Cognition, Brain, Behavior.

An Interdisciplinary Journal
Copyright © 2010 Romanian Association for Cognitive Science. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1224-8398
Volume XIV, No. 2 (June), 121-140

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TRUST YOUR TEAM

COLLEAGUE?
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY USING
GROUNDED THEORY
Daniela ANDREI *, Cătălina OłOIU, Ana-Ştefania ISAILĂ,
Adriana BĂBAN
Department of Psychology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

ABSTRACT
When studying work teams, understanding the phenomena which determine or
influence the cooperation among individuals is essential. In spite of the importance
given to the concept of trust for the good functioning of interpersonal relations and
cooperative actions in work teams, little research has been conducted in order to
reveal the importance of trust in relation with work team formation and group
processes in general. The purpose of this study was to examine trust in work teams
for developing a more contextualized understanding of the way trust emerges when
temporary research project teams are considered. Nine students who participated in
research project teams were interviewed. Detailed descriptions of working in
research project teams and the process of trust formation were elicited. Data were
analyzed using the grounded theory approach and a model of trust formation was
proposed based on the way the participants described their own experience of trust.
Two aspects are emphasized by the research findings: the importance of implicit
information processing in trust formation, and the dynamic character of trust
formation. Implications of findings are discussed and directions for future research
are described.

KEYWORDS: trust, grounded theory, emergent states, work teams.

*
Corresponding author:
E-mail: danielaandrei@psychology.ro
122 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

INTRODUCTION

When studying work teams, understanding the phenomena which determine or

influence the cooperation among individuals is essential. Among them, trust has
received sustained attention in research literature, as it enables cooperative human
actions (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1995), generally influencing group
processes (Deutsch, 1973; Gambetta, 1988; Dirks, 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 1998), and
behavior (Golembiewsky & McConkie, 1975).
Trust appeared most frequently as a research question within the
organizational field (Ebert, 2007). This is a reflection of the importance given in
modern organizational settings to collaborative work, cooperation and sharing of
responsibilities among employees (Costa, 2003). However, a closer analysis of
Ebert’s (2007) meta-analysis results shows that most research on trust in
organizational settings focus on trust in superiors and leaders (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;
Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007) and also on trust in the organization or
between organizations (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Even though
scholars acknowledge its importance in sustaining group effectiveness (Costa,
2003), only a limited number of empirical studies examine trust in relation with
work teams formation and group processes in general (Simons & Peterson, 2000;
Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Costa, 2003; Dirks, 1999; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Gladstein,
1984; Kiffin-Petersen, 2004; Curşeu, 2007; Pitariu, 2008; Curşeu & Schruijer,
2010). This is considered to be a consequence of the lack of agreement between
different trust conceptualizations (Costa, 2003).
Having been studied in very different contexts and at different levels of
analysis (Costa, 2003), consent regarding what trust really is or regarding trust
formation, manifestation and outcomes, is difficult to attain (Lewicki & Bunker,
1996). The increase in the number of conceptual works and reviews on trust coming
from different fields (Ebert, 2007; McKnight & Chervany, 1996; Watson, 2005)
adds to this lack of a common perspective on the phenomenon. An analysis of the
literature highlights the need for an integrative theory and definition of trust in order
to further advance the empirical research (Costa, 2004; Ebert, 2007). Despite this
general agreement, the existent reviews seem to have little impact on the empirical
research conducted so far. One way of understanding why this happens is by
examining those characteristics of trust that are reported in these reviews as agreed
upon in most studies.
The complexity of this concept is the first among these characteristics.
Trust is described as a fragile, emotional, interpersonal phenomenon which is
difficult to operationalize and measure even though it forms the basis for every
interaction (Ebert, 2007; Watson, 2005). It is a fundamental social mechanism that
allows for coordinated action (Bachmann, 2006), but because of being such a
mechanism it is mostly implicit, routinized and therefore available to our analysis
primarily when it is being violated (Nooteboom, 2006). Trust is a multi-faceted

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 123

construct (Wang & Vassileva, 2003; Cummings & Bromiley, 1996) and its effects
can hardly be isolated from the effects of other interpersonal factors such as affect
(Williams, 2001). The complexity of the construct makes it difficult to fully
understand and research trust as a whole.
Research also shows trust to be situation-specific (Cahil et al., 2003;
Marsh, 1994; Rempel & Holmes, 1986; Wang & Vasileva, 2003; Schoorman,
Mayer & Davis, 2007), thus context should be considered a critical factor in
understanding it. Moreover, scholars argue that research that does not acknowledge
the contextual factor will be limited in its ability to truly represent trust functioning
(Rousseau et al., 1998).
Last but not least, trust is not a static, but a dynamic process which
develops over time and permanently goes through phases such as building, decline
and renewal (Costa, 2004; Jones & George, 1998; Nooteboom, 2006; McKnight,
Cummings, & Chervany, 1995; Dirks, 1999). Trust does not just provide a basis for
a relationship, but it is also shaped by this relationship (Nooteboom, 2006) and as a
consequence it should be studied as a process.
This complex, dynamic and contextual character of trust could be the
reason why no integrative theory has fully emerged. The examination of the
existing theoretical propositions shows that these three characteristics are rarely
taken into consideration, never exhaustively, and that none of them is reflected in
the way research on trust has been conducted. In spite of the complexity of trust,
researchers tend to develop narrow, theory driven, conceptualizations of it, with
limited scope, in order to be able to fit it to their research type (McKnight &
Chervany, 2002; McKnight, et al., 1995). This is also due to the methods most
commonly used – experiments or cross-sectional research (Kramer, 2006; Dirks,
1999; McKnight, et al., 1995). Because of such methodological approaches, trust
has usually been studied as a static variable, rather than as a dynamic one. Hence
the research questions were focused rather on the „what” [precedes or results from
trust] and very little on the „how” and „why” [trust develops] (McKnight, et al.,
1995).
Recently, researchers started to acknowledge the lack of understanding
related to trust and trust formation (McKnight, et al., 1995) and the fact that the
most appropriate definitions of trust are context dependent (Goudge & Gilson,
2005). Research on trust in different fields should therefore rely on a contextual
definition and understanding of this phenomenon and not on the continual search
for that unitary theoretical view. Thus far, there is little research that takes into
consideration the contextual factors, and there are few naturalistic explorations of
trust in real-life settings (Kramer, 2006). Integration endeavors rely mostly on the
examination of existing literature and research, on scholarly definitions of trust, and
less on the meanings attached to trust in everyday life. Nevertheless, it is suggested
that in order to adequately capture the complexity and depth of this phenomenon,
researchers should be grounded in and start with the meanings and experiences of

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
124 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

trust in everyday life. They should then refine these data for a further scientific use
and the results obtained at this second stage should be once again compared to the
everyday terms and experience in order to assess how well they reflect the breadth
of meaning. It is only this permanent dialogue between common experiences and
scientific approaches that can improve the applicability of the latter and make
research relevant for our everyday life (McKnight, et al., 1995; McKnight &
Chervany, 2002). Moreover, when scientific usage and definitions of the same term
are divergent, such as in the case of trust, it is recommended that, instead of using
existent theoretical conceptualizations, researchers should revisit the way the term
is being used and experienced in the everyday life (McKnight, et al., 1995;
McKnight & Chervany, 2002). If such an approach is to be undertaken, the widely
used experimental or cross-sectional methods become inappropriate. Scientists
should therefore strive to use methods that are better „able to capture real-world
thought processes of real world individuals in natural contexts” (Kramer, 2006, p.
73) and to allow researchers to explore the way people actually think about trust
and experience it.
Taking on this recommendation, the aim of our study was to produce rich
and faithful accounts and descriptions of the way trust has emerged, developed and
was experienced in student work teams. We focused our research on the way team
members grew to trust other members of their group while working on a task that
created great interdependence, and the way they had experienced the process. We
used real research teams with a common goal that everybody in the team was
committed to and was responsible for. Furthermore, we intended to elucidate some
of the processes involved in trust formation and maintenance within these teams, in
order to refine data for further scientific use. In doing so, we have acknowledged
the contextual, complex and dynamic character of trust and developed a qualitative
research methodology able to address it properly, the grounded theory approach.

METHOD

Although quantitative methodology (laboratory experiments and cross-sectional

surveys) has been traditionally used to investigate trust, we have shown that it
suffers some limitations in addressing the complex, contextual and dynamic
character of this phenomenon. The literature is starting to underline the benefits of
inductive approaches, grounded in the common experience and language of people
as a starting point to refine knowledge for scientific and practical use. Such
approaches need a different type of methodology, a qualitative one that minimizes
the assumptions of the researcher regarding trust definition and implications
(Kramer, 2006). This is particularly important since very little is known about trust
formation, and qualitative methods can more thoroughly explore peoples’ view on
trust and trustworthy behavior (Goudge & Gilson, 2005).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 125

The grounded theory approach we used becomes suitable for such an

endeavor as it allows us to ground the research in the common meaning and use of
the term trust in everyday life (Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005; McKnight, et al., 1995).
In addition, due to the constant comparison process and the structured way of
analyzing qualitative data, it allows us to go beyond collected data and refine the
understanding of experiencing trust for further scientific use and for generating
knowledge with practical value (Chirică, Andrei, & Ciuce, 2009). Similar
approaches can be identified in the literature exploring patient-physician trust
(Thom and Campbell, 1997) or trust and distrust in work relationships (Wietoff &
Lewicki, 2005).

Participants

The study included nine participants. Because we used the emergent design, each
interview oriented the following one and we stopped interviewing when codes
derived in the analysis became saturated in data. Taking on the interpretive stand on
saturation, we stopped data collection when two subsequent interviews and their
analysis did not contribute to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under
study (Goulding, 1999).
All participants were students at the bachelor level, enrolled in a course on
organizational psychology where they had been asked to work in research groups of
ten. They didn’t have the possibility to choose the group members and every team
worked together for a research project which represented their term task in this
course. All the participants had worked in groups before but reported that they
didn’t have any prior experience in working together with the members of the
research teams they were assigned to. No explicit rules for task completion or
communication were given and the task was formulated ambiguously in order to
allow for self-organization.
In order to study the development of trust in these teams we asked students
to participate voluntarily in our research after they had finished the course and the
project. A number of 15 students offered to participate out of which nine were
interviewed. They were all women, 20 - 22 years old, and have all been members in
different work groups during the organizational psychology research project.

Interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted individually with each of the nine participants.
Interview duration ranged from 27 minutes to 49 minutes. All interviews were led
by one of the authors with prior experience in interviewing and grounded theory
approach. Specifically, each interview started with an introduction on the basic
rules of the interviewing process and a statement of the general research interest
(Băban, 2002). Participants were then asked to describe how they had seen the
entire experience of working in a new work team during the research project and

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
126 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

how they had felt at the time. The interviewer then conducted the discussion
towards aspects of trust or distrust, dynamics of trust in team members and
experiences that caused them to trust or distrust a certain member of the group.
Each interview was audio-recorded and then fully transcribed. The transcriptions
were read and discussed among the research team members in order to establish
themes and topics which should be more thoroughly addressed in subsequent
interviews. This procedure ensured the emergent character of the research and
contributed to the saturation of the conceptual categories. The interviews stopped
when two subsequent interviews didn’t bring any new information related to the
research question.

Data analysis
The accuracy of transcriptions against the original recordings was assessed by one
of the researchers. Transcripts were then coded independently by two of the
researchers using grounded theory techniques. These ensured a systematic analytic
approach in condensing the verbal material contained in the transcripts. Grounded
theory method uses the constant comparative technique to analyze data and
consistently with this method, all sets of data were compared with one another
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Charmaz, 2006). A first step was represented by the open
coding of the material. In this phase each interview was analyzed line by line and
the researchers underlined key concepts, found clusters or summarized information
under a label. The labels were then grouped in conceptual categories by discussions
and consensus among the research team. In reaching this consensus all sets of data
were again compared against each-other using the constant comparative method.
This process was repeated for all the interviews and the conceptual categories were
permanently reassessed, discussed and modified in order to incorporate new data.
The final categories included the reported experience of the participants in the
study. A final stage was represented by the theoretical integration phase in which
the researchers examined the literature on trust in order to understand possible links
between concepts found in data (Charmaz, 2006; Goulding, 1999). Higher order
dimensions were extracted out of the conceptual categories and links between them
were deducted in order to conceptualize trust, trust antecedents, trust development,
trust forms and consequences in this specific sample. Finally, a model was proposed
to explain the development of trust in the work teams under study.

Findings
Initial codes, resulted from open coding were compared to one-another and later
were modified and grouped by consensus between the members of the research
team. Each category accompanied by the main codes belonging to it and some
illustrative verbatim examples are illustrated in Table 1.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 127

Table 1
Coding of the verbal material

Categories Codes belonging to the Examples

category
Perceptions of Task characteristics “I was thinking if we’ll make it… if
vulnerability and (interdependence, ambiguity) everybody will contribute to the same
risk Groups characteristics extent, if we will not be in the
Questioning the success of situations where somebody will have to
the team cover for somebody else.”
Questioning the future “As we didn’t know each other, I
contribution of others didn’t know if everybody would work
Fear for supplementary on their tasks and how and I was
effort thinking that there may be problems in
that sense, that some people might not
be serious about doing their own work
and that we would have to also cover
their part”
“Uncertainties … we didn’t know what
was expected from us in this task, the
task was ambiguous enough and I
think all of us had the same feeling, we
didn’t know, we were asking each
other…”
Perceptions of Previous results “right at the beginning I think it was
competency Attitudes towards the task through the ideas they brought in. You
Assuming responsibility could clearly see who is committed to
Knowledge the task and who really wanted to work
School performances on the project”
Implication “the fact that they were sometimes
Motivation missing the group meetings and their
reasons and pretexts were less credible
and that sometimes they would not
bring their homework. So basically the
fact that they were skipping meetings
and the way they dealt with their
responsibilities “
Perceptions of Personal similarity “ we started to form friendships
interpersonal Affinity amongst ourselves, with the people I
relationship Compatibility felt closer to, with whom we shared
Friendship traits, and afterwards we didn’t have
Comfort any more trouble in interacting”
“at the beginning we only talked, we
shared things about the faculty, where
everybody comes from, and we
realized that we think alike”.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
128 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

Getting to know the Communication “it was difficult until I started to know
others Observation the others a little bit, to see their
Group transactional memory working styles, how they relate to one
Group self efficacy another”
“this is my own style, before I know
somebody I can’t give 100%“
Group interactions Climate “Yes, It was the emotional part that
Social affordances mattered for me the most, to feel good
Routines in meetings, more than the final mark
itself”.
“the fact that everything worked so
smoothly… it was that continuity, there
wasn’t anything missing”
“in my other group, the one with which
I’ve worked on other projects I knew
from the beginning who does what,
what are their strong points, and we
skipped these phases”
Dispositional trust First impression “Gestures that indicate that they mean
Preconceived opinions well, that they don’t... I don’t know
(evaluations) how to explain it”
Initial evaluations “I believe that the first impression is
General predisposition very important, the moment you see
somebody and see who you are up
against. They say you don’t judge
people right at the beginning, but there
is a trace of it and you can’t not do it”
“From … different preconceived
opinions I had about certain persons
with whom I had never previously
discussed anything. Just by looking at
them … just like that… from different
small things I had already formed an
opinion about them”
“I generally start with this [trusting
people] in any relation”
“this is me…at the first sight, the first
discussion… I trusted him completely.
(…) and I knew it was going to be
fine”
Trust Behaviors Cooperation “We couldn’t give her any
Sociability responsibility in the task at all, besides
Sharing just coming and being there in a
Proactive behavior greater number in the class (for the
Lack of verification presentation). But that was all....”
Task involvement “Me, at least, I never called or
Contributing resources contacted, even though I had them all
Feedback on my messenger list, I never

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 129

contacted any of the girls to ask them if

they had done their task, or what they
had done...”
Maintaining trust Reciprocity “If you really feel that it is someone to
Loyalty whom you can tell certain things...this
Confidentiality is a thing of trust, we are already on
the other side, the idea that I can tell
him/her things and to trust him not to
tell them further, to others. And then I
believe we made a progress. For
example, if we are having a discussion
about a third person, I would
appreciate if he/she wouldn’t tell me
many things about this other person. I
consider this attitude as denoting
trustworthiness.”
“I believe it is maintained by
reciprocity, I mean, I believe that if
everything comes only from one person
to the other it is not ok. Somewhere, we
must have two dimensions, things to
come from both ways, yours and
his/hers, otherwise you cannot
maintain it, I really think so.”
Types of trust Competency Based “formal trust in the sense that I trust
Relationship Based you in matters related to our working
together but further, interpersonal
trust, at the level of relatively closed
relationships, beyond collaboration, I
do not believe we had that”.
“Interpersonal trust, at a level of
relatively close relationship, more than
being good collaborators […] in the
sense that I have the courage or the
openness to tell him/her… I don’t
know… personal staff, something
related to my inner life, to me”

Higher order dimensions

The highest level of analysis consisted in relating the derived categories with the
existing literature on trust and using this literature as a guide in understanding the
complex relationships between data. At this point, the identified categories were
reanalyzed using the most common questions of the research literature on trust:
What is trust? How does trust develop? What types of trust can be described? What
are the benefits of trust (Kramer, 1999; Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005)? These questions
have guided data analysis at this final stage and allowed us to develop an

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
130 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

understanding of the way trust emerged and developed in student work teams. Also,
the dynamic character of the researched phenomena has emerged from all
categories as an important higher order dimension.

What is trust? Trust development and consequences of trust

For the participants, trust/distrust consisted in positive/negative expectations

regarding the responsible and dutifully behavior of group members, the outcome of
group work and the quality of interpersonal relations in a context of perceived
vulnerability and risk: “I was thinking if we’ll make it… if everybody will contribute
to the same extent…”, “We expected to successfully solve our task, that all of us
contribute their efforts in order to complete our goal”, “I knew that all of us will be
involved in the task and I knew we were going to do a good job…”. The perceived
vulnerability and risk in this particular context was based on the characteristics of
the task (interdependence, ambiguity, importance of the task: “Uncertainties … we
didn’t know what was expected from us in this task…”) and characteristics of the
group (unknown members, lack of work routines: “As we didn’t know each other, I
didn’t know if everybody would work on their tasks and how and I was thinking that
there may be problems in that sense…”).
Participants described trust development in terms of a series of cognitive
processes starting with perceptions of vulnerability and risk due to the specific
characteristics of the task and of their groups. These perceptions aroused negative
emotions and focused information processing on acquiring knowledge about the
other members of the group. Here, we could identify two levels of information
gathering and processing: a conscious, explicit one made through observation, overt
communication and evaluations (Getting to know the others: “it was difficult until
I started to know the others a little bit, to see their working styles, how they relate to
one another”) and an implicit level. The latter was based on first impressions,
evaluations and stereotypes (Dispositional trust: “I generally start with this
[trusting people] in any relation” “this is me…at the first sight, the first
discussion… I trusted him completely. (…) and I knew it was going to be fine”) on
one hand, and the was derived from interactions within the group and group
experiences on the other hand (Group interactions: “in my other group, the one
with which I’ve worked on other projects I knew from the beginning who does what,
what are their strong points, and we skipped these phases”).
The presence of an implicit level of information processing is indicated by
the participants’ impossibility to verbally express certain experiences (“I have no
explanation for what happened…it simply did and it seems surprisingly to me even
now (…) it happened because it happened, I have no explanation”; “I have no
words for it…”, “I really cannot say…”). Currently, the most powerful criterion for
differentiating the explicit and implicit information processing is represented by the
existence of verbal descriptions/doubling (David, 2000; Lewicki, 1986; Schacter,

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 131

1987; Jacoby, 1991; Seger, 1994). The frequency of codes describing difficulties to
verbally express experiences and processes in our data indicates the existence of an
implicit level of processing in trust formation.
Both levels of information processing led to two types of evaluations
(competency and interpersonal relationships) which fundament the two types of
trust that we could identify in the participants’ accounts: relationship based and
competency based (“formal trust in the sense that I trust you in matters related to
our working together but further, interpersonal trust, at the level of relatively
closed relationships, beyond collaboration, I do not believe we had that”). Trust
behaviors such as cooperation, sociability, support were described as the
consequences of trust, but also as elements contributing to trust maintenance.
Group members constantly monitor their own behaviors and the others’ assessing
loyalty, confidentiality and reciprocity (“I believe it is maintained by reciprocity, I
mean, I believe that if everything comes only from one person to the other it is not
ok. Somewhere, we must have two dimensions, things to come from both ways,
yours and his/hers, otherwise you cannot maintain it, I really think so.”).

Types of trust

As we have shown before, participants described different forms of trust. A first

distinction is made between the implicit or subjective trust which forms in a similar
way to the first impression, and a more crystallized trust which appears as a
conscious process of evaluation of competency, forming interpersonal relationship,
trust behaviors and monitoring trust. The initial trust is seen to influence the
cognitive processes involved in getting to know the others as it triggers conscious
efforts to evaluate the trustworthy character of the others, while it also directly
influences the formation of trust.
Another important distinction is made between competency based and
relationship based trust. Competency-based trust is considered to be related to task
accomplishment (“formal trust in the sense that I trust you in matters related to our
working together”, “not checking you to see if you have completed your task”),
while relationship-based trust is seen as “interpersonal trust, at a level of
relatively close relationship, more than being good collaborators […] in the sense
that I have the courage, or the openness to tell him/her… I don’t know… personal
stuff, something related to my inner life, to me”. Competency-based trust is
associated with the transactional memory of teams or team cognition – “I already
knew who can contribute what, in which field is more competent“, “the fact that we
knew and understood each other better, we knew what each of us could do or could
contribute to the task” – while interpersonal relationship is rather connected to
cohesion and group identity “It was the only group I worked with where something
extraordinary happened (…) It really was an extraordinary relationship, we
couldn’t even believe it (…) we felt really united”. These results confirm the fact

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
132 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

that trust, in its both forms, could be better conceptualized in terms of group
emergent states (Curşeu, 2006).
One of the most interesting finding of the study consists in the patterns of
evolution of trust types. Irrespective of the initial focus, on competency based or
relationship based trust, the latter was constantly seen as the higher, more complex
form. Moreover, participants did not consider the two forms as being independent
from one another. Two patterns were observed. A first pattern consisted in working
on relationship-based trust formation and on the basis of it, competency-based trust
was later formed. A second pattern showed how competency-based trust evolved in
relationship-based trust when competency and results stopped being questioned and
the attention of the group shifted from the task to group identity building
(“…competency is there, we know it is there even though somebody, for example,
underperforms at a certain moment. It wouldn’t mean that he/she suddenly became
stupid and we can no longer count on him. We would try to see what happened, to
help him/her… it is about acceptance, we accept each other with all our
characteristics, good or bad and we are willing to go further with our
relationship…”).

Dynamic Character

In this research, the dynamic character and the development process is the most
preeminent attribute of trust and refers to a permanent evolution and assessment of
trust throughout its different stages and forms. According to the participants, the
entire process is difficult to explain as many stages overlap or return in the process
at different times. Asked to report on trust formation and evolution in their teams,
participants described a dynamic, spiral type of process. Trust behaviors, as the
outputs of the process, were seen to re-enter it both by influencing group experience
and interaction but also by influencing the maintenance of trust through their
perceived characteristics (reciprocity, loyalty and confidentiality). This description
is supported by research that underlines the fact that trust is not a final state, but a
dynamic process (Jones & George, 1998), and by conceptualizations of trust as an
emergent state of the group (Curşeu, 2006).
Another aspect of trust evolution emphasized by our findings was the
constant need for evaluation. Being an emergent state of the group, trust is never
fully formed, but always reevaluated, recalibrated and rebuilt across the stages of a
groups’ existence. What changes is the object of the evaluation process. When
talking about trust in their team, participants don’t only refer to themselves but
describe a shared group cognition and shared group knowledge about group
members (“We couldn’t give her any responsibility in the task at all”) despite the
fact that each one of them entered the work team with personal cognitions,
knowledge and an initial trust in the same group members.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 133

Research findings presented here are synthesized in the model of trust

development we are proposing (Figure 1). The model describes the processes
involved in trust formation highlighted by the data and emphasizes the dynamic
character of trust formation.

Figure 1
Trust development in students’ research project teams.

DISCUSSION

As we have already shown, the efforts for developing an integrative theory of trust
not only prove to be inefficient but also inadequate given the highly complex,
contextual and dynamic character of the investigated phenomenon. The findings of
the present research contribute to trust theory and practice in work groups in several
ways. Most of the approaches in this field are theory driven and based on explicit
measures using pre-existing scales (Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005). The approach we
have undertaken takes on a different direction, from group members’ experiences to
theory formation. The added value of this type of approach is demonstrated by the

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
134 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

results obtained. Although they are consistent with existing research in this field,
our findings also succeed to shed light on some less addressed issues related to trust
in work groups.
We have to emphasize the fact that the conceptualization of trust reported
by the participants is consistent with the existing literature that underlines both the
rational cognitive and the relational factors of trust (Kramer, 1999). It is noteworthy
that even though in this type of work teams competency evaluations and ability
attributions are considered to be the main predictor of trust, the participants in this
study reported interpersonal relationship to have an equal and sometimes even a
higher importance. Moreover, even if the existing literature considers different
types of trust as being independent from one another (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995; Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005; Kramer, 1999) the present findings indicate that
the two types were seen as evolving from one another with relation-based trust
being constantly considered as the higher, more complex form. This finding can be
explained by the characteristics of the studies’ participants groups. Team members
were not complete strangers when they received the task. Although most of them
didn’t really know each other and had no common working experience, they all
belonged to a larger group of psychology students and shared similar interests and
identity. This can explain why relation-based trust is given a higher importance
although the literature suggests that in work groups ability- and competence-based
trust is more preeminent (Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005; Kramer, 1999). Another aspect
worth considering is the fact that even in organizations, the members of temporary
project teams are people who do not really know each other or share previous
experience in working together, but they in fact share a common identity, being
members of a professional group or of the same organization. Reflecting upon this
it would be useful to verify which characteristics of the trust dynamics described in
the present research could become relevant in organizational settings. Another
direction of further research should investigate the importance of cultural factors in
explaining the interaction between the two types of trust. The analysis of these
influences on trust-type formation and their relationship could present several
implications for trust understanding and group work design.
The dynamics of trust formation underlined in the findings of this study are
also consistent with research on trust in temporary groups (Meyerson, Weick, &
Kramer, 2006) that shows that trust forms very quickly at the beginning of the
interaction in order to manage issues of vulnerability, uncertainty, risk and
expectations, issues that become relevant as soon as the temporary system begins to
function. Not only did the data succeed to illustrate this pattern of trust formation,
but also the most saturated codes were those related to vulnerability, risk,
expectations, and uncertainty. On the other hand, even though research in this area
states that in temporary systems trust is less about relating than doing and the focus
is on cognitive and action forms and less on the interpersonal form (Meyerson,
Weick, & Kramer, 2006), data obtained shows that the interpersonal, relationship

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 135

based form is constant and is even seen as a higher form of matured trust.
Subsequent research should address differences and relations between these forms
of trust in order to better understand their dynamic.
Our findings show that trust emerges in a context of perceived vulnerability
and risk created by teams’ characteristics and their task. Trust development process
consists of phases of information processing in order to get to know the other
members. The data highlighted both implicit and explicit information processing.
Implicit processing was evident in two forms. Firstly, initial trust appeared to have
an effect both on assessing the character of the other members and on trust
formation. Secondly, implicit evaluations appeared to be derived from group
interactions and group overall experience.
The implicit character of information processing in trust formation has not
been sufficiently addressed in research literature. The main efforts of trust
conceptualizations have focused mainly on the explicit aspects of this phenomenon
(processes and contents). Studies that have addressed the implicit processes in trust
formation are very few and isolated. Although research greatly supports the concept
of dispositional trust, in organizational researched it has received very little
attention (Kipnis, 1996, as cited in Kramer, 1999; Burns, Mearns, & McGeorge,
2006). As more and more conceptualizations tend to consider trust to be an attitude,
implicit processes should become a constant preoccupation. Nevertheless, even
though social psychology research has already shown that attitudes present both an
explicit and an implicit dimension and that the implicit dimension has a great role in
predicting future behavior (e.g., Fazio, 1990; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) these
results have not been considered when studying trust. Another type of implicit
processing evidenced in this study refers to implicit knowledge derived from group
interaction and experience. This is also a subject acknowledged by researchers but
only partially addressed in research regarding rule based trust that underlies the
importance of socialization into the structure of rules (Kramer, 1999). The
frequency of the implicit category codes identified in the data we collected shows
that implicit processes can no longer be ignored if a complete understanding of this
phenomenon is pursued.
Finally, our approach emphasizes the dynamic character of trust formation.
Not only do the findings support the existing research that shows that trust develops
in time, continuously (Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005), but they also indicate that phases
of trust formation overlap and interact with one another describing a spiral type
process. Based on the present study, we support the conceptualization of trust as an
emergent state of the group (Curşeu & Schruijer, 2010; Curşeu, 2006; Pitariu, 2008)
which contributes to the specification of the role of trust for group processes and of
the mechanism by which trust can influence team process outcomes.
Emergent states are defined as interrelated team properties with a dynamic
nature that result from interpersonal interactions among team members (Curşeu,
2006; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). This perspective allows for a certain level

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
136 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

of integration of the different perspectives on trust that the present results pertain to:
predispositions, attitudes or processes. The emergent state perspective is consistent
with all of these, as attitudes in teams are considered to be emergent states (Curşeu,
2006). By their dynamic nature and ever changing character, emergent states focus
exactly on the process of attitude formation and evolution. This focus on the
process allowed us go beyond the way the participants in the present study defined
trust and identify the way different variables were reported to interact with each
other in building the trust experience in the researched teams.
If we take into consideration both aspects of dynamics (emergent state of
the group) and implicit processes, it becomes clear that measuring trust by
traditional questionnaires becomes limited. A different approach based on both
explicit and implicit processes can prove beneficial to both theory and practice.
This study has several limitations that should be discussed in order to better
assess the relevance of the presented findings. This is a study of a controversial and
complex topic, and it was conducted using a relatively small number of participants
from a specific group. As a result, our findings are at this stage limited to the
population of female psychology students in their final year, participating in group
projects during the Organizational Psychology course. Until we will further extend
the research, the findings should be applied only to similar contexts and similar
teams. As we acknowledge the possible implications of participants groups’
characteristics, we intend to invest further efforts in the replication and validation of
these findings. Present data provide a coding scheme that can be used in analyzing
relevant experiences from different work groups and different populations. At this
point, the results illustrate only the understanding of the study’s participants related
to the entire process of trust formation in groups and is limited to the conscious,
explicit elements of this process while, as our data showed, there are implicit
processes that could not be addressed as they are not subject to reflection and
verbalization. In order to address the implicit processes in trust formation other
research designs should be used. On the other hand, the methodology we used
proved to be suited to address all the difficulties underlined in the research literature
on trust and the suggestions made in recent research related to trust measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Different analyses of trust theory and research have emphasized the fact that despite
the integrative efforts, this domain remains controversial and diffuse (Shapiro,
1987). Solutions that have been proposed in order to overcome this situation
underline the importance of studying trust in specific contexts and of grounding
trust research in the everyday experiences and language of the participants
(McKnight, et al., 1995). This study, based on grounded theory methodology,
examined perceptions of real people referring to real group situations and used their

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 137

wordings to develop a more comprehensive view on how trust manifests in student

work teams. Thus, it is in line with some recent efforts to apply grounded theory
approaches to trust development in different contexts (Wietoff & Lewicki, 2005;
Thom & Campbell, 1997). The results contribute to a better understanding of trust
development in student work groups and allowed us to derive a conceptual model
on trust in this specific context. Although the present findings integrate some
existing conceptualizations they also emphasize two major aspects that have
received less attention in the research literature.
The first aspect is related to the need for studying both implicit and explicit
information processing when trust formation processes are concerned. The second
aspect refers to the dynamic character of trust formation. Although linear trust
development has been addressed in literature, the data we collected emphasized a
spiral type of dynamic which is consistent with approaches that conceptualize trust
as an emergent state of the group. Trust can therefore be seen as a psychological
process closely related to other emergent states in work teams, such as cohesion and
team cognition, and also related to group identity formation (Pitariu, 2008).
The grounded theory approach allowed us to investigate types of
experiences and aspects of trust (patterns of trust development, need for permanent
evaluations and indicators of implicit processing) that might not have been
anticipated and therefore would have been difficult to identify and address in a
quantitative survey research.
Further efforts are needed to replicate and validate these findings, and to
refine the model we have derived. Also, future research should address questions
related to different processes in trust and distrust formation and its relation to other
emergent states and group processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by The PN-II ID_1589 grant from The National Council
for Scientific Research in Higher Education.

REFERENCES

Bachmann, R. (2006). Trust and/or power: towards a sociological theory of organizational

relationship. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp.
393 – 408). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Băban, A. (2002). Metodologia cercetarii calitative. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitara
Clujeana.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-
level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.
Burns, C., Mearns, K., & McGeorge, P. (2006). Explicit and implicit trust within safety
culture. Risk Analysis, 26, 1139-1150.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
138 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

Cahil, V., Gray, E., Seigneur, J. M., Jensen, C. D., Chen, Y., Shand, B., Dimmock, N.,
Twigg, A., Bacon, J., English, C., Wagealla, W., Terzis, S., Nixon, P., di Marzo
Serugendo, G., Bryce, C., Carbone, M., Krukow, K., & Nielsen, M. (2003). Using
trust for secure collaboration in uncertain environments. IEEE Pervasive
Computing, 2, 52-61.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Chirica, S., Andrei, D., & Ciuce, C. (2009). AplicaŃii practice ale psihologiei
organizaŃionale. Cluj-Napoca: Editura ASCR.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32, 605-623.
Costa, A. C. (2004). Trust. In C. D. Spielberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology
(pp. 611-620). New-York: Elsevier Academic Press.
Cummning, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):
Development and validation. In R. M., Kramer, & T. R., Tylor (Eds.), Trusting in
organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Curşeu, P. L. (2007). Grupurile în organizaŃii. Iaşi: Polirom.
Curşeu, P. L. (2006). Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems
perspective. Journal of InformationTechnology, 21, 249-261.
Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate
conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 14, 66-79.
David, D. (2000). Prelucrări inconştiente de informaŃie. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes.
New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (1998). Reassessing the role of interpersonal trust in
organizational settings. In S. J. Havlovic (Ed.), Academy of Management Best
Papers Proceedings, OB: D1-7.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.
Ebert, T. A. E. (2007). Interdisciplinary trust meta-analysis. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
University of Munich, Munich School of Management Web site:
http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE
model as an integrative framework. Advances in experimental social psychology,
23, 75–109.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking
cooperative relations (pp. 213-237). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban 139

Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group
processes. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131-185). New-
York: Wiley.
Goudge, J., & Gilson, L. (2005). How can trust be investigated? Drawing lessons from past
experience. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1439-1451.
Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: Some reflections on paradigm, procedures and
misconceptions. Working Paper Series, June, University of Wolverhampton.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem,
and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from
intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546.
Kiffin-Petersen, S. (2004). Trust – a neglected variable in team effectiveness research.
Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 10, 38-53.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Kramer, R. M. (2006). Organizational trust: a reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewicki, P. (1986). Nonconscious social information processing. New York: Academic
Press.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tylor (Eds.), Trusting in organizations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Marsh, S. (1994). Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on the
trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 123-136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1995). Trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Paper presented at the Information & Decision
Sciences Workshop, University of Minnesota, USA.
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (1996). The meaning of trust. MISRC Working Paper
Series. Retrieved May 15th 2007 from http://www.misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/wp96-
04.htlm
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer
relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6, 35-53.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (2006). Swift trust and temporary groups. In
R. M. Kramer (Ed.), Organizational trust: a reader (pp. 415-444). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nooteboom, B. (2006). Forms, sources and processes of trust. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer
(Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 247-263). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140
140 D. Andrei, C. OŃoiu, A. Ş. Isailă, A. Băban

Pitariu, A. (2008). Trust and team coordination in critical situations. Psihologia Resurselor
Umane, 6, 19-24.
Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, 20, 28-34.
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, M., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and its current status. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 501–518.
Schoorman, D., Mayer, R., & Davis, J. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust:
past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344-354.
Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163–196.
Shapiro, S. (1987). Policing trust. In C. D. Shearing, & P. C. Stenning (Eds.), Private
policing (pp. 195-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. L. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Thom, D. H., & Campbell, B. (1997). Pacient-physician trust: An exploratory study.
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Family Practice 44, 169-176.
Wang Y., & Vassileva J. (2003). Trust and reputation model in peer-to-peer networks,
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on P2P Computing, Linkoeping, Sweden,
September 2003, 150-157.
Watson, M. L. (2005). Can there be just one trust? A cross disciplinary identification of trust
definitions and measurement. Paper submitted to the Institute for Public Relations
for the 2004 Ketchum Excellence in Public Relations Research Award,
www.instituteforpr.com.
Wietoff, C., & Lewicki, R.J. (2005). Trust and distrust in work relationships: A grounded
approach. IACM 18th Annual Conference, June. Retrieved May 27th, 2007 from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=736273
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust
development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

14 (2010) 121-140