining trust as using a "third party's definition of another as a basis for defining that other as trustworthy" (1976: 399). a behavioral assumption central to the capability process is that people differ significantly in their competence.227 on Fri. trust may result (Lindskold & Bennett. 1976). Deutsch. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1985) have discussed similar constructs as affecting trust. Trust as a competent perforderivative of technically mance ensures trustors that desired outcomes can be obtained. Thus.. Transference process. or motives. 1986. 1984. obligation and cooperation (Bradach & Eccles. 1980) that allow one party to better understand the other partner's objectives and goals. 1980. 1988. Frazier & Summers. 1978). use the term "ability" to describe "that group of skills.25. for instance.. To establish trust via an intentionality process. as well as authoritarian norms). norms for behavioral conformity. a trustor must determine that a target's intentions in exchange are benevolent. Using an intentionality process to establish trust.160. considers technical competence a precursor for trust (see also Butler & Cantrell. 1987). Several researchers (Busch & Wilson. or expertise. 1984). Finally. but if an attribution of altruistic intentions is made. Intentionality process. Copeland & Griggs. suggesting that helpful and rewarding (i. Frost. parties focus their attention on long-term joint profit maximization.g. 1995). trust may develop through a transference process. norms of reciprocity (Gouldner. Knetsch. ability. This content downloaded from 188. Trust is transferred from a trusted "proof source" to another individual or group with which the trustor has little or no direct experience (Milliman & Fugate. 1986) generate shared expectations between parties and provide evidence that a target's intentions are benevolent. people differ in their capability to deliver on their promises. Deutsch (1973) reflects on this view of trust. 1960). 1960. A number of researchers have addressed the link between intentions. Mayer et al.606 Academy of Management Review July etal norms that restrict variance in human behavior limit the occurrence of deviant behavior and raise the costs of such behavior (e. in a joint venture established in the spirit of mutual commitment to long-term success. Mayer et al. competencies. certified public accountants may be trusted because they are certified by a trusted agency. O'Shaughnessy. Motives underlie an intentionality process in which trust formation is influenced by one party's perception of the intentions of the other party (e. Barber (1983). Trust emerges if trustors perceive targets to be genuinely interested in the trustors' welfare and motivated to seek joint gain. expertise. & Silva. 1967). & Thaler. and accomplishment. Zucker's (1986) institution-based trust is founded on the notion that formal societal structures can confer trust-for example. Deutsch. and trust (e. Giffin. trust is unlikely to develop. a behavioral assumption central to an intentionality process is that individuals are geared toward others-not themselves. Trawick. 1971..g. 1985. Trust is likely to form via a capability process in societies where people perceive a large "competence gap" and show respect for individual qualifications. 1989).. 1973). Swan. 1976. thus creating a foundation for trust (Beamish & Banks. 1973). Interpretation and assessment of benevolent intentions are facilitated when the two parties share values or norms (Macneil. and Manghan (1978) associate trust with an individual's expectation that the behavior of another person or group will be altruistic and personally beneficial. Since to establish trust via a capability process trustors must determine that targets are "capable" of meeting their obligations and the trustor's expectations.
Social scientists (e. strong ties per Granovetter. whether or not they are in congruence with a nation's dominant cultural stereotypes. education.. in practice they may be interrelated. Hofstede (1980) suggests that trust is linked to broader cultural norms. and define culture as "a system of values and norms that are shared among a group of people and that when taken together constitute a design for living" (1997: 67. Indeed. we focus on how cultural traits shared by groups or subgroups influence the development of trust. and Mullen 607 To establish trust via a transference process. CULTURAL TAXONOMIES Researchers have taken two approaches to uncover universal dimensions of national culture. in part.25. sociologists Namenwirth and Weber defined culture as a "system of ideas" that provide a "design for living" (1987: 8). The extent to which trustors employ a particular trust-building process hinges on whether its underlying behavioral assumptions are satisfied.' On the contrary. Also.. Thus.160. sending. Since such norms and values tend to vary across cultures (e.1998 Doney. a transference process also is facilitated in cultures where faith in other people and institutions is high-since it is through these proof sources that trust is transferred. which builds on these works. Triandis. This content downloaded from 188. A strong faith in people is characteristic of cultures fostering stability and confidence in others. corporate culture). In summary. Therefore. Indeed. Indeed. and fragmentation perspectives.. on societal norms and values that establish "appropriate" beliefs and behavioral standards. differentiation. 1995. We apply the label "national" to culture to distinguish the character of a society from other forms of culture that we do not directly address here (e. for a parallel discussion of integration. 1995). storing. a trustor who engages in frequent transactions with a target is better able to establish the target's predictability.g. Recently. enduring pattern of behavior and/or personality characteristics" (1990: 66). 1972). frequent interactions help the trustor assess the target's capabilities. Nor do we mean to imply that norms and values are embraced by all groups or subgroups or are consistent across all segments of a population. a transference process may be triggered when a strong interpersonal network exists (e. NATIONAL CULTURE Researchers have offered many different definitions of culture. culture is "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another" (1984: 21). trustors must be able to identify proof sources and to establish links between these known entities and unknown ones.. and life experiences. it is important to note that the cultural boundaries beincreasingly tween nations are becoming "fuzzy" with economic integration (Fukuyama. Transferencebased trust rests on the assumption that the individuals and institutions that act as proof sources are themselves trustworthy. We adopt Hill's definition. Inkeles & Levinson.g. Culture in Organizations. 1985) that allows trust to transfer readily between individuals. ' See Martin's (1992) book.g. Locke. Whether such assumptions are tenable depends.227 on Fri. and there may be significant cultural differences within countries (see Fukuyama. However.g. According to Hofstede. Cannon. Although the cognitive trust-building processes are conceptually mutually exclusive. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . In Clark's review of national character. Thus. national culture as we view it is not a characteristic of individuals or nation states but of a large number of people conditioned by similar background. our framework of trust-building processes suggests that a trustor's willingness to act based on trusting expectations develops through a pattern of cognitive analysis. emphasis added). the processes trustors use to form trust may depend heavily on culture. In the following section we define and describe culture and cultural taxonomies useful for understanding how culture influences the development of trust. in any given situation it is likely that trustors rely on more than one-and perhaps all five-cognitive processes to determine their willingness to place themselves at risk. and processing information. although many researchers have used "nation" as a surrogate for culture. 1995). For example. Anthropologists Hall and Hall (1990) view culture as a system for creating. Thus. he describes culture "as a distinctive. we do not equate national with the geographical boundaries of nations. 45 years ago Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) had already identified over 160 definitions of culture.
2 More generally. it is important to should note that other cultural taxonomies prove equally useful for studying culture's impact on the development of trust. Relation to Self The conceptual domain Clark labels "relation to self" encompasses issues of personality and self-concept (1990). we still adopt Hofstede's terminology for the sake of continuity in the literature. indirefers to the relationship vidualism/collectivism between the individual and the collectivity that self. taxonomy serves as a summary device for grouping norms and values associated with a given conceptual domain. and tolerance of individual opinion. the striking correspondence between Hofand stede's empirically derived dimensions those based on theory affords researchers an opportunity to combine theoretical rigor with empirical discipline. 1980. Although numerous cultural taxonomies have been proconverposed.. PROPOSITIONS RESEARCH In the following research propositions.227 on Fri. 1990. While we acknowledge this problem. for an indepth discussion of this issue). and solidarity. First. success. and (3) relation to risk. 1990). Hofstede. the values approach Hofstede (1980) uses to identify dimensions makes his taxonomy a particularly useful tool for studying the relationship between the cognitive trust-building processes and their underlying behavioral assumptions. Clark (1990) identifies three emerging domains of study in the extant literature on culture: (1) relation to self. service. 1961. such as the importance of unilateral versus group goals. such as assertiveness. and with the trustthe proposed relationships building processes can be found in the last two columns of Table 2. 1985) national have attempted to dimensionalize culture based on empirical studies.160. In his integrative review of national character. Peabody. For example. prevail over "tender" values. Lynn. The dimensions derived from national cultures may be useful in the study of intra. First. whereas individualism/collectivism is likely to be important in studying leadership behavior. some of the cognitive processes may operate differently when trustors and targets opposed to differare members of the same-as Therefore. cussion we assume that each dimension of culture is of equal importance and that trustors and targets share in-group membership (i. in the following disent-cultures. his cultural dimensions.25. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . It is important to note that context may play a role in determining the relationship between culture and the cognitive processes a trustor invokes.e. their associated norms and values. an examination of budget control practices may focus on uncertainty avoidance. Second. 1936. (2) relation to others. of 3 Hofstede's "masculinity/femininity" label has the unfortunate consequence of fostering gender stereotypes.g. Two of Hofstede's (1984) dimensions deal with relation to self. masculinity/femininity3 concerns the dominant values in a society (Singh. there has been considerable gence in terms of conceptual domain. Norms and values associated with reflect the way peoindividualism/collectivism ple interact.versus a group prevails in a society-a orientation. the strength of interpersonal ties.608 Academy of Management Review July 1969.. Second. 1982) have developed various classification systems based on theory. are members of the same culture). and competition. As we show in the first column of Table 2. situational factors may influence the relevance of a particular cultural dimension. For our purposes. Clark categorizes dimensions from various theoretical and empirical taxonomies according to their relatedness (see Clark. We organize these propositions according to the three theoretical domains Clark (1990) culled from the various literatures on culture. we consider how cultural norms and values (which establish "appropriate" behavioral standards and beliefs) facilitate or inhibit application of the cognitive trust-building processes. This content downloaded from 188. While we use Hofstede's taxonomy and terminology to illustrate the application of our framework. Hofstede's (1984) 2 Hofstede (1983) provides an accessible ranking "scores" on cultural dimensions for 40 countries. such as nurturance.or interorganizational phenomena. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck. The masculinity/ femininity dimension assesses the degree to which "tough" values. Allport & Odbert. respect for individual accomplishment. Culture is an attribute that develops within any identity group enduring over time. Other researchers (e.
"We" consciousness (group orientation) Value joint efforts and group rewards Norms for behavioral conformity High loyalty to other people and institutions Interact in an interdependent. 1980)Lolyattothrppean Conceptions of self (Inkeles & Levinson. Cultural Taxonomies. 1980) Masculinity/femininity (Hofstede. competitive basis Tightness/looseness (Peabody.160. cooperative mode Strong interpersonal ties Masculinity Value individual achievement Norm for confrontation Norms for independent thought and action Femininity Norms for solidarity and service Norm for cooperation Social norms honoring moral obligations Relation to authority: reflects the emphasis given to hierarchical relations in family.25. and Mullen 609 TABLE 2 Conceptual Domains. 1969) High power distance Norms for differential prestige. 1980) Primary dilemmas or conflicts (Inkeles & Levinson. 1985) Psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck. and the Influence of Societal Norms and Values on the Formation of Trust Conceptual Domains and Related Cultural Taxonomies (Clark. and reference groups Power distance (Hofstede. 1969) Orientation toward human relationships (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck. 1969) Assertiveness (Peabody. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . social class. 1985) Loose interpersonal ties Extroversion (Eysenck & Eysenck.1998 Doney. affiliation High uncertainty avoidance Need for structure (formal rules and regulations) Human behavior is purposive Norm for compromise Stro fah institution faith in institutions ~~~~~Strong Belief in experts and their knowledge Low uncertainty avoidance High tolerance for deviance Human behavior is unpredictable Norm for conflict Weak faith in people and institutions Collectivism Collectivism Prediction (+) Intentionality (+) Transference (+) Masculinity Calculative (+) Capability (+) Femininity Prediction (+) Intentionality (+) Transference (+) High power distance Calculative (+) Prediction (+) Capability (+) Low power distance Intentionality (+) Transference (+) High uncertainty avoidance Prediction (+) Intentionality (+) Capability (+) Transference (+) Low uncertainty avoidance Calculative (+) This content downloaded from 188. 1980) Relation to authority (Inkeles & Levinson. solidarity. 1961) Strodtbeck. evaluation. institutions (1969) Interact on an individual. 1969) Coolletis Perception of human nature (Kluckhohn & 196 1) ~~~~Collectivism Strodtbeck. Cannon. power. 1990: 73) Relation to self: reflects concerns with selfconcept and personality Hofstede's (1980) Cultural Dimensions and Associated Societal Norms and Values Influence on TrustBuilding Process Individualism Calculative (+) Capability (+) Individualism "I" consciousness (self-orientation) Value individual accomplishment Tolerate individual behavior and opinion Individualism/collectivism (Hofstede.227 on Fri. wealth Norm for conflict Aoritarian norm Low power distance Egalitarian relationships prevail Norm for cooperation Norms for interdependence. 1961) Relation to risk: reflects research into the perception. and experience of risk in the buying/consumption process Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede.
Self-serving behavior is unlikely in feminine societies as well. 1991). individual initiative. Deterrence mechanisms. the costs for unpredictable behavior do not appear to be substantial. the large degree of freedom endorsed by individualist societies does little to restrict variance in human behavior. because it is inconsistent with the value system: feminine societies exhibit a pattern of nurture.g. However. 1992). which is fully consistent with a tendency toward opportunism. Evidence from anthropology. The likelihood that collectivists will engage in opportunistic behavior is low. Singh.. Indeed. Ueno & Sekaran. Indeed. people often drop out of in-groups if membership inhibits the attainment of individual goals (Earley. Norms in masculine societies that allow for a wide range of acceptable behavior are also inconsistent with the notion of predictable behavior. Therefore. "Tough" values in masculine societies (e. Singh. Triandis. because people hold group values and beliefs and seek collective interests (Hofstede. also curb opportunism by driving up the costs of opportunistic behavior. and wealth) also suggests that little cost is associated with instances of self-serving behavior. Predictable behavior runs counter to norms in individualist societies. The same can be said for masculine societies. psychology. visible achievement and making money) suggest that the potential rewards for opportunistic behavior may well exceed the costs.. People are expected to promote their own self-interest (e. self-serving behavior runs counter to the "we" consciousness that prevails in collectivist societies. targets may give more weight to the rewards that might accrue from opportunistic behavior. self-serving behavior is unlikely because people are not motivated by self-interest (e. the costs associated with such behavior would be quite high. 1989). This content downloaded from 188. In collectivist societies in-groups establish guidelines for acceptable behavior.. Since individualist societies accept great latitude in behavior and are tolerant of variance in a partner's performance (Kale & McIntyre. 1992. Kale & Barnes. more cooperative behavior. To the extent that feminine societies frown upon opportunistic behavior.. 1984).g. and people act in unison to accomplish joint goals (e.g. which provide for distinctiveness and idiosyncrasy. Olson. Such is not the case in individualist or masculine societies. 1990). where instances of opportunism are frequent and the price paid for opportunistic behavior is likely to be discounted. Proposition 1: Relative to counterparts in collectivist (feminine) cultures.g. 1971. The value placed on personal accomplishment in individualist societies (e. For example. 1991. In sum. Earley. 1989. behavioral anomalies may not prove costly in masculine societies. Prediction process.. unpredictable behavior on the part of others might be accepted and expected in masculine societies. achievement.25. Earley. 1983). Kale. In other words. 1990. and political science confirms a pattern of assertiveness and aggressiveness (Hofstede. To the extent this is true.610 Academy of Management Review July Calculative process. Ueno & Sekaran.. the likelihood of self-serving behavior is quite high in individualist societies. 1984.g.160. For example. norms and values both in collectivist and feminine cultures support behavioral conformity and serve to curb variability in human behavior. 1984). 1989. Lindsay.227 on Fri. trustors in individualist (masculine) cultures are more likely to form trust via a calculative process. norms in both individualist and masculine cultures promote a calculative process by providing evidence that opportunistic behavior is likely and has relatively low costs. as well as the costs/ rewards associated with such behavior. 1992) and to attempt to maximize the gains from any opportunity that presents itself (Hofstede. The individualism/ collectivism and masculinity/femininity dimensions influence the likelihood that targets will act opportunistically. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . societal norms in individualist societies support self-serving behavior.g. Indeed. and there is a tendency toward less aggressive. Targets who expect to be ostracized for acting in their own self-interest will likely assign high costs to opportunism. The fact that masculine societies are associated with independence-the opportunity for freedom of thought and action-suggests that it would be difficult for a trustor to predict a target's future behavior with accuracy. In fact. The individualism/collectivism and masculinity/femininity dimensions influence a trustor's ability to develop trust based on predictable behavior by establishing the value society places on behavioral conformity. such as social sanctions for pursuing individual interests (e.
Likewise. Ueno & Sekaran. In general. 1985. being "tender" values generous. Thus. In individualist cultures it is commonly accepted that people often play adversarial roles and that some degree of conflict is natural (Kale & McIntyre.. however. conformity is high and deviant behaviors are negligible (Ueno & Sekaran. competence. For example. where group cooperation is the norm and where people work together to accomplish group goals. 1976).160. feminine cultures emphasize not drawing attention to oneself (Hofstede.. Proposition 2: Relative to counterparts in individualist (masculine) cultures. 1989).g. norms for solidarity and service in feminine societies restrict the range of acceptable behaviors to those supporting the common good. trustors in collectivist (feminine) cultures are more likely to form trust via a prediction process. Conversely. The norm is for leveling-not trying to be better than others-and the social rewards for excellence are slight. & Clack. norms provide a strong indication that the target's motives are benevolent. 1992). frown on unilateral goal attainment. an individualist orientation provides scant evidence that a target will act in the trustor's best interest. are not likely to be of paramount importance to the target. collectivists evaluate performance based on group achievements and goals-not individual performance (Ueno & Sekaran. On the contrary. achievement. for example. ability. Villareal. rather than from individual efforts (Kale & McIntyre.g.25. and wealth. 1991). too. people subordinate their personal interests to the goals of their in-group (Triandis et al. a key facet of both individualist and masculine cultures is the focus on individuals: societal norms and values support individual initiative. The predominance of group rewards and the value placed on joint efforts also suggest that targets will act in the trustors' best interests.. as well as in their own. When the group as a whole can be counted on to get the job done. and so on-clearly embraced by feminine cultures. feminine societies attach little importance to individual achievement. achievement in masculine societies is associated with individual wealth and position. feminine cultures have been associated with higher levels of benevolence (Gordon. Similarly. Proposition 3: Relative to counterparts in individualist (masculine) cultures. evidence of a target's capability may not be particularly valuable in collectivist cultures. Capability process. Collectivist societies.227 on Fri. it seems unlikely that trustors will rely on evidence of a target's capability to establish trustworthiness. For example.g. we would expect relatively little value to be placed on evidence of a target's capability. targets are motivated by selfinterest and pursue individual goals that may be inconsistent with the trustor's goals (e. The individualism/ collectivism and masculinity/femininity dimensions influence the ease with which trustors can ascertain whether a target's motives in an exchange are benevolent. In fact. trustors in collectivist (feminine) cultures are more likely to from trust via an intentionality process. The trustor's best interests. Also. In sum. 1984). it follows that trustors expect targets to have benevolent intentions. Intentionality process. 1992). The individualism/collecdimensions tivism and masculinity/femininity influence how much value a trustor places on a target's capability (e. Early. helping the unfortunate. 1992)-and see events as the result of contributions from all participants. Similarly. On the contrary. In individualist cultures. a person's identity is a function of personal accomplish- This content downloaded from 188. norms in both collectivist and feminine cultures facilitate a prediction process by providing evidence that a target's intentions are benevolent. 1991). or expertise). Cannon. 1985). 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . In sum. trustors may perceive that. sharing with others. The society's value system (e. social norms honoring moral obligations) dictates that the costs of behavioral anomalies are high. far from having benevolent intentions..1998 Doney. for example. the costs of deviant behavior are high in collectivist societies. then. targets may act in ways that prevent or impede attainment of the trustor's goals. norms in collectivist and feminine cultures that support behavioral conformity facilitate a prediction process by making it easier for a trustor to predict a target's behavior with accuracy. In collectivist and in feminine societies. Here. Since in-group members are expected to follow the group's established norms. people who violate in-group norms may be ostracized by the group. Similarly. Given that trustors and targets are likely to be members of the same in-group. we would expect greater benevolence to correspond with doing things for others. and Mullen 611 Leung.
1976) and a greater feeling that business institutions should support people and society (Hofstede. In sum. firms consciously refrain from using coercion in their influence attempts (Frazier & Summers. which tend toward a natural sharing of power and more participative decision making. Because failure of one in-group member brings shame to all members of the group and because people afforded in-group status tend to be highly trusted. the trustor has greater confidence in a greater willingness to the transferee-and transfer trust to the target. Thus. and reference groups (Clark.612 Academy of Management Review July ments. when the transferring entity is an in-group member. Transference process. which facilitate a transference process. 1990). such as adherence to authoritarian norms and dependence on authority. therefore.25. 1985). Individualist cultures are characterized by a loosely knit social framework (Singh. social class. masculine cultures respect "super achievers" (Kale & Barnes. By establishing acceptable levels of power and coercion. trying to be the best. 1984. The reverse is true in collectivist and in feminine societies. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Calculative process. 1990). one might expect higher costs to be assigned to opportunistic behavior in low power distance cultures. Power distance is reflected in the values embraced by the society's members (Singh. 1992). as well as the costs/rewards associated with opportunistic behavior. 1991). For example. 1991). In fact. 1991). the power distance dimension influences the likelihood that targets will act opportunistically. In other words.227 on Fri. 1984). 1992) and support a is. In this regard. trustors in feminine societies Similarly. trustors in individualist (masculine) cultures are more likely to form trust via a capability process. Opportunism may be less likely in low power distance cultures. readily accept other entities as trusted proof sources. 1984). It follows that trustors are less likely to confer trust on institutions and individuals and. The transfer of trust is also inhibited in masculine societies because it is difficult for trustors to identify trusted proof sources from which they may transfer trust to an unknown target. which makes it difficult for trust to transfer from one entity to another. In low power distance cultures people are more willing to consult with others and to temper the use of power (Kale & McIntyre. Ueno & Sekaran. Both individualism/ dimencollectivism and masculinity/femininity sions influence how readily trust transfers. it should be relatively easy for trustors to identify a proof source. norm for excelling-that Individual brilliance is admired. Finally. The dimension provides individualism/collectivism an indication of the strength of ties in a society (Granovetter. trustworthy. strong interpersonal ties and the we consciousness characteristic of a collectivist society suggest that trustors will judge others to be similar. norms in both collectivist and feminine cultures promote the transfer of trust by forging strong societal ties. the exercise of power and use of coercion are frequent occurrences in high power distance societies (Kale & McIntyre. and rewards are tied closely to performance (Ueno & Sekaran. 1992) suggests that trust will transfer with ease. In sum. Proposition 5: Relative to counterparts in individualist (masculine) cultures. 1986). feminine cultures expect people and institutions to be nurturing and supportive and. Feminine cultures have been associated with higher levels of benevolence (Gordon. to deem them acceptable proof sources. Performance evaluation is based on individual achievement. Thus. Hofstede's (1984) power distance dimension addresses ideological orientations to authority and behavioral adaptations to authority. trustors in collectivist (feminine) cultures are more likely to form trust via a transference process. Similarly. and the successful achiever is idolized (Kale. However. 1990.160. thus. and people tend to show a skeptical view of others (Hofstede. Relation to Authority "Relation to authority" reflects the emphasis a society gives to hierarchical relations in family. John (1984) demonstrates empirically that when attri- This content downloaded from 188. 1992). the fact that collectivist cultures show tight integration (Kale & Barnes. Proposition 4: Relative to counterparts in collectivist (feminine) cultures. Mascuwith indepenline societies are associated dence. norms in both individualist and masculine cultures suggest that evidence of a target's capability is a reasonable basis upon which to form trust.
Proposition 9: Relative to counterparts in low power distance cultures. Whyte. people in low power distance societies embrace an egalitarian view of others. evidence demonstrating that a target's behavior is predictable will be highly valued and pave the way for trust to form. Participative decision making is idealized (e. For example. Such norms and values provide trustors in low power distance societies with evidence that a target's intentions are benevolent. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . trustors in high power distance cultures are more likely to form trust via a capability process. perceptions of increased centralization and controls (rule enforcement and surveillance) lead to more opportunism. Daniels & Radebaugh. Transference process. Norms for conformity provide evidence that a target's behavior is predictable. one might infer that targets in high power distance societies will act and fail to associate opportunistically high costs with opportunistic behavior. in high power distance societies people endorse conformity more and independence less. Williams. people value relationships based on mutual and comparable dependence and group affiliation. A transference process is triggered when faith in people and institutions is high. Norms supporting power differentials also provide evidence that targets will act for personal gain. Prediction process. 1991. Proposition 6: Relative to counterparts in low power distance cultures. According to John (1984). thus.160. emphasis on qualifications. freedom to act individually hampers a trustor's ability to predict a target's behavior. evidence of a target's individual capability may be discounted. Kale & Barnes. Proposition 8: Relative to counterparts in high power distance cultures.25. By establishing standards for interpersonal interaction. Clearly. high regard for predictability in relationships. and a large perceived difference between experts and nonexperts. and provides a solid base on which trust can be built. Intentionality process. trustors in low power distance cultures are more likely to form trust via an intentionality process. In low power distance societies. and those at the lower levels simply carry out the orders given by powerful groups at the top (Ueno & Sekaran. the value placed on evidence of a target's capability. and Mullen 613 butions of influence are made to coercion. the power distance dimension can either promote or inhibit assignment of benevolent intentions. it is through such proof sources that trust is transferred.227 on Fri. Cannon. 1984). The fact that authoritarian norms prevail (Hofstede. As a result. however. To the extent that such self-serving behaviors are sanctioned. where there is a strong dependence on authority. 1994). 1992). The power distance dimension addresses whether people expect a wide distribution of capabilities among a society's members and. Under such circumstances it is unlikely that trustors believe that targets have their best interests at heart. The reverse is true in high power distance societies. People view conflict and compe- tition as constructive. In low power distance cultures people are less likely to conform and more likely to do whatever they want to do (Hofstede. This perceived competence gap implies that evidence supporting a target's capability is valuable. in high power distance societies those at the top make all the decisions. Therefore. Capability process. more opportunistic behavior is induced. Inequalities in ability and expertise are deemphasized (Kale.. In high power distance societies people expect inequalities in inborn traits and intellectual abilities. and cooperation is based on solidarity.1998 Doney. Proposition 7: Relative to counterparts in low power distance cultures. 1992). The power distance dimension addresses the predominance of norms for conformity (doing what is accepted and proper) versus independence (doing whatever one wants to do). trustors in high power distance cultures are more likely to form trust via a prediction process. and Green (1966) have found the power distance dimension to be closely associated with the willingness to place faith in others. People in high power distance societies view others as a threat This content downloaded from 188.g. consequently. For example. Conversely. 1984) suggests a low tolerance for a variability in behavior and. trustors in high power distance cultures are more likely to form trust via a calculative process.
Conversely. predictable. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . because doing so jeopardizes continuation of the relationship. Tolerance for unstructured. solidarity. Proposition 12: Relative to counterparts in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. 1984) addresses the concepts of risk. Calculative process. 1992. trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to form trust via a prediction process. Kale & Barnes. The fact that faith in people and institutions is low hampers the ease with which trust passes from one entity to another. 1991) counterindicates trust formation via a prediction process in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Trust cannot be based on predictable behavior if behavior is not. or unpredictable situations determines the extent to which people try to mitigate uncertainty by adopting strict codes of behavior. risk preference. assessment of the costs/rewards associated with opportunistic behavior. because society tolerates such a wide range of behaviors and opinions (Kale. 1992. Kale & Barnes. trustors in low power distance cultures are more likely to form trust via a transference process. and reliance on risk-reducing strategies. targets in low uncertainty avoidance cultures may engage in opportunistic behavior. and by rejecting deviant ideas and behaviors (Singh. trustors in low uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to form trust via a calculative process.227 on Fri. 1992) suggests that targets are not likely to engage in opportunistic behavior.614 Academy of Management Review July and show less inclination to trust them (Kale & Barnes.. the prevailing view in high uncertainty avoidance cultures is that human behavior is predictable (Kale & McIntyre. 1990).g. and experience of risk (Clark. 1990). 1992). this strong rules orientation makes it easy for trustors to predict targets' behavior in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. opportunistic behavior is likely because the cost of such behavior is relatively low. Prediction process. Intentionality process. Therefore. Faith in people is high. targets will attach high costs to being caught acting opportunistically. Kale. 1991. 1992). Alternatively.25. and a relatively high value is placed on predictability in relationships (Kale & McIntyre. Relation to Risk "Relation to risk" reflects the perception. 1992). Hofstede. Moreover.. Similarly. people in a high uncertainty avoidance culture desire to establish clear rules as to how one should behave and to live by these rules (Singh. Conversely. Ueno & Sekaran. the prevailing belief that human behavior is determined by outside. the calculations required for calculative trust to form may be shaped by orientation toward risk (Lewicki & Bunker. 1991. by establishing formal rules. 1990). evaluation. 1996. 1990). 1991). 1971). in fact. The uncertainty avoidance dimension determines the value people place on continuing current relationships. group affiliation suggests that trustors will judge others to be similar. even if doing so risks damaging the re- lationship. The fact that people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures show a strong resistance to change (Kale & Barnes. Kale & Barnes. Proposition 11: Relative to counterparts in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Such conditions promote the transfer of trust in low power distance societies. and there are high levels of cooperation between employees (Negandhi & Prasad. In low uncertainty avoidance cultures con- This content downloaded from 188. It is difficult for trustors to predict targets' behavior in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Proposition 10: Relative to counterparts in high power distance cultures. thus affecting the viability of an intentionality process. Singh. people in low power distance cultures feel less threatened by others and tend to trust them more (Kale & Barnes. Nakata & Sivakumar. 1992). Moreover.g. 1991). 1995). 1984. largely uncontrollable forces (Kale & McIntyre. consequently. unclear. Variability in a partners' performance is unacceptable.160. This follows from the fact that people in low uncertainty avoidance cultures do not fear the future and tolerate risk easily (e. The level of uncertainty (or risk) a society considers tolerable influences economic rationality (Bazerman. Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede. They are willing to sever existing relationships and enter into relationships with new partners (e. The fact that relationships are and based on interdependence. 1994) and. In other words. By specifying the range of acceptable behaviors.
and solidarity-norms associated with high uncertainty avoidance. For example.1998 Doney. that trustors place a high value on evidence of a target's expertise. Capability process. or competence. then. Moreover. DISCUSSION Our framework of trust-building processes suggests five different routes trustors may take to develop trust in a target. First. Proposition 15: Relative to counterparts in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Transference process. Kale. The extent to which each process is invoked depends on cultural factors. These pathways to trust reflect a pattern of cognitive analysis trustors engage in to determine their willingness to place themselves at risk. because it helps transform a trustor's uncertainty into certainty (Hofstede. it may be difficult for trustors to trust other people and institutions.160. our framework of cognitive trust-building processes and their underlying behavioral assumptions provides researchers and practitioners with new insight into the way trust develops. People are motivated to maintain existing relationships because they value stability and fear the unknown. Thus. where people deal easily with risk. they are likely to establish trust based on evidence of a target's expertise. this research suggests straightforward strategies targets may use to establish and maintain trusting relationships. trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to form trust via a capability process. such as societal norms and values. a target is motivated to act in a trustor's best interest because it also is in the target's best interest to do so. The reverse is true in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. or competence. However. The overall high regard for people and their abilities in low uncertainty avoidance cultures suggests that evidence of a target's capability is unlikely to serve as a precursor to trust. The value placed on a target's capability is strongly determined by a societal norm for uncertainty avoidance. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . there is a strong belief in generalists and common sense. Proposition 14: Relative to counterparts in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Such conditions facilitate the transfer of trust in high uncertainty avoidance cultures.227 on Fri. Thus. permanence. providing further evidence that targets have benevolent intentions. Similarly. it is not surprising that there is a strong accent on experts and expertise in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. ability. such conditions make identifying a proof source difficult. and people are willing to risk severing existing relationships. The uncertainty avoidance dimension closely parallels the "tightness" and "looseness" concepts articulated in anthropology (Hofstede. Given the high tolerance for opinions and behavior different from their own. Cannon. As a result. In low uncertainty avoidance cultures. To the extent that trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures seek to mitigate uncertainty. 1984.25. and Mullen 615 flict is acceptable. Thus. which facilitate or inhibit application of a particular process. there is no evidence that a target will act in a trustor's best interests. because they will still be around in the future. trust formed via a calculative process is based on behavior control: the trus- This content downloaded from 188. ability. "Loose" low uncertainty avoidance cultures are associated with less regard for stability and permanence in relationships and with greater risk taking. trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to form trust via a transference process. evidence of a target's competence. Together. Norms for solidarity also suggest that trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures judge others to be similar to themselves. trustors in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to form trust via an intentionality process. trustors in low uncertainty avoidance cultures also may be less willing to judge others to be similar. people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures frown on conflict and value compromise. ability. Pelto (1968) notes that tight societies value durability. 1984). Proposition 13: Relative to counterparts in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. this research provides an important extension to current theoretical perspectives on trust. 1991). Conversely. or expertise takes on added importance in cultures which shun risk. It is unlikely. If nothing else. the stability inherent in "tight" societies permits trustors to develop confidence in individuals and institutions.
") Because trust formed through an intentionality process will be robust to crises in the relationship.. efforts to establish and maintain such trust will be well spent. there is a greater chance that a trusting relationship will form. trust may transfer from one entity to another. Our framework suggests that when trustors and targets share the same norms and values. salespeople in the United States demonstrate their expertise as a way of gaining a buyer's trust (Swan et al. when trustors perceive that targets share their values and beliefs. a trustor bestows trust on a target based on the trustworthiness of individuals or institutions closely associated with the target. in addition to providing proof of their capability. or expertise. Therefore. This suggests that. 1985). and/or (3) reduce the perceived benefits of cheating. as demonstrated by evidence of a target's competence. Underlying the capability process is the assumption that people differ in their capabilities and. A single behavioral anomaly may be all it takes to destroy trust based on predictability. Here.e. Once trust has been transferred. thus. when connections in a network are strong and reliable. trust is established when the trustor perceives that the target's costs for cheating exceed the rewards. Trust formed via a capability process is based on whether trustors believe that targets can meet their obligations. Trust formed via a prediction process is based on consistency. Finally. Strong underlying similarities and commonalities between the two parties protect the relationship in the event that trust is violated. Trust evolves via an intentionality process. This suggests that trust based on prediction is fragile: the belief that a partner's behavior is predictable (not volatile) may easily crumble when stressed (Rempel et al. a salesperson may earn trust via the capability process. This suggests that targets should try to build a platform for intentionality-based trust that includes many dimensions upon which the parties may identify with one another. and lasts as long as trustors remain confident that targets' motives are benevolent. Therefore.160. For example. it falls on targets to continue to prove that they can be trusted. targets would be wise to establish trust via additional trust-building processes. societies high in individualism. as long as the buyer is bred in a culture that values evidence of individual expertise (e. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . as demonstrated by information about a target's prior actions. and I may be willing to overlook it. Establishing trust through the capability process is an effective strategy in individualist societies such as the United States. Once established. For example. indeed.616 Academy of Management Review July tor's actions are designed to get a target to do what the trustor wants. it is possible that the patterns of developing trust will hold when trustors and targets from different countries are congruent in their cultural milieu. trust endures as long as the trustor continues to believe it is contrary to the target's best interest to cheat. ability. Since trust endures only as long as targets continue to demonstrate their capability. targets might try to increase (or create) the perception that a competence gap does. targets who fail to meet their obligations may find that such trust is easily destroyed.. This suggests several strategies for targets seeking to form trust based on a calculative process. targets need to establish trust via other trust-building processes to ensure that trusting relationships are maintained. Targets can (1) lower the trustor's perception of the likelihood that they will cheat. Given that the behavioral assumption of opportunism is met. within-culture versus intercultural trust formation). because people generally value evidence of individual initiative and achievement. Although we do not explicitly consider how trust is established between parties from different cultures (i. power dis- This content downloaded from 188. 1985).25. (2) increase the perceived costs of cheating. targets should build a broad foundation for prediction-based trust-one with many experiences upon which the trustor may draw..g.. The fact that trust formed via a calculative process is deterrence based suggests that it may be destroyed easily. exist. Another contribution our research makes to theories of trust concerns the role cultural norms and values play in influencing the trustbuilding process.227 on Fri. because the direction the target takes to earn trust is the same route the trustor follows to establish whether the target is trustworthy. Therefore. Trust is established when the trustor determines that a target's behavior can be predicted with accuracy and lasts as long as the target continues to show he or she is dependable. ("If I understand you. A rich history between the two parties protects the relationship in the event that unpredictable behavior does occur. I can understand your behavior. in the likelihood that they will deliver on their promises.
in collectivist cultures. or masculinity). where trust is a key to success. Cannon. a lack of congruence in cultural proclivities may result in a virtual collapse of the trust-building mechanism. influences the formation of trust. Multinational firms and firms with multicultural workforces must recognize that such programs need to be customized for specific groups. Lewicki and Bunker (1995) argue that trust formed through a calculative process is a lower form than trust based on either identification with the other party or prediction. Perhaps an interesting paradox exists in that trust may influence the development of the cultural norms and values that foster the development of trust. on the role norms and values play in the development of trust. In future studies scholars might consider how national culture. they must develop training programs that explain how to engender trust in employees. For example. Although anecdotal evidence suggests cross-cultural differences in the way trust develops (Schuster & Copeland. CONCLUSION The model and propositions we describe in this article have important implications for establishing and maintaining trusting relationships in an increasingly diverse and global workplace. where good intentions are expected. we see a growing need to understand how culture and trust interact. According to Doney and Cannon (1997). 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . other scholars stress different factors. Kameda. reliance upon a particular process may depend upon the cultural dimensions we propose. and suppliers. Other researchers may examine if or when the direct effects of culture on trust swamp the indirect effects. the trust-building processes may be relevant only insofar as they pertain to family or an extended kinship group. In this article we provide a conceptual framework This content downloaded from 188. In cultures with strong familistic ties and few intermediate institutions. Peterson. More extensive theoretical and empirical research is needed to justify such an effect. Similarly. it may be that trustors assign greater weight to trust developed via one cognitive process compared to another. Finally. & Shimada. Conversely. Fukuyama (1995) argues that the amount of trust inherent in societies differs based on the strength of family ties and the number and influence of intermediate organizations. the intentionality process may provide little additional information to assess a target's trustworthiness. the linear model depicted in Figure 1 may benefit from a feedback loop. However. However.25. Although our framework does not specify a hierarchical approach. Salespeople who "toot their own horn" in collectivist cultures most likely will fail to gain trust. In a similar vein. as firms expand into new global markets to buy and sell products. in essence suggesting that culture moderates the relationship between the cognitive processes and trust.1998 Doney.. If Fukuyama's thesis is correct. and Mullen 617 tance. For example. as firms become more involved in cross-national strategic alliances. it is also possible that a person's cultural roots are so deeply embedded they overshadow the influence of both organizational culture and individual personality (cf. in the way trust forms. Thus. This research also provides insight into the implications of trust developed by alternative processes. Therefore. Our framework provides insight into how trust may be established when parties embrace different norms and values. there has been little theoretical guidance about the reasons for such differences. In some circumstances organizational culture may overwhelm the effects of national culture (Nakata & Sivakumar. Laurent. 1996). but these issues are beyond the scope of our research. crucial to their success is an understanding of how to develop trust.227 on Fri. proof sources for the transference process would be limited to kin. 1981). Fukuyama's (1995) approach also emphasizes the feedback effect that trust may have upon the evolution of cultural values and other factors in society. societies will differ in their overall level of trust and. as firms try to leverage the benefits of trust. because collectivists deemphasize individual accomplishment. Finally. trustors prioritize these trust-building processes remain unanswered. 1996. customers. buyers in the United States form trust of a supplier's salesperson primarily through the processes of prediction and intentionality. questions regarding whether. perhaps. in conjunction with these variables. individual personality and organizational culture surely affect trust formation. Whereas we focus. For example. trust based on intentionality or prediction may render trust formed through calculative means inconsequential. For example. or how.160. Sullivan. 1991). in our framework.
Research in Marketing. B. and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Journal of Marketing. C. J. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Psychological Reports. P. Beamish. 1990. 91: 481-510. L. Dasgupta.. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Journal of Marketing. 1983. International marketing and national character: A review and proposal for an integrative theory.. Ganesan.). & Eysenck. American Journal of Sociology. 48(3): 43-55. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Interfirm influence strategies and their application within distribution channels. In D. Gouldner. Executive. L. In D. H. An experimental analysis of a salesman's expert and referent bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad. 11: 1-34. Gambetta (Ed. & Shetler. Judgment in managerial decision making. 1973.. S. T. 13: 123-139. Dore.. A. 1984. Deutsch. A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. 1987. S.618 Academy of Management Review July that begins to address these important management issues. 1986. & Cannon. J.. & Weitz. 13: 3-11. R. 1995.. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity.. G. Allport. J. H. 38: 113-151. H. Journal of Marketing Research. Eysenck.. 18(2): 1-16. C. 1994. 1989. In M. Anderson. & Radebaugh. 1960. The trust concept: Research issues for channels of distribution. Clark.. M. M. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. 23: 169-176. L. 1988.). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Journal of International Business Studies. Cooperative strategies in international business: 31-53. & Hansen.). B. The multicultural organization. vol. 10: 275-319. Frazier. H. 2: 265-279. & Summers. Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. F. 1976. New York: Free Press. B. 1986. Journal of Marketing. W. Building cooperation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 47(211). 1988. M. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Deutsch. G. Trust as a commodity. R. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. & Cantrell. Survey of interpersonal values-revised manual. An examination of trust in Journal of Marketing. J. Perceptions of interfirm power and its use within a franchise channel of distribution. J. In F. 34: 565-581. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. 84: 488-500. P. M. Deutsch. 1936. Sheth (Ed. 1997. P. M. MA: Lexington Books. Bradach. International business: Environment and operations (6th ed. D. 1994. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 15: 97-118. interpersonal relations. 1960. REFERENCES Akerlof. Schurr. Economic action and social structure: A theory of embeddedness. S. P. G. CT: JAI Press. Beyer. M. Developing buyerseller relationships. 99: 103-108. Buckley. American Sociological Review. 5(2): 34-37. 15: 175-190. K. G. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Stimpson. Browning. Jones (Ed. Deutsch. Individuals. J. 34: 459-482.). P. Lorange (Eds. New Brunswick. vol. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Greenwich. Trait names: A psycholexical study. 1958. Psychological Bulletin.. & Eccles. Granovetter. & Griggs. Andaleeb. 1989. Trust and suspicion. 1976. British Journal of Sociology. & Oh. Copeland. CT: Yale University Press. Early.. Strategic Management Journal.. Frazier. Goodwill and the spirit of market capitalism. G. Administrative Science Quarterly. In J. 1967. L.. D. 1995. 1989.. H. 1962. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations: 31-48. J. Gordon. Bazerman. The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. D.. M. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. & Summers. Gambetta (Ed. New York: Basil Blackwell. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Doney. Human Relations. & Odbert. 1978. G.). & Maughn. 1992. M. P. Journal of Marketing Research. M. Cox. D. 58(2): 1-19. 1988.. Contractor and P. 1994. 55: 19-28. M.). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. Personality structure and measurement. relationships. The Journal of Psychology. F. J. 1991. K. W.. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. 25: 161-179. P.. S.227 on Fri. M. S. 51(2): 11-27. buyer-supplier 2(April): 35-51. New Haven. Lexington. Busch. R. J. L. J. C.). authority. 1985. Barber. & Casson. and trust. 1984. & Wilson. Academy of Management Journal.. 54(4): 66-79. and we establish a theoretical base for future empirical work. Giffin. S. New York: Wiley. B. Fukuyama. Daniels. Journal of Marketing. A. R. New York: Basil Blackwell. (Ed.160. Gambetta. Butler. & Banks. R. Marketing Science. H. Some correlates of trust. 1994. Management Review. L. P. Dwyer. Good. T. J. V. V. A theory of cooperation in international business. 8: 310-323. The logic and limits of trust. C. G. 75(6): 19-26. Psychological Monographs. T. New York: Basil Blackwell. This content downloaded from 188. Barney. Price. S. R. J. Getting the best from foreign employees.. D. J. 1983. Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise. 68: 104-120. 1969. 1987. E. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations: 47-72.25. D. The market for "lemons": Quality under uncertainty and the market mechanism. W. Annual Review of Sociology. Frost. 1988. 1970. T.
Lindskold. New York: McGraw-Hill. T. Beverly Hills. China: Motivational systems in flux. J. Journal of Marketing Research.. Distribution channel relationships in diverse cultures. H. Business and Professional Ethics Journal. Lindskold. Knetsch. 63: 967-985. Variations in value orientations. G. 1994. cooperation. 47: 1-223. CT: Greenwood Press.. 14(2): 75-89.. C. N. MA: Addison-Wesley. Journal of Marketing. Kale. In B.. 42: 595604. Journal of International Business Studies. 1992. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. D. 1995. Ithaca. 21: 278-289. Zaltman. F. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1979. Academy of Management Journal. 1991. & Hall. F. International Marketing Review. The handbook of social psychology. 1996. G. M. C. 11: 259-271. L. Lindzey & E. Lewis. 1995. A. Journal of International Business Studies. McAllister. & Sivakumar. H. 1985. 1990.. & Huston. G. & Weber. Negandhi. J. A. Hill.). H. R. L. J. J. & McIntyre. S. 38: 85-112. Comparative management. 1986. R. R. Conflict. 28: 180-186. Maher (Eds. Hofstede. 1988. M. 1983. S. 1991. Progress in experimental research. A. MA: Harvard University Press. Trust in business relations: Directions for empirical research. CA: Lawler. 1984. C. Psychological Bulletin. & Christensen.1998 Doney. Larzelere. Affect. P. and justice: 133-173. Kluckhohn. Kroeber. & Schoorman. H. E. R. An integrative model of organizational trust. Luhmann. Locke. & Kluckhohn. E. Nakata. In S. Lindsay. The challenge of cultural diversity: Harnessing a diversity of views to understand multiculturalism. 1982. F. R. Understanding the domain of cross-national buyer-seller interactions. 8(2): 23-40. Hall. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. & Levinson. New York: Academic Press. 8(2): 1-7. Hofstede. John. This content downloaded from 188. W. Cambridge. Boston: Allen & Unwin. R. & Fugate. S. Sage.). & Bachman. & Thaler. Beverly Hills. 1980. National culture and new product development: An integrative review. Bunker & J. In Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. An empirical examination of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Using trust transference as a persuasion technique: An empirical field investigation.). T. Macneil. 1983. Davis. 1980. Husted. Remaking the Italian economy. G. Hofstede. 1997. Lewicki. L. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. England: Blackwell Business. K. Kale. and Mullen 619 Gulati. W. 17: 365-395. Steers & L. International business: Competing in the global market place. A. Maher & W. 1978. Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. International Marketing Review. D. Motivation and work behavior: 623-632. 4 (2nd ed. B. F. S. Yarmouth. S. 1952. CA: Sage. J. I. Makridakis and Associates (Eds. CT: Yale University Press. & Prasad. New York: Wiley. Oxford. Lane. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Trust as a social reality.. Mead. R. D. J. Culture in organizations: Three perspectives. NY: Cornell University Press. ME: Intercultural Press. B. & Strodtbeck. Culture's consequences. 1996. The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Trust development. 76: 728-741. Martin. R. vol. 23(1): 101-132. 21: 434-462. Lynn. Organization Studies. P. M. 1984. & Bennett. 1996.. W. W. 1961. D. Academy of Management Journal. Managing across cultures and national borders. B. the GRIT proposal and the effects of conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. 20: 709-734. vol. R. 1973. Journal of Marketing Research.227 on Fri. International management: Cross-cultural dimensions. 1992. In R. Journal of Marriage and the Family. Cannon.. P. S. B. The new social contract.): 418-506. & Deshpande.. National differences in anxiety and extroversion. R. J. Social Forces... R. R.. Namenwirth. 1971. Laurent. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. The ultimate advantage: Creating the highinvolvement organization. F. 1991. R. R.. 8(3): 31-45.25. Moorman. In G.and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. B. Porter (Eds.. Rubin (Eds. Z. R. C. Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. 60(1): 61-72. 85: 772-793. New York: Oxford University Press.). L. A. In B. G. R. Cambridge. Trust and power. Aronson (Eds. National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. R.. Inkeles.).. Understanding cultural differences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. American Economic Review. R. B.160. Dynamics of culture. L. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. C. Attributing trust and conciliatory intent from coercive power capability. 1995. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. 1992. J. D. Culture-specific marketing communications: An analytical approach. Westport. R.. vol. Kahneman. 1995. J. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. 1980. 1992. D.. J. 1987. E. S... New Haven. & Bunker. Nemetz. Chicago: Irwin. Mayer. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Academy of Management Journal. 1995. B. Kale. Academy of Management Review. & Weigert. The social constitution of trust: Supplier relations in Britain and Germany. 38: 24-59. & Barnes. 29: 314-328. 1969. 8(2): 18-30. 1989. C.. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Z. Single market Europe: Opportunities and challenges for business: 190-218. G. Milliman.
I. & Van de Ven. 25: 419-427. M. Staw & L.227 on Fri. K. J. Patricia M. Journal of Marketing. Fort Worth. Whyte. 0. 5: 105-117. Interpersonal trust: A comparison of attitudinal and situational factors. The production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure. Zand.. C. 20(2): 28-34. Zucker. He received his Ph. His research interests include examining the structure. J.D. New York: Academic Press.. Industrial Marketing Management. Swan. G. P. 9: 399-411. land: Cambridge University Press. 24: 803-815. H. Journal of Law and Economics. Ueno. Journal of Research in Personality.. How industrial salespeople gain customer trust. The economic institutions of capitalism. 1968. U. J. Ring. John.. 1992. H.. L. W. New York: Wiley. S. in marketing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Peterson. H. & Nevin. Scott. Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Organization Studies. In B. Kameda.. W. N. Allocentric and idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. G. 1996. Singh. Villareal. 1990. J. New York: Free Press. J. American Psychologist. P. Cummings (Eds. Williams. Pruitt. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. M. Holmes. Her research focuses on establishing and maintaining long-term buyerseller relationships in business markets. 19: 395-415.. L. Global business: Planning for sales and negotiations. in marketing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 49: 95-112. F. 1990. M. 1840-1920. 33: 805-812. Two patterns of establishing trust: The marijuana user. Sheppard. & Priest. D. Strub. K. Negotiation Journal. The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. 1991. Trawick. Administrative Science Quarterly. C. 26: 453-486. 1986. F. 1972. E. & Ozanne. Schuster. G. in marketing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. G. J. J. J.. M. S. Sociological Focus. D. Business on a handshake.. D. D. This content downloaded from 188. T. H. K. 8: 365-377. National characteristics. J. 0. & Cheraskin. 26 Apr 2013 06:06:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Rotter.. C. E. Peabody. 1985. Joseph P. Michael R.. Schlenker.160. Rempel. Influences on exchange processes: Buyers' preconceptions of a seller's trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. 1992. J. Triandis. Cambridge. R. B. J. R. 1985. 1985. Performance in industrial outcomes of purchasing arrangements buyer-vendor relationships. Academy of Management Journal. 1986. B. Selling as an interpersonal ence process. K. 1985.. D. Strategic Management Journal. C. E.). The logic of collective MA: Harvard University Press. G. Trans-Action. April: 37-40. Human Relations. 1981. & Clack. J. Mullen is an associate professor of international business at Florida Atlantic University. 1981. L. Eng- Pelto. L.. 23: 659-674. Schurr. influ- Shapiro. & Silva. Doney is an associate professor of marketing at Florida Atlantic University. Cannon is an assistant professor of marketing at Colorado State University. J. 1971. P. His research interests are in cross-cultural measurement and buyer-seller relationships. action. 1980. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. J. Calculativeness.. Journal of Consumer Research. He received his Ph. 1972. Helm. B. apbetween conflict resolution The relationship proaches and trust-a cross-cultural study. Greenwich. How do I trust thee? Psychology Today. Journal of Retailing.. & Zanna. Journal of International Business Studies. 47(4): 32-46.D. A.D.. 14: 203-211. 1976. Leung.. governance.. & Holmes. F. Negotiation behavior. M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Shimada. R.. Research in organizational behavior.. T. & Copeland. Sullivan. J. H. Trust and managerial problem solving. She received her Ph. The analysis of subjective culture.. L. Trust in close relationships. J. S. O'Shaughnessy. Rempel. C. 17: 229-239. 54(4): 80-93. 1992. R. & Tedeschi. & Sekaran. CT: JAI Press. L. G. P. 1966. Olson. 8: 55-111. 13: 483-498. trust and economic organization.25. D. 1985. Williamson. L. TX: Dryden Press. 11: 75-101. 1985. B. The influence of culture on budget control practices in the USA and Japan: An empirical study. 1971. 11: 939-953.620 Academy of Management Review July Noordewier.. 1971. The difference between "tight" and "loose" societies. Triandis. Williamson. Cambridge. T. & Green. Do cultural differences affect workers' attitudes? Industrial Relations. vol. and management of buyer-seller relationships in business markets.. 35: 1-7. 1973.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.