Journal of Trust Research

ISSN: 2151-5581 (Print) 2151-559X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjtr20

Measuring trust in organisational research: Review

and recommendations

Bill McEvily & Marco Tortoriello

To cite this article: Bill McEvily & Marco Tortoriello (2011) Measuring trust in organisational
research: Review and recommendations, Journal of Trust Research, 1:1, 23-63, DOI:
10.1080/21515581.2011.552424

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.552424

Published online: 12 Apr 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5682

View related articles

Citing articles: 58 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjtr20
Journal of Trust Research 1(1), 2011: 23
63

Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and

recommendations
Bill McEvilya* and Marco Tortoriellob
a
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Canada; bIESE Business School

Madrid, Spain
(Received 17 February 2010; final version received 23 November 2010)

Although the organisational literature is increasingly converging on common

definitions and theoretical conceptualisations of trust, it is unclear whether the
same is true for the measures used to operationalise trust. In this paper, we review
the organisational literature to assess the degree of sophistication and conver-
gence across studies in how trust has been measured. Our analysis of 171 papers
published over 48 years revealed that the state of the art of trust measurement is
rudimentary and highly fragmented. In particular, we identified a total of 129
different measures of trust. Moreover, in only 24 instances were we able to verify
that a previously developed and validated measure of trust had been replicated
verbatim, and 11 of these replications were by the same authors who originated
the measure. In addition to the limited degree of replication, the measurement of
trust in the organisational literature is characterised by weak evidence in support
of construct validity and limited consensus on operational dimensions. What
makes these findings even more surprising is that our review also identified
several measures of trust that have been carefully developed and thoroughly
validated. We profile those measures with strong measurement properties and
discuss their trade-offs. We also present a framework for measuring trust that
provides guidance to researchers for selecting or developing a measure of trust
and propose an agenda for future research with an emphasis on resolving
enduring debates in the literature.
Keywords: trust; measurement; validity; organisational; psychometric

The need for a review

Research on the role of trust in an organisational context has expanded considerably
in recent years. Apart from the increasing number of journal articles, there have also
been several special issues1 and books2 devoted to the topic of trust in and between
organisations. While this literature has made important theoretical and conceptual
advances, the literature as a whole is not well integrated and lacks coherence
(McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003). In part, this may be due to the fact that most
research tends to embed trust into existing theories of organisations, resulting in a
diverse and eclectic mix of findings. However, we believe that this is also due to a
fragmentation in the literature in the way that trust is measured.
Although the organisational literature is converging on common definitions and
theoretical conceptualisations of trust, it is unclear whether the same is true for the

*Corresponding author. Email: bill.mcevily@rotman.utoronto.ca

ISSN 2151-5581 print/ISSN 2151-559X online

# 2011 Peter Ping Li
DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2011.552424
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
24 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

measures used to operationalise trust. From a conceptual standpoint, organisational

research is increasingly adopting the view that ‘Trust is a psychological state
comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of
the intentions or behaviors of another’ (Rousseau, Burt, Sitkin, & Camerer, 1998:
395). As others have noted (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles,
2008), the definition stresses two key elements
the willingness to be vulnerable and
the expectation of favourable treatment by another party
as well as their
relationship (willingness is based on expectation). The organisational literature on
trust extensively cites this definition (over 650 times according to the Web of Science)
along with the closely related conceptualisation upon which it is based by Mayer,
Davis and Schoorman (1995) (over 1300 times, according to the Web of Science).
However, from an empirical standpoint it is unclear if a widely accepted and used
measurement instrument for trust has emerged. Anecdotally, it appears to be the case
that different researchers use different measurement instruments to meet the
idiosyncratic purposes of a particular study. More accurately, however, we simply
do not have a clear sense of how much consistency there is in approaches to
measuring trust, since there has yet to be a systematic review of the organisational
literature.
Earlier reviews of trust measures by Stack (1978) and Wrightsman (1991) provide
thorough and careful evaluations of instruments designed for research in social
psychology. Given these reviews, one might question the need for a review of trust
measures specific to the organisational literature. There are two important reasons,
however, that we believe that such a review is critical. First, the earlier reviews in
social psychology are somewhat dated. At a minimum it would be useful to bring
these reviews up to date by determining the extent to which the trust measures
reviewed by Stack (1978) and Wrightsman (1991) have been adopted in organisa-
tional research and if researchers have developed other more recent scales of
comparable quality. As noted previously, the organisational literature on trust has
expanded considerably in recent years and part of this growth may include important
advances in measurement. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is not clear how
relevant and useful trust measures from social psychology are for organisational
research. Consider, for example, the following survey items from Rempel, Holmes
and Zanna (1985), included in Wrightsman’s (1991) review:

My partner has proven to be a faithful person. No matter who my partner was married
to, she or he would never be unfaithful, even if there was absolutely no chance of being
caught.

If I have never faced a particular issue with my partner before I occasionally worry that
he or she won’t take my feelings into account.

I occasionally find myself feeling uncomfortable with the emotional investment I have
made in our relationship because I find it hard to completely set aside my doubts about
what lies ahead.

Would it be reasonable to use survey items such as these to measure trust in an

organisational context? The emphasis on infidelity and emotional investment would
seem to be applicable to a few organisational situations, but irrelevant for many
others. For instance, in a study of buyer
supplier relationships, how meaningful
 Journal of Trust Research 25

would it be to ask purchasing managers and supplier representatives about their

levels of emotional investment and faithfulness?
Regardless of how one responds to this question, in general it seems reasonable
to conclude that some items are more readily transferred to an organisational setting
than others. Given that the items above are from an instrument developed to
measure trust in close, intimate (e.g. marital) relationships, this should come as little
surprise. It does, however, raise the question of whether trust scales developed for
one specific type of relationship can be meaningfully applied to other kinds of
relationship. One option is simply to modify or eliminate those items that are most
suspect from an organisational perspective. Doing so, of course, raises concerns
about whether the modified scale is still measuring the trust construct and its
dimensions as it was originally conceptualised. A second option is simply to develop
a measure of trust that is designed with the specific organisational context of a study
in mind. The rationale for doing so is based on the idea that trust is inherently
context-dependent (Hardin, 2002; Rousseau et al., 1998). Yet, taken to the extreme,
such an approach would result in a completely unique measure of trust for each
study, thereby making it exceedingly difficult to compare and integrate results across
studies in a way that leads to a cumulative body of knowledge, consistent with
Kuhn’s (1962) notion of ‘normal’ science.
Without a common approach to measurement, advancing our understanding
of the meaning, causes and consequences of trust is impaired. For instance,
research on the relationship between trust and performance in interorganisational
exchange has produced mixed findings. Whereas some studies support the trust

performance relationship, others reveal the absence of a direct link, and a few
conclude that trust is detrimental to performance (Robson, Katsikeas, & Bello,
2008). Since the studies in question each adopt a different measure of trust, it is
difficult to determine how comparable the results are and the extent to which the
findings truly are diverging. It may be the case, for example, that each of the
measures captures a different dimension of trust and that different dimensions
vary in their relationship with performance. In the absence of a unified approach
to measuring trust, questions about the cumulative nature of findings will remain
unresolved.
Without a systematic review of organisational research on trust, there is no way
to know how consolidated or fragmented the literature is, the extent to which
organisational research is using or building on existing instruments versus devising
entirely new and different scales, and what the overall quality is of the measures being
used. To the best of our knowledge, there has yet to be a detailed review of the state
of the art in measuring trust in organisational research, which is the purpose of this
paper.3
We envision three primary outcomes from this review. First, we will provide
an assessment of the current state of trust measurement in organisational research.
This assessment will document the degree of fragmentation and convergence across
studies in the use of trust scales (e.g. most commonly used scales, proportion of scales
adapted from existing instruments, proportion of scales newly developed). Second, we
will profile those instruments with strong measurement properties, summarise how
they were developed and report the results of whatever construct validity analyses
were performed on them. The third outcome from the review will be a set of guidelines
for measuring trust going forward. Taken together, we believe that the results will
26 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

prove valuable to future research on trust and facilitate the development of a

cumulative body of knowledge.

Review of organisational research on trust

Scope of the review
This review focuses on organisational research using psychometric techniques to
measure trust. The psychometric approach to measurement typically takes the form of
a multi-item survey that includes a variety of questions intended to capture different
theoretical dimensions of trust. For example, people may be asked the extent to which
they trust a specific other, how much confidence they have in a group of people, or
whether a partner organisation fulfils its obligations. The psychometric approach is
particularly well suited to operationalising conceptualisations of trust similar to the
one presented above that emphasise the psychological foundation of trust, specifically
the expectations and intentions stemming from vulnerability (Rousseau et al., 1998).
The widespread use of psychometric measures of trust by organisational researchers is
another reason we limited our review to studies using this approach.
Focusing on psychometric measures of trust and adopting Rousseau et al.’s
(1998) definition of trust necessarily excludes several types of measure from our
review. Specifically, our review focuses on studies that measure the extent to which
one party places trust in another individual or collectivity (e.g. group or
organisation), consistent with the relational nature of trust. Therefore, we do not
consider dispositional instruments (see, for example, Rotter, 1967; Costa & McRae,
1992; Yamagishi, 1986) that are designed to measure differences in individuals’
propensity to trust society at large or others in general, and treat trust as a relatively
stable individual trait. We also adopt the view that trust is a psychological state and
is inherently an individual-level phenomenon. Thus, while it is meaningful to treat
collective entities (i.e. groups or organisations) as the object of trust, the same is not
true for the source of trust (Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998).4 For this reason, we
do not include in our review measures in which the placement of trust is made by a
collective entity. Our emphasis on psychometric instruments also excludes beha-
vioural measures. For instance, we do not include research in experimental
economics using the investment/trust game (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995).5
Also beyond the scope of this review are measures of distrust, which has been argued
to be conceptually distinct from trust (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Sitkin &
Roth, 1993; Kramer, 1996; Cook et al., 2004). Lastly, because we adopt the
perspective that trust is a multifaceted concept (Corazzini, 1977) we do not include in
our review measures of trust in the context of networks (Burt & Knez, 1995; Ferrin,
Dirks, & Shah, 2006), which typically treat trust as a unidimensional construct
measured with a single item.6 By excluding dispositional, collective, behavioural and
network trust measures, we do not mean to suggest that these other forms of trust are
irrelevant for organisational research. On the contrary, we believe that each
represents an important and fruitful approach to studying trust. At the same time,
however, we believe that each measurement approach raises a different set of
evaluation issues that would substantially complicate our task and we leave it for
future research to expand this review to provide a comprehensive discussion of
measuring trust in organisational research.
 Journal of Trust Research 27

Review of psychometric trust measures

Our review of the organisational literature on trust proceeded as follows. We began
our search by referencing two recent reviews of the organisational trust literature.
Dirks and Ferrin (2001) identified 46 papers published over the past 40 years that
studied interpersonal trust as an antecedent to various organisational outcomes.
Among the criteria for inclusion in their review, trust had to be defined as a
psychological state. To compile their review, the authors searched electronic
databases (PsycINFO, ABI Inform, Social Science Abstracts), referenced prior
reviews, conducted a manual review from 1980 to 2001 in leading organisational
journals (Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and
Organization Science), and reviewed the reference sections of articles identified in
prior steps. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) conducted a second review, specifically focused
on trust in leaders. Once again trust had to be defined as a psychological state for
inclusion in their review and the same search process was used. The second review
identified 94 studies of trust, some of which overlapped with the earlier review. After
eliminating those studies that were not published in a peer-reviewed journal (e.g.
working papers, conference papers, doctoral dissertations, edited volumes), we were
left with 61 studies of trust.
Since the Dirks and Ferrin reviews were focused on outcomes of interpersonal
trust and trust in leaders, they may have omitted some studies of trust in
organisational contexts (e.g. studies focusing on the antecedents of trust or on trust
placed in a group or organisation). For this reason, we supplemented the Dirks and
Ferrin reviews with our own searches to identify other studies of trust. Using the Pro-
quest Direct and Web of Science databases we did a comprehensive search of the
organisational literature on trust to identify other empirical papers. We then did a
manual search of journals excluded from the Dirks and Ferrin reviews that had
published studies of trust in an organisational context
including Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Marketing, Management Science and
Strategic Management Journal
and we updated Dirks and Ferrin’s reviews
searching for studies published between January 2002 and August 2010 in Academy
of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Organization
Science. Lastly, we circulated our preliminary bibliography of trust studies to
colleagues familiar with the trust literature to see if we had overlooked any published
articles. Our review identified an additional 110 studies of trust. The combined result
of our search and those of Dirks and Ferrin yielded a total of 171 empirical papers
measuring trust in organisational contexts published over 48 years (1962
2010).
Studies included in our review are listed in Appendix A. It is important to note that
several of the papers report more than one measure of trust (e.g. different targets of
trust, different experiments, etc.), which we treat as separate. Therefore, the total
number of measures included in our review is 207.
We reviewed each of the studies we identified and summarised key information
about the way trust was measured. Specifically, our coding recorded the following
details: (1) the definition of trust presented, (2) whether the trust measure
was adapted from a previously published instrument or was a newly developed
instrument, (3) the number of items in the measure, (4) the type of response scale
used to evaluate the items, (5) the construct validity statistics reported, (6)
28 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

the different dimensions of trust measured, (7) the sample size, (8) the sample
population, (9) the source of trust, and (10) the object of trust. Based on this
information we were able to discover a number of discernible patterns in the way that
organisational researchers have measured trust and to identify several instruments
with strong measurement properties.

Summary observations
Degree of replication
The first thing that we observed from the review is that there is a tremendous
proliferation of measurement instruments in the literature. We identified a total of
129 unique measures of trust in the 171 papers we reviewed. More specifically, more
than half of the measures we reviewed (77 of 129), were newly developed
instruments rather than replications of a previously developed and validated
instrument (see Figure 1). Less than half of the measures we reviewed (52 of 129)
were based on an existing instrument. Even among these, however, there is
considerable heterogeneity in the frequency of replication. Of the existing instru-
ments that were replicated, the majority of cases (30 of 52) represent instances of a
single replication (i.e. a previously published measure appeared in exactly one other
study). We found a much smaller set of existing instruments that had been replicated
more than once. In total, of the 129 unique measures, we found that only 22 had
been replicated more than once (see Table 1). Taken together, these 22 different
measures appear in just over half (89 out of 171) of the papers we reviewed,
suggesting little replication.

Accuracy of replication
A more detailed analysis of how accurately measures have been replicated reveals
that the actual degree of replication is, in fact, much lower. In particular, we
examined how accurately studies replicated existing instruments by conducting,
whenever possible, an item-by-item comparison between the original and the
replicated measure. Since several of the papers included multiple measures of trust,

Figure 1. Heterogeneity of trust measures.

 Journal of Trust Research 29

Table 1. Multiple replications.

Measurement instrument Number of times replicated

1. McAllister (1995) 12
2. Mayer and Davis (1999)
Trustworthiness 11
3. Cook and Wall (1980) 10
4. Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) 8
5. Mayer and Davis (1999)
Trust 7
6. Cummings and Bromiley (1996) 4
7. Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) 4
8. Podsakoff et al. (1990) 4
9. Rempel and Holmes (1986) 4
10. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) 4
11. Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (1996) 4
12. Zaheer et al. (1998) 4
13. Butler (1991) 3
14. Doney and Cannon (1997) 3
15. Johnson et al. (1996) 3
16. Simons and Peterson (2000) 3
17. Gabarro and Athos (1976) 2
18. Johnson-George and Swap (1982) 2
19. Pearce et al. (1992) 2
20. Read (1962) 2
21. Robinson (1996) 2
22. Scott (1983) 2

we identified a total of 130 instances where one of the 52 existing instruments was
replicated. Table 2 below lists the 52 existing instruments replicated along with an
analysis of the accuracy of replication.
We coded a replication as verbatim if an item-by-item comparison revealed that:

“ the exact same number of items and exact same wording were used; or
“ the exact same number of items were used and wording changes were limited
to modifying the description of the trustor or trustee (e.g. ‘we’ instead of ‘I’, or
‘other party’ instead of ‘business units’); or
“ the exact same wording was used and three or fewer items were removed based
on the results of construct validity analyses.

We coded a replication as not verbatim if an item-by-item comparison revealed that:

“ the wording of the original items was materially altered; or

“ four or more items were removed from the original measure; or
“ four or more items were added to the original measure.7

When a study did not report enough information to make a definite determination of
the accuracy of replication (e.g. no items reported or sample items reported) we
coded it as insufficient information.
The most striking finding of this analysis is that there is very little verbatim
replication in the literature. In only 24 instances (18% of the 130 cases) were we able
to confirm that an existing instrument had been replicated verbatim. Moreover, this
30 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Table 2. Accuracy of replication.

Verbatim replication?

Number of Insufficient
Existing instrument times replicated YES NO information

1. McAllister (1995) 12 3 5 4
2. Mayer and Davis (1999)
11 2 8 1
Trustworthiness
3. Cook and Wall (1980) 10 0 6 4
4. Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) 8 1 3 4
5. Mayer and Davis (1999)
7 2 4 1
Trust
6. Cummings and Bromiley 4 1 3 0
(1996)
7. Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) 4 0 1 3
8. Podsakoff et al. (1990) 4 1 1 2
9. Rempel and Holmes (1986) 4 0 4 0
10. Robinson and Rousseau 4 0 3 1
(1994)
11. Schoorman et al. (1996) 4 1 3 0
12. Zaheer et al. (1998) 4 1 3 0
13. Butler (1991) 3 0 0 3
14. Doney and Cannon (1997) 3 1 2 0
15. Johnson et al. (1996) 3 0 2 1
16. Simons and Peterson (2000) 3 1 2 0
17. Gabarro and Athos (1976) 2 1 0 1
18. Johnson-George and Swap 2 0 2 0
(1982)
19. Pearce et al. (1992) 2 0 1 1
20. Read (1962) 2 1 1 0
21. Robinson (1996) 2 0 1 1
22. Scott (1983) 2 1 0 1
Single replication measures 30 7 15 8
Total 130 24 70 36

is probably a fairly generous estimate of the degree of replication given that nearly
half (11 out of 24) of the verbatim replications were by the authors that first
published the existing instrument. Equally striking is the fact that of the cases
reporting enough information to make a determination, in more than two-thirds (70
out of 94) we noted that the changes in the wording and/or number of the items were
substantial enough to question whether the existing instrument had been replicated
at all. Indeed, we were struck by how different from the original source many of the
‘not verbatim’ replications were. Typical of these cases were measures that adopted
fewer than half of the original items, measures that combined items from two or
more existing instruments, and measures that added several new items to items from
one or more existing instruments.
It is also interesting to note that of the papers adopting an existing instrument,
nearly one in three (36 out of 130) did not provide enough information to assess the
accuracy of replication. Even in the unlikely case that all 36 of these cases were
 Journal of Trust Research 31

verbatim replications, that would still mean that less than half (60 out of 130) of
those studies adopting an existing instrument were verbatim replications.8 Taken
together, these observations suggest that there appears to be very little accuracy in
the way that measures of trust are replicated in the organisational literature.

Time trends
Given the variation in measurement and the lack of accuracy in replication, an
important question to address is the extent to which there are any time trends
occurring. Specifically, is the heterogeneity in measurement as large a problem now
as it was in earlier years or is there some convergence in the literature? To address
these questions, we examined the studies in our review to determine what sorts of
patterns are evident. Although the trends are somewhat mixed, overall it appears as
though the variation in measurement is as large a problem now as it was in earlier
years, and may be getting worse in some respects.
Our first analysis focused on the degree of replication over time and simply plots
on a yearly basis how many of the measures are entirely new versus a replication of
an existing measure. Since the vast majority of studies included in our review appear
after 1990 (92%), we did not include studies published before that time in order to
produce a clearer and easier-to-interpret representation of the trends. As Figure 2
shows, there appears to be some movement away from creating new measures and
toward relying on the replication of existing measures.
When we look more closely at the accuracy of replication, however, we see a
different picture. Specifically, Figure 3 plots a comparison of verbatim versus non-
verbatim replications over time (again excluding the few studies published before
1990). This analysis shows that when considering only those studies that have
replicated an existing measure, there is an increase in the number of non-verbatim
replications.9 Taken together, these two analyses suggest that the movement away
from creating new measures may be accounted for by an increase in the number of
non-verbatim replications.
As a final analysis, we were interested in understanding what changes, if any, were
occurring in the number of measures being replicated over time. Figure 4 shows on a
yearly basis the number of additional replicated measures introduced into the
literature and the cumulative number of replicated measures. For example, 1971
marked the first instance of a measure being replicated in our review. In 1980, a

Figure 2. Time trends
degree of replication.

32 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Figure 3. Time trends
accuracy of replication.

second measure was replicated, followed by two more in 1983, and so on. As the
figure shows, there has been a steady increase in the number of measures being
replicated. The growth in the number of replicated measures is most pronounced in
the last 20 years, where the growth rate has been about two dozen per decade, or
2.5 per year. Taken together we believe that these time trends point to an increasing
fragmentation of measurement in the literature.

Construct validity
Our review also revealed that most studies report minimal information about
construct validity. For instance, for 14 of the measures we reviewed, we found no
statistics reported about the psychometric properties of the instrument. Of the
remainder of the measures we reviewed, half (99) were accompanied by internal
consistency/reliability statistics (typically Cronbach’s Alpha), but no additional
construct validity information, and half (94) included both internal consistency/
reliability statistics and the results of analyses for construct validity. These analyses
most often took the form of exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses, although a
few (16) also reported the results of convergent or discriminant analyses. The level of
detail provided about construct validity varied widely from no information, to
detailed information about loadings, communalities and fit indices. Taken together,
these observations suggest that the level of confidence that can be inferred about the

Figure 4. Time trends
fragmentation of replication.

 Journal of Trust Research 33

Figure 5. Heterogeneity in dimensions.

validity of trust measures used in the organisational literature is highly uneven. For
most of the studies we reviewed, the information reported is insufficient for
evaluating how accurately trust has been measured.

Dimensionality
A closely related concern regards the dimensionality of trust. As noted previously,
trust is considered a multifaceted construct. Given its complexity, in many
circumstances it would seem appropriate to operationalise trust as a multi-
dimensional construct and empirically assess the extent to which distinct dimensions
exist and the nature and degree of their relationship to each other. The vast majority
of measures we reviewed, 78% (161 out of 207) empirically treat trust as a uni-
dimensional construct. On the one hand, there are situations when the focus on a
single dimension of trust may be justified given the research question and/or
theoretical framework. If so, we would encourage researchers to be explicit about the
rationale for doing so. On the other hand, in circumstances when it is appropriate to
treat trust as multi-dimensional, it is unclear which dimension(s) are being
represented by a uni-dimensional construct. In these instances, it may be the case
that inconsistent findings across studies are a result of differences in the dimensions
of trust being captured by a uni-dimensional construct. Some of the measures we
reviewed do, however, treat trust as a multifaceted construct (see Figure 5).
In particular, we noted that 22% (46 out of 207) of the measures we reviewed are
multi-dimensional. Of the studies adopting a multi-dimensional measure, almost
all operationalise no more than four dimensions. Three studies operationalised a
12-dimensional measure developed by Butler (1991). More so than the number of
dimensions, we saw a considerable degree of variation across the multi-dimensional
measures in terms of the types of dimensions operationalised. Specifically, we
counted a total of 38 different dimensions of trust across the 46 multi-dimensional
measures identified (see Table 3).
We should note that we did not group or consolidate dimensions that may be
similar, except in unambiguous cases (e.g. promise fulfilment and keeping commit-
ments, ability and competence). Hence, our compilation may overstate the number of
34 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Table 3. Dimensionality of trust.

Dimension Number of times operationalised

1. Integrity 19
2. Ability/competence 14
3. Benevolence 14
4. Affective 12
5. Cognitive 11
6. Trust (verbatim) 9
7. Loyalty 7
8. Openness 7
9. Fairness 6
10. Reliability 5
11. Faith in intentions 4
12. Predictability 4
13. Promise/commitment fulfilment 4
14. Willingness to risk 4
15. Availability 3
16. Consistency 3
17. Discreteness 3
18. Opportunism 3
19. Receptivity 3
20. Surveillance/monitoring 3
21. Motives/intentions 2
22. Avoids taking excessive advantage 1
23. Calculative 1
24. Character 1
25. Communication 1
26. Concern 1
27. Coordination 1
28. Credibility 1
29. Dynamism 1
30. Expertness 1
31. Forbearance 1
32. Goodwill 1
33. Habitualisation 1
34. Honesty 1
35. Informal agreement 1
36. Influence acceptance 1
37. Institutionalisation 1
38. Judgement 1

trust dimensions operationalised in the literature. However, we believe that any

overestimation is slight, since we were unable to determine an obvious way of
substantially condensing the dimensions listed in Table 3. Setting aside the issue of
the precise number of dimensions operationalised, we believe that it is worth noting
the heterogeneity in how these dimensions are labelled and described. At a minimum,
it appears as though there is little consensus in the literature about how to describe
the different dimensions of trust. More broadly, it appears as though the
organisational literature has yet to embrace the perspective that trust is multifaceted,
not only in terms of conceptualisation, but also in terms of empirical evaluation.
 Journal of Trust Research 35

Taken together, the lack of replication, the weak evidence in support of construct
validity and the limited consensus on operational dimensions suggest that the state of
the art of trust measurement in the organisational literature is still rudimentary and
is growing increasingly fragmented (as represented in the time trends plotted in
Figures 2
4). The disjointed state of trust measurement may be due in part to the
context-specific nature of trust, as noted earlier, and due to the fact that trust is
increasingly being studied by organisational researchers in a wide variety of fields
that are not well integrated. It may also be the case that ‘necessity is the mother of
invention’ and that organisational researchers have devised idiosyncratic measures of
trust due to the lack of availability of carefully designed and validated instruments.
Our review of the literature, however, leads us to conclude that such is not the case
and in the next section we identify five noteworthy measures of trust that were
developed and tested with a great deal of rigour and care.

Noteworthy measures of trust

Given that there may be other well-developed and validated trust measures of which
we are unaware we do not mean to suggest that the following are the only high-
quality instruments available. Rather, we hope that by drawing attention to measures
that have been rigorously developed and validated, future research will make better
use of them and limit the degree of fragmentation in the literature going forward. We
selected measures based on several criteria. First, we concentrated on studies for
which the primary, if not the sole, objective was the development and validation of a
measure of trust, in contrast to studies that were primarily concerned with testing
theoretical predications pertaining to the antecedents or consequences of trust. In
addition, all five measures adopted a multidimensional conceptualisation and
operationalisation of trust, consistent with the view that trust is a multifaceted
concept (Corazzini, 1977; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998). Most
importantly, each of the five measures reviewed below were subjected to extensive
analyses to assess the construct validity of the proposed instrument (see Schwab,
1980 for a detailed discussion). In particular, the five measures share a common
emphasis on confirmatory factor analysis involving the testing of a theoretically
derived measurement model and the estimation and evaluation of competing
measurement models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991).
The five noteworthy measures are listed in chronological order in Table 4 and are
profiled in greater detail in Appendix B.
It is worth noting that only three of these five measures
McAllister (1995),
Cummings and Bromiley (1996), and Mayer and Davis (1999)
are also included in
the list of measures most replicated (see Table 1). Moreover, as Table 2 shows, the

Table 4. Noteworthy measures of trust.

Authors Measurement instrument

McAllister (1995) Managerial Interpersonal Trust

Currall and Judge (1995) Boundary Role Persons’ Trust
Cummings and Bromiley (1996) Organisational Trust Inventory
Mayer and Davis (1999) Organisational Trust
Gillespie (2003) Behavioural Trust Inventory
36 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

accuracy with which these three measures are replicated is quite low, similar to the
other replicated measures, suggesting that even these measures are not being used
extensively in the literature. Although the degree and accuracy of replication are
factors we could have used as selection criteria, we decided that replication per se was
not necessarily a clear indication of the quality of a measure. For instance, several of
the measures included in the list of those most replicated (Table 1) only report basic
statistics about their psychometric properties (e.g. reliability) without providing
details about the procedures used to develop the instruments (e.g. item generation
and purification) or the construct validity properties (e.g. discriminant, convergent,
nomological) of the measures. The five noteworthy measures identified in Table 4, in
one form or another, all provide such details.

Advancing the state-of-the-art in trust measurement

In our view, the five measures identified in Table 4 collectively represent the ‘state-of-
the-art’ in measuring trust. Nevertheless, even these instruments can be improved
upon to advance further the practice of measuring trust. In particular, we see three
challenges that are at the forefront of trust measurement: coverage of the willingness
and expectation conceptual elements, applicability across organisational relation-
ships, and multidimensionality.

Coverage of willingness and expectation

As noted at the outset of this review, the organisational literature has converged on a
conceptualisation of trust consisting of two core elements
the willingness to be
vulnerable and the expectation of favourable treatment by another party. Ferrin et al.
(2008) suggest that the two elements may be conceptually distinct, since positive
confident expectations refer to beliefs about how someone will behave, rather than a
person’s internal character. Colquitt et al. (2007), however, concluded that some
operationalisations of expectations are more similar to perceived trustworthiness
than a distinct construct. Given the lack of additional evidence, we believe this is an
important area for future research. Since most of the noteworthy measures
exclusively emphasise either willingness or expectation, some enhancements would
be required for the instruments to be used to address this issue. In particular, whereas
Currall and Judge (1995) and Gillespie (2003) exclusively emphasise willingness,
McAllister (1995) and Cummings and Bromiley (1996) solely stress expectation. The
Mayer and Davis (1999) measure differs somewhat from the others in that it is a
‘family’ of measures (trustworthiness, trust and risk-taking in relationships) that
provides some coverage of both conceptual elements, but appears primarily to
emphasise willingness over expectation. Thus, coverage of both the willingness and
expectation conceptual elements of trust represents one important area for
improvement of the five noteworthy measures.

Applicability across organisational relationships

As discussed earlier, we suspect that part of the reason for the high degree of
fragmentation in trust measurement is due to the context-specific nature of trust.
Researchers seeking to measure trust within the confines of a particular setting are
often confronted with the need to adapt existing instruments, or create entirely new
 Journal of Trust Research 37

instruments, that are well suited to the specific features of that context. Although
there may be several features of research contexts that may differ and influence the
measurement of trust, we believe that the type of organisational relationship that is
the focus of study is a critical one. The five noteworthy measures of trust varied
considerably in the type of organisational relationship examined and the extent to
which they are applicable to other types of relationship. For instance, given that the
measure developed by McAllister (1995) was designed to measure trust in peer
relationships among managers, its applicability to relationships that vary in terms of
authority and power is unknown. Analogously, since the measure devised by Currall
and Judge (1995) was created for measuring trust in the interorganisational context
(i.e. between boundary role persons), we do not yet know how suitable it is for intra-
organisational relationships. The Cummings and Bromiley (1996) measure, with its
emphasis on trust between collective entities and transaction cost considerations, is
well suited for relationships involving negotiation and exchange, but may be less
applicable to relationships that primarily involve other types of activity. The Mayer
and Davis (1999) measures were explicitly designed to capture trust in a variety of
organisational relationships and thus far have been used in studies of authority (e.g.
managers
subordinates) and exchange (customer
vendor) relationships. Similarly,
the measure developed by Gillespie (2003) was designed to be applicable to a variety
of organisational relationships and was initially tested in authority (leader
team
member) and peer (co-team members) relationships. To the extent that the observed
fragmentation in trust measurement is due to the context-specific nature of trust, an
important way that future research can improve upon the five noteworthy mea-
sures is by establishing their applicability across different types of organisational
relationships.

Multidimensionality
One of the challenges of operationalising trust as a multidimensional construct is
empirically specifying dimensions that are distinct, yet related. Each of the five
noteworthy measures grappled with this issue, with mixed degrees of success.
Whereas the factor loadings for some of the measures varied considerably (Currall &
Judge, 1995; Cummings & Bromiley, 1996), the overall factor structure (single versus
multiple dimensions) of other measures differed when replicated (McCallister, 1995),
and the distinctions among the factors of some measures were not evaluated as
extensively as they could have been (Mayer & Davis, 1999). Taken together, these
observations suggest that future research could improve upon the five noteworthy
measures by establishing more concretely the multi-dimensionality of trust.

Recommendations for future research

Although we have identified ways in which the five noteworthy measures can be
improved upon, it bears repeating that in our view these instruments represent
the state-of-the-art in trust measurement. Given the care and rigour with which the
five measures were developed, it would truly be a waste not to capitalise on these
efforts. Moreover, in light of the limited overlap and convergence in the measurement
of trust thus far in the organisational literature, it would seem doubly important to
adopt accurate, reliable and valid instruments in the future to generate a cumulative
body of work and facilitate comparisons across studies. It is our hope that this review
38 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

will make these important goals more feasible by drawing attention to the need for
such consistency and to the availability of high-quality measures.
At the same time, we recognise that researchers may question which of the five
measures profiled is best for their particular study. We would suggest that the choice
is contingent upon the specific research question addressed and theoretical model
proposed. In particular, it is important to be clear about which form of trust is the
focus of a theory. Trust has been theorised to operate as: an expectation or belief
about another party, which is perceptual or attitudinal; a willingness to make oneself
vulnerable, which is intentional or volitional; and a risk-taking act, which is
behavioural (Mayer et al., 1995; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). These
three constituent components of trust have been referred to as trustworthiness beliefs,
trusting intentions, and trusting behaviors, respectively (McEvily et al., 2003; Dietz &
Den Hartog, 2006). In our view, the five measures profiled tap into different
components of trust as summarised in Figure 6 below. Therefore, depending on the
components of trust featured in a theoretical model, the set of measures that are
most appropriate for a particular study will vary.
For theories focusing on trustworthiness beliefs, or the individual characteristics
upon which a subjective evaluation of a trustee’s motives and intentions is made, the
measures developed by McAllister (1995), Cummings and Bromiley (1996), and
Mayer and Davis (1999) are all relevant options. Each of these three measures
emphasises different characteristics of the trustee. McAllister’s (1995) measure
primarily emphasises beliefs about competence and responsibility (i.e. cognition-
based trust), as well as expectations about the extent to which the counterpart
expresses care and concern for the welfare of the trustor (i.e. affect-based trust).
Cummings and Bromiley’s (1996) measure, on the other hand, focuses on beliefs
about whether the trustee makes good-faith efforts, is honest and refrains from
opportunism. The Mayer and Davis (1999) measure captures perceptions about a
trustee’s ability, benevolence and integrity. Although there is some overlap between
the measures by McAllister (1995) and Mayer and Davis (1999) (i.e. competence/
responsibility with ability, and care and concern with benevolence), the three
measures are otherwise distinct.
Whereas some theories stress the trustee’s characteristics, others focus on the
trustor’s intention to trust. Here, trust is treated as the trustor’s willingness to be
vulnerable
i.e. the decision to expose him/herself to the risk of potentially being
harmed by the actions or decisions of the trustee. Given that this component of trust
is at the heart of Mayer et al.’s (1995) Integrative Model of Organisational Trust, and
that Mayer and Davis (1999) developed the Organisational Trust Instrument
specifically to operationalise that theoretical model, their measure is clearly a
relevant option. We would also suggest that the measures developed by Currall and
Judge (1995) and Gillespie (2003) are suitable for measuring the decision to trust.
Although these authors are ultimately interested in behaviours that reflect trust, they
developed their measures to capture the willingness to engage in trusting behaviour,
since it is considered ‘the most proximal antecedent of trusting behavior’ (Currall
and Judge, 1995, p. 152). Indeed, the fact that the instruments respectively prompt
respondents to report ‘. . . what you would actually do . . .’ (Currall and Judge 1995,
emphasis ours) and ‘how willing are you to [undertake specified actions] (Gillespie,
2003, our emphasis) further reinforces our belief that these measures are
more indicative of the decision to trust than trusting behaviours per se. A key benefit
of adopting these instruments to measure the decision to trust is that they are
 Journal of Trust Research 39

Figure 6. A framework for measuring trust.

multi-dimensional, which is particularly important if decisions regarding the

willingness to be vulnerable can be manifest in different ways.
Although we believe that the Currall and Judge (1995) and Gillespie (2003)
measures are best suited to capturing the decision to trust, they may also be suitable
for capturing trusting behaviours. For instance, by changing the item prompts from
‘would’ to ‘have’, the focus shifts from intentional and hypothetical, to actual and
past, behaviours. At the same time, this raises an important question about how best
to measure behaviours. On the one hand, a drawback of using survey-based
instruments to measure past behaviours is the potential for recall bias. On the other
hand, previous research has shown that ‘behavioral estimation’ using survey items is
highly predictive of actual behaviour (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Randall & Wolff,
1994; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). The trade-
offs associated with survey-based measures of trusting behaviours should be weighed
against those of alternative approaches, such as experimental (discussed further
below), direct observation and archival.
In sum, our framework for measuring trust proposes that the choice among
instruments be guided by theoretical considerations. Each of the measures of trust
profiled varies in its suitability for capturing the different components of trust. In
addition to mapping measures onto components, our framework also raises
important questions about the meaning of trust and the extent to which trust is
context dependent, which we discuss next.

The meaning of trust: Psychological state versus behavioural manifestation?

To what extent can the results of research on trust be compared and integrated across
studies? Given the heterogeneity of measures that we have documented, we question
how well this important goal is being met. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind
40 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

that our review exclusively focused on psychometric measures. Although this

represents the most widespread approach used in the organisational literature, it is
not necessarily the only (or even the most common) approach across the social
sciences. Perhaps the greatest disparity exists with the experimental economics
literature which, as noted previously, relies almost exclusively on behavioural
measures of trust such as the widely replicated ‘investment’ or ‘trust’ game (Berg
et al., 1995). In addition, there are network-based (e.g. Burt & Knez, 1995; Ferrin
et al., 2006) and archival (e.g. Gulati, 1995) measures in use. Thus, while definitions
of trust across disciplines may be ‘not so different after all’ (Rousseau et al., 1998),
operationalisations of trust would appear to be quite different indeed.
What makes the divergence in trust measurement approaches even more striking,
and potentially problematic, is the fact that different techniques are rarely used in
combination.10 At a general level, this may be due to differences in disciplinary
orientation regarding philosophies of science and what constitutes credible evidence.
At a deeper level, however, we believe that the distinct approaches to measuring trust
reflect core theoretical differences in the meaning of trust across disciplines. For
instance, the behavioural measures favoured in experimental economics are
consistent with the notion of revealed preferences and the view that economically
consequential behaviours are the most reliable proxy for latent attitudes. From this
perspective, trust is only meaningful as a manifest behaviour, whereas subjective
perceptions and stated intentions are considered ‘noisy’ approximations of trust at
best, and ‘cheap talk’ at worst. Here, the willingness to be vulnerable is seen as either
an artefact of actual, incurred vulnerability or as disconnected from the active
placement of trust. Such a perspective is in sharp contrast to the emphasis on trust as
a psychological state in the organisational literature, where trust in its purest form is
considered to be an intention and willingness to act, and the behaviours that follow
from trust are more properly understood as risk-taking acts. From this viewpoint,
trust can only be represented as an attitude, and behavioural measures are seen as
confounded with closely related ‘trust-like’ constructs such as cooperation, fairness,
risk-aversion and altruism.
Regardless of which view researchers subscribe to, the implications of the
divergence in measurement approaches extend well beyond methodological concerns
and underscore the importance of measurement for generating a cumulative body of
knowledge, in line with Kuhn’s (1962) notion of ‘normal’ science, and advancing our
understanding of the meaning, causes and consequences of trust. Without a common
approach to measuring trust, integrating findings across disciplines will continue to
be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Moreover, in the absence of a unified
approach to measuring trust, enduring debates about the nature of trust will
continue to go unaddressed. We believe that a fruitful way of resolving such
differences is to recognise that trust is composed of different components and to
explicitly incorporate the relationships among components into theoretical and
empirical models of trust. For instance, some research (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; Mayer
& Davis, 1999), suggests that perceptions about trustworthiness lead to decisions
regarding the willingness to be vulnerable, which in turn translate into a variety of
trusting behaviours. Nevertheless, we know of few studies that actually validate this
entire causal chain of relationships. At the same time, other research suggests that the
willingness to be vulnerable does not necessarily mediate the effect of perceptions
and expectations on behaviours (Colquitt et al., 2007).
 Journal of Trust Research 41

The context dependence of trust: From idiosyncratic instruments to common measures

In addition to informing the debate on the meaning of trust, we believe that our
framework for measuring trust is also relevant for addressing an issue we raised at the
outset of our review about the inherently context-dependent nature of trust. On the
one hand, we argued that it is not feasible to transfer instruments across disciplines

such as those from the social-psychology literature, designed to measure trust in
intimate relationships, to the organisational literature
because the form of trust that
matters depends on the specific circumstances of a relationship. On the other hand,
our review of the organisational literature has also shown that the most common
practice is to create a new measure of trust for the unique purposes of a study.
Our view lies in between these two extremes. We acknowledge that context is
relevant for defining and measuring trust and that the precise form of trust will vary
depending on the empirical setting. At the same time, we would challenge the view that
the concept of trust is completely idiosyncratic to each organisational or relational
setting. Instead, we would encourage researchers to consider the commonalities
between their focus and that of other trust research, particularly with regard to the
components of trust that are theorised. Where commonalities exist, previously
validated measures should be adopted rather than developing a new measure.
Although the five measures that we have profiled may not be ideally suited for
every study, they clearly have the potential to be applied much more broadly than has
been the case thus far. We would further recommend that studies adopting existing
measures replicate the original instrument as closely as possible and report
sufficiently detailed information about construct validity so as to permit compar-
isons across studies. While we would generally discourage the development of
additional trust measures, there may be instances when new or substantially modified
measures are called for. For instance, studies of trust in an international context
(Ariño, de la Torre, & Ring, 2001; Dyer & Chu, 2003; Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006)
confront the challenge not only of translating instruments into different language(s),
but also of whether the concept of trust actually means the same thing in different
cultures. We encourage future research to address this issue and would recommend
that any new instruments draw upon the methodological approaches used by the five
measures profiled here and aim to advance the state of measurement beyond what is
currently available.
Apart from facilitating cumulative research, the use of common measures will also
permit researchers to advance a generalisable theory of context that explains when
and under which conditions different components of trust are more or less relevant.
For instance, in some organisational settings reliance and disclosure (Gillespie, 2003)
may be the most important behaviours and in others communication, informal
agreement, surveillance or task coordination (Currall & Judge, 1995) may be more
important. If so, this would suggest a different set of questions, theoretical
relationships and operational measures. Without an integrative theory of the context
of trust and a unified approach to measurement, however, the implications of the
findings will remain limited to the confines of a particular research setting.

Conclusion
Will the expanding body of research on trust have an enduring impact on the
organisational literature? We believe that the answer depends critically on the state of
42 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

measurement practice going forward. Unless the ‘Balkanisation’ of measures that is

currently endemic to the field is replaced by a more coherent and unified approach,
we believe that the potential will be severely constrained. Nevertheless, we are
optimistic that progress can and will be made, given that the tools for doing so are
readily available. This review has documented both the severe fragmentation in
measurement and the availability of several carefully developed and rigorously
validated instruments. Now all that remains is for researchers to advance the state of
practice and the art of measurement. We trust that they will.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Kurt Dirks and Don Ferrin for graciously agreeing to share their
database of trust research with us and for providing insightful feedback on an earlier version
of this paper. We also appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by Phil
Bromiley, Associate Editor Peter Kim, and three anonymous reviewers. Funding for this paper
was provided by the Russell Sage Foundation Initiative on ‘The role of trust in shaping social
relations’.

Notes
1. See, for example, the 1998 Academy of Management Review special issue guest edited by
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer; the 2001 Organization Studies special issue guest
edited by Bachmann, Knights, and Sydow; and the 2003 Organization Science special
issue guest edited by McEvily, Perrone, and Zaheer.
2. E.g. Gambetta (1988), Kramer and Tyler (1996), Kramer and Cook (2004), Bachmann
and Zaheer (2006).
3. Recent papers by Dietz and Den Hartog (2006) and by Seppänen, Blomqvist and
Sundqvist (2007) also provide insightful reviews and evaluations of trust measurement,
but concentrate on more focused segments of the literature than our review. Whereas
Dietz and Den Hartog (2006) review 14 studies on trust in the intra-organisational
context, Seppänen et al. (2007) limit their focus to 15 studies on trust in the
interorganisational context.
4. For a thoughtful argument that presents an alternative viewpoint and a framework for
studying trust across levels of aggregation, see recent work by Currall and Inkpen (2000,
2002, 2006). Closely related is work by Janowicz and Noorderhaven (2006) that develops
a framework for conceptualising and measuring trust across levels that takes into
account different organisational roles and responsibilities.
5. For a recent review of research based on this experimental paradigm, see Camerer
(2003).
6. For a noteworthy exception, see Chua, Ingram & Morris (2008).
7. We used three or fewer items as a criterion for categorising a replication as verbatim
because it provided a clear point of differentiation among the replicated measures. Of the
adapted measures modifying the number of items from an existing instrument, a small
number added or removed one item and the vast majority added or removed four or
more items.
8. A more reasonable estimate of the number of cases not reporting sufficient information
that were potentially verbatim replications is based on the proportion of confirmed
verbatim replications (24) to the total number of studies reporting sufficient information
to make a determination (94), or 25%. If we apply this estimate to the 36 cases of
insufficient information, it would suggest that approximately nine are verbatim
replications, bringing the total to 33 out of 130.
9. When we plotted the ratio of verbatim to non-verbatim replications, the time trends
appear virtually identical to those based on the count of verbatim to non-verbatim
replications.
 Journal of Trust Research 43

10. Glaeser et al. (2000) compared attitudinal (psychometric) and behavioural measures, but
primarily focus on attitudes regarding trust in society in general and trust in strangers,
rather than trust in a specific trustee.

Notes on contributors
Bill McEvily is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management at the Rotman School of
Management, University of Toronto, where he teaches courses on Strategy Implementation,
Social Networks and Organisational Theory. His research explores social capital as an
organizational and strategic resource. Professor McEvily is a Senior Editor at Organization
Science and has served as guest editor for special issues of Management Science and
Organization Science. Professor McEvily earned his Ph.D. in Strategic Management and
Organisation from the University of Minnesota. Email: bill.mcevily@rotman.utoronto.ca

Marco Tortoriello is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Management at IESE Business

School. He received his Ph.D. in Organisational Behaviour and Theory from the Tepper
School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University. His research focuses on the mechanisms
through which social structure affects the distribution and utilisation of knowledge within and
across organisations and how that relates to individual innovative capabilities and
performance. Email: mtortoriello@iese.edu

References (not included in Appendix A)

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, pp. 411
423.
Ariño, A., de la Torre, J., & Ring, P.S. (2001). Relational quality: Managing trust in corporate
alliances. California Management Review, 44(1), pp. 109
131.
Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, pp. 471
499.
Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (2006). Handbook of trust research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Bachmann, R., Knights, D., & Sydow, J. (2001). Special issue: Trust and control in
organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22(2).
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 421
458.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and
Economic Behavior, 27, pp. 269
299.
Burt, R.S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and Society, 7,
pp. 255
292.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cook, K.S., Kramer, R.M., Thom, D.H., Stepanikova, I., Mollborn, S.B., & Cooper, R.M.
(2004). Trust and distrust in patient
physician relationships: Perceived determinants of
high- and low-trust relationships in managed-care settings. In R. M. Kramer & K.S. Cook
(Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations, (pp. 65
98). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A Meta-analytic test of their unique relationship with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), pp. 909
927.
Corazzini, R. (1977), Trust as a complex multi-dimensional construct. Psychological Reports,
40, pp. 75
80.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and five-factor
inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Currall, S.C., & Inkpen, A.C. (2000). Joint venture trust: Interpersonal, intergroup, and
interfirm levels, Cooperative Strategies: North Americal Perspectives. San Francisco, CA:
New Lexington Press.
44 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Currall, S.C., & Inkpen, A.C. (2002). A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures. Journal
of International Business Studies, 33, pp. 479
495.
Currall, S.C., & Inkpen, A.C. (2006). On the complexity of organizational trust: A multi-level
co-evolutionary perspective and guidelines for future research. In R. Bachmann & A.
Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research, (pp. 235
246). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review,
35, pp. 557
588.
Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12, pp. 450
467.
Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 611
628.
Ferrin, D.L., Dirks, K.T., and Shah, P.P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third party
relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, pp. 870
833.
Gabarro, J.J., & Athos, J. (1976). Interpersonal Relations and Communications. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gambetta, D. (1988) Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D.I., Scheinkman, J.A., & Souter, C.L. (2000). Measuring trust.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, pp. 811
846.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for
contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), pp. 85
112.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Janovicz, M. & Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006). Levels of interorganizational trust. In R.
Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research, (pp. 264
279). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T., & Takenouchi, H. (1996). Setting the stage for trust and
strategic integration in Japanese
U.S. cooperative alliances. Journal of International
Business Studies, 27, pp. 981
1004.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W.C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust:
Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, pp. 1306
1317.
Kramer, R.M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic
relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.),
Trust in organizations, (pp. 216
245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kramer, R.M., & Cook, K.S. (Eds.) (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Kramer, R.M., & Tyler, T.R. (1996) Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, R.J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 438
458.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 709
734.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003) Special issue: Trust in an organizational context.
Organization Science, 14 (1).
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N.L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 473
490.
Pearce, J.L., Sommer, S.M., Morris, A., & Frideger, M. (1992). A configurational approach to
interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence.
Working Paper OB92015, Graduate School of Management, University of California,
Irvine.
Randall, D.M. & Wolff, J.A. (1994). The time interval in the intention
behavior relationship:
Meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, pp. 405
418.
Rempel, J.L., & Holmes, J.G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, February,
pp. 28
34.
Rempel, J.L., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, pp. 95
112.
 Journal of Trust Research 45

Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35, pp. 651
665.
Rousseau, D.M., Burt, R.S., Sitkin, S.B., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 393
404.
Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational trust
a
critical review of the empirical research in 1990
2003. Industrial Marketing Management,
36, pp. 249
265.
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1998). Does intention predict condom use? A meta analysis and test
of four moderators. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, pp. 231
250.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-
analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, pp. 325
343.
Sitkin, S.B., & Roth, N.L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for
trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, pp. 367
392.
Stack, L.C. (1978). Trust. In H. London and J.E. Exner, Jr (Eds.), Dimensions of personality,
(pp. 373
412). New York: Wiley.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. J.P.
Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes, (pp. 373
412). San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as public good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), pp. 110
116.
Zaheer, S., & Zaheer, A. (2006). Trust across borders. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(1), pp. 21
29.
Zand, D.E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17, pp. 229
239.

Appendix A: Studies included in the review

Alge, B.J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H.J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-
building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 91, pp. 26
37.
Anderson, C., & Thompson, L.L. (2004). Affect from the top down: How powerful
individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 95, pp. 125
139.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1993). Production workers’ reactions to a plant closing: The role of
transfer, stress, and support. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 6, pp. 201
214.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z.X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, pp. 267
285.
Balasubramanian, S., Konana, P., & Menon, N.M. (2003). Customer satisfaction in virtual
environments: A study of online investing. Management Science, 49, pp. 871
889.
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A.K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization:
Moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organiza-
tion Science, 14, pp. 32
44.
Bensaou, M., & Anderson, E. (1999). Buyer
supplier relations in industrial markets: When do
buyers risk making idiosyncratic investments? Organization Science, 10, pp. 460
481.
Bonte, W. (2008). Inter-firm trust in buyer
supplier relations: Are knowledge spillovers and
geographic proximity relevant? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67, pp.
855
870.
Botan, C.H., & Frey, L.R. (1983). Do workers trust labor unions and their messages?
Communication Monographs, 50, pp. 233
244.
46 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Camp, R.D. (2007). Culture-contingent signs of trust in emergent
relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, pp. 61
82.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J.P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 558

583.
Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B.M., & Martin, C. (1995). Decision frame, procedural justice and
survivors’ reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
63, pp. 59
68.
Brown, M., Trevino, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97, pp. 117
134.
Butler, J.K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a
condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 643
663.
Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2010). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating
incivility and social exchange perspectives, Organization Science, ePub ahead of print July
20, http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/orsc.1100.0540v1
Carson, S., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The
effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, pp. 1058
1077.
Chattopadhyay, P., & George, E. (2001). Examining the effects of work externalization
through the lens of social identity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 781
788.
Chen, C.C., Chen, Y., & Xin, K. (2004). Guanxi practices and trust in management: A
procedural justice perspective. Organization Science, 15, pp. 200
209.
Child, J., & Möllering, G. (2003). Contextual confidence and active trust development in the
Chinese business environment. Organization Science, 14, pp. 69
80.
Chua, R.Y.J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M.W. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating
cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of
Management Journal, 51, pp. 436
452.
Clark, M., & Payne, R. (1997). The nature and structure of workers’ trust in management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, pp. 205
224.
Collins, C.J., & Smith, K.G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of
human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, pp. 544
560.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, pp. 39
52.
Cordery, J.L., Mueller, W.S., & Smith, L.M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of
autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal,
34, pp. 464
476.
Cummings, L.L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Develop-
ment and validation. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers
of theory and research (pp. 261
287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummings, L.L., Harnett, D.L., & Stevens, O.J. (1971). Risk, fate, conciliation and trust: An
international study of attitudinal differences among executives. Academy of Management
Journal, 71, pp. 285
304.
Cunningham, J.B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary
constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53, pp. 1575
1591.
Currall, S.C., & Judge, T.A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role
persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, pp. 151
170.
Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Tan, H.H. (2000). The trusted general manager
and business unit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 563
576.
de Cremer, D., & Tyler, T.R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness
on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 639
649.
de Dreu, C.K., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative
negotiation: The disruptive effects of punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
pp. 408
422.
 Journal of Trust Research 47

de Jong, B.A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams?
The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal,
53, pp. 535
549.
de Jong, B.A., van der Vegt, G.S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among
asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, pp. 166
175.
Deery, S.J., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J.T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psychological
contract breach: a study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
pp. 1625
1637.
Deluga, R.J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader
member exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, pp. 315

326.
Deluga, R.J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7, pp. 1
16.
Dirks, K.T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, pp. 445
455.
Dirks, K.T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA
Basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 1004
1012.
Doney, P., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer
seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, pp. 35
51.
Driscoll, J.W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors
of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 44
56.
Dyer, J.H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and
improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea.
Organization Science, 14, pp. 57
68.
Earley, P.C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work
performance: An examination of feedback in the United States and England. Journal of
Management, 12, pp. 457
473.
Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for
change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based
selling. Human Relations, 53, pp. 419
442.
Fang, E., Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., & Li, N. (2008). Trust at different organizational
levels. Journal of Marketing, 72, pp. 80
98.
Farh, J., Tsui, A.S., Xin, K., & Cheng, B. (1998). The influence of relational demography and
Guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9, pp. 471
487.
Ferrin, D.L., Bligh, M.C., & Kohles, J.C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence
analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and
intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, pp.
161
178.
Ferrin, D.L., & Dirks, K.T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust:
Mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14, pp. 18
31.
Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., & Dirks, K.T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The
effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-
and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 893
908.
Flaherty, K., & Pappas, J. (2000). The role of trust in salesperson
sales manager relationships.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20, pp. 271
278.
Fried, Y., Tiegs, R., & Bellamy, A.R. (1992). Personal and interpersonal predictors of
supervisors’ avoidance of evaluating subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, pp.
462
468.
Fulk, J., Brief, A.P., & Barr, S.H. (1985). Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, pp. 301
313.
Gaines, J.H. (1980). Upward communication in industry: An experiment. Human Relations,
33, pp. 929
942.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long term orientation in buyer
seller relationship.
Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 1
19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 70
87.
48 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

George, E. (2003). External solutions and internal problems: The effects of employment
externalization on internal workers’ attitudes. Organization Science, 14, pp. 386
402.
Giessner, S.R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). ‘License to fail’: Goal definition, leader group
prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, pp. 14
35.
Gilbert, J.A., & Tang, T.L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public
Personnel Management, 27, pp. 321
338.
Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in work relationships: The Behavioral Trust Inventory.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.
Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M.E. (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions
influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1165
1173.
Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee
attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, pp.
63
83.
Grant, A.M., & Sumanth, J.J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially
motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, pp. 927
944.
Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J.A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and
exchange performance. Organization Science, 19, pp. 688
708.
Hewett, K., & Bearden, W.O. (2001). Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of
foreign subsidiary marketing operations: Implications for managing global marketing
operations. Journal of Marketing, 65, pp. 51
66.
Hill, N.S., Bartol, K.M., Tesluk, P.E., & Langa, G.A. (2009). Organizational context and face-
to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in
computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108,
pp. 187
201.
Holtz, B.C., & Harold, C.M. (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation
of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, pp. 1185
1199.
Huang, L., & Murnighan, J.K. (2010). What’s in a name? Subliminally activating trusting
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, pp. 62
70.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist
societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14, pp. 81
90.
Jap, S.D., & Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding interorganizational performance and
continuity under ex post opportunism. Management Science, 49, pp. 1684
1701.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10, pp. 791
815.
Jeanquart-Barone, S. (1993). Trust differences between supervisors and subordinates:
Examining the role of race and gender. Sex Roles, 29, pp. 1
11.
Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 238

251.
Joshi, A.W., Lazarova, M.B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of
inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20, pp.
240
252.
Joshi, A.W., & Stump, R.L. (1999). The contingent effect of specific asset investments on joint
action in manufacturer
supplier relationships: An empirical test of the moderating role of
reciprocal asset investments, uncertainty, and trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27, pp. 291
305.
Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 949
964.
Kemp, N., Wall, T., Clegg, C., & Cordery, J. (1983). Autonomous work groups in a greenfield
site: A comparative study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, pp. 271
288.
Kernan, M.C., & Hanges, P.J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, pp. 916
928.
 Journal of Trust Research 49

Kim, P.H., Dirks, K.T., Cooper, C.D., & Ferrin, D.L. (2006). When more blame is better than
less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a
competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99, pp. 49
65.
Kim, P.H., Ferrin, D.L., Cooper, C.D., & Dirks, K.T. (2004). Removing the shadow of
suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- vs. integrity-
based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 104
118.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1991). Implementing global strategies: The role of
procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 125
143.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top
management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, pp. 502
526.
Kirsch, L.J., Ko, D., & Haney, M.H. (2010). Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan
control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organization Science, 21, pp. 469
489.
Kollok, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of
uncertainty, commitment and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, pp. 313
345.
Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
pp. 698
707.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, pp. 656
669.
Korsgaard, M.A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The
role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions.
Journal of Management, 21, pp. 657
669.
Korsgaard, M.A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, D.R. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of
subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, pp. 731
744.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M., & Sapienza, H.J. (1995). Building commitment,
attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 60
84.
Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance
performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 894
917.
Lado, A.A., Dant, R.R., & Tekleab, A.G. (2008). Trust
opportunism paradox, relationalism,
and performance in interfirm relationships: Evidence from the retail industry. Journal of
Marketing, 29, pp. 401
423.
Lane, P., Salk, E.J., & Lyles, M.A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in
international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 1139
1161.
Langfred, C.W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and
individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, pp.
385
399.
Langfred, C.W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects
of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, pp. 885
900.
Lee, C., & Farh, J. (1999). The effects of gender in organization justice perception. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 133
143.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. (2000). Power
distance, gender, and organizational justice.
Journal of Management, 26, pp. 685
708.
Levin, D.Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of
trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, pp. 1477
1490.
Levin, D.Z., Whitener, E.M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge
sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
pp. 1163
1171.
Li, J., Koh, W.K.L., & Hia, H.S. (1997). The effects of interactive leadership on human
resource management in Singapore’s banking industry. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 8, pp. 711
719.
Li, J.J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K.Z. (2010). Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local
knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31,
pp. 349
370.
50 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Liou, K.T. (1995). Role stress and job stress among detention care workers. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 22, pp. 425
436.
Magner, N., Welker, R.B., & Johnson, G.G. (1996). The interactive effects of participation and
outcome favourability on turnover intentions and evaluations of supervisors. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, pp. 135
143.
Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, pp. 123
136.
Mayer, R.C., & Gavin, M.B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the
shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 874

888.
McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 24
59.
McCauley, D.P., & Kuhnert, K.W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of
employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16, pp. 265
284.
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution. Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.
135
152.
Molina-Morales, F.X., & Martinez-Fernandez, M.T. (2009). Too much love in the neighbor-
hood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative
effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 1013
1023.
Molm, L., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An
experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, pp. 1396

1427.
Montes, S.D., & Irving, P.G. (2008). Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered
inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of
trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1367
1381.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltam, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 81
98.
Moorman, C., Zaltam, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and
users of market research: The dynamic of trust within and between organizations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 29, pp. 314
328.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment
trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 20
38.
Muchinsky, P.M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational
climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, pp. 592
607.
Naquin, C.E., & Paulson, G.D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 113
120.
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N.G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on
relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 308
338.
Nyhan, R. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations.
American Review of Public Administration, 30, pp. 87
109.
Nyhan, R.C., & Marlowe, H.A. (1997). The psychometric properties of the organizational
trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21, pp. 614
635.
Osterhus, T.L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work?
Journal of Marketing, 61, pp. 16
29.
Pearce, J.L. (1993). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their
psychological involvement and effects on employee co-workers. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, pp. 1082
1096.
Pearce, J.L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G.A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and
commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11, pp. 148
162.
Pellend, L.H., & Xin, K.R. (2000). Relational demography and relationship quality in two
cultures. Organization Studies, 21, pp. 1077
1094.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints
on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14, pp. 422
439.
Peterson, R.S., & Jackson Behfar, K. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance
feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 92, pp. 102
112.
 Journal of Trust Research 51

Pettit, J.D., Goris, J.R., & Vaught, B.C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34, pp. 81
98.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25, pp. 897
933.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, pp. 259
298.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, pp. 107
142.
Polzer, J.T., Crisp, C.B., Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Kim, J.W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to
geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 679
692.
Poppo, L., Zhou, K.Z., & Ryu, S. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An
interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future.
Organization Science, 19, pp. 39
55.
Porter, C.E., & Donthu, N. (2008). Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual
communities. Management Science, 54, pp. 113
128.
Rafaeli, A., Sagy, Y., & Derfler-Rozin, R. (2008). Logos and initial compliance: A strong case
of mindless trust. Organization Science, 19, pp. 845
859.
Read, W.H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, pp.
3
15.
Rich, G. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects of trust, job satisfaction and
performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, pp. 319
328.
Roberts, K.H., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations:
Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, pp. 205
215.
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, pp. 574
599.
Robinson, S.L., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, pp. 245
259.
Robson, M.J., Katsikeas, C.S., & Bello, D.C. (2008). Drivers and performance outcomes of
trust in international strategic alliances: The role of organizational complexity. Organiza-
tion Science, 19, pp. 647
655.
Rockmann, K.W., & Northcraft, G.B. (2008). To be or not to be trusted: The influence of
media richness on defection and deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 107, pp. 106
122.
Ross, W., & Wieland, C. (1996). Effects of interpersonal trust and time pressure on managerial
mediation strategy in a simulated organizational dispute. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, pp. 228
248.
Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, pp. 1
15.
Sako, M., & Helper, S. (1998). Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from
automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 34, pp. 387
417.
Salamon, S.D., & Robinson, S.L. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on
organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 593
601.
Saparito, P.A., Chen, C.C., & Sapienza, H.J. (2004). The role of relational trust in bank
small
firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, pp. 400
410.
Schlosser, A.E., White, T.B., & Lloyd, S.M. (2006). Converting web site visitors into buyers:
How web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase
intentions. Journal of Marketing, 70, pp. 133
148.
Schweiger, D., & Denisi, A. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A
longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 110
135.
52 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (1996). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: The
role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Scott, D. (1983). Trust differences between men and women in superior
subordinate
relationships. Group and Organization Studies, 8, pp. 319
336.
Shah, R.H., & Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic
alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29, pp.
471
494.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’
appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, pp. 387
409.
Simons, T.L., Friedman, R., Liu, L.A., & Parks, J.M. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to
behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and ‘trickle down’ among
black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 650
665.
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, pp. 102
111.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66, pp. 15
37.
Smith, B.J., & Barclay, D.W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the
effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, pp. 3
21.
Sniezek, J.A., & Van Swol, L.M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge
advisor
system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, pp. 288
307.
Spreitzer, G.M., & Mishra, A.K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control. Trust and
its substitues’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group and
Organization Management, 24, pp. 155
187.
Stewart, K.J. (2003). Trust transfer on the World Wide Web. Organization Science, 14, pp. 5

17.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E., & Lumpkin, J.R. (1993). The relationship between psychological
climate and salesperson
sales manager trust in sales organization. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 13, pp. 1
14.
Tan, H.H., & Tan, C. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, pp. 241
260.
Thomas, D.C., & Ravlin, E.C. (1995). Responses of employees to cultural adaptation by a
foreign manager. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, pp. 133
146.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, pp. 464
476.
van Dijke, M., de Cremer, D.D., & Mayer, D.M. (2010). The role of authority power in
explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, pp. 488
502.
Wagner, S., & Rush, M. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: Context,
disposition, and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, pp. 379
391.
Wall, J.A., & Adams, J.S. (1974). Some variables affecting a constituent’s evaluations of and
behavior toward a boundary role occupant. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 11, pp. 390
408.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E.C., & Noe, R.A. (2010). The role of mentor trust and protégé internal
locus of control in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, pp.
358
367.
Whitener, E.M. (2001). Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of
Management, 27, pp. 515
535.
Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in
computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 99, pp. 16
33.
Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R.R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual
to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, pp. 79
91.
 Journal of Trust Research 53

Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology

alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory.
Organization Science, 10, pp. 439
459.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R.D. (2005). High-performance work systems and
occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp. 77
93.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1994). Determinants of electronic integration in the insurance
industry. Management Science, 40, pp. 549
566.
Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational
strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic
Management Journal, 16, pp. 373
392.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, pp.
141
159.

Appendix B: Noteworthy measures of trust

In this appendix we discuss in chronological order the five noteworthy measures of trust
identified in Table 4 and listed below:

1. McAllister (1995)
Managerial Interpersonal Trust

2. Currall and Judge (1995)
Boundary Role Persons’ Trust
3. Cummings and Bromiley (1996)
Organisational Trust Inventory
4. Mayer and Davis (1999)
Organisational Trust
5. Gillespie (2003)
Behavioural Trust Inventory

We describe the distinguishing features of each measure below and summarise in

Table B1 additional information about the measures’ dimensions, item development
process, sample(s), reliability and validity

Managerial Interpersonal Trust (McAllister, 1995)

Construct
This instrument was designed to measure a focal manager’s trust in a specific peer.
Interpersonal trust is defined as ‘the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to
act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another’ (McAllister, 1995: 25). This
definition incorporates both the willingness and positive expectation elements of trust
identified in the Rousseau et al. (1998) definition presented at the outset of this paper. Two
principal dimensions of interpersonal trust are conceptualised. Cognition-based trust
emphasises the knowledge and evidence upon which a rational decision is made to make
leaps of faith. Competence, responsibility, reliability and dependability are among the criteria
used to judge the trustworthiness of another. Affect-based trust consists of the emotional
bonds between individuals and relate to expressions of care and concern for the welfare of
another. Cognition-based and affect-based trust are conceptualised as related but distinct
dimensions of interpersonal trust.
 54
Table B1.

Item generation Reliability

B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Measure Dimensions process Sample(s) (Cronbach’s Alpha) Validity

McAllister (1995) Cognition-based 1. Pooled existing 175 executive MBAs, Cognition-based = 0.91 Convergent
items from literature each with two Affect-based = 0.89 Discriminant
2. Evaluated items by matched-peer dyads Nomological
Affect-based academic experts
3. Exploratory factor
analysis
Currall and Judge Communicating 1. Derived four 154 matched dyads Communication Convergent
(1995) openly and honestly theoretical dimensions (school district superintendents = 0.72 Discriminant
2. Elicited items for superintendents, presidents = 0.71 Nomological
Relying on informal dimensions via teachers’ unions Informal Agreement
agreements open-ended field interviews presidents) superintendents = 0.73
3. Evaluated items with presidents = 0.68
Maintaining second group of field Surveillance
surveillance interviewees superintendents = 0.79
presidents = 0.82
Coordinating Task Coordination
interdependent tasks superintendents = 0.70
presidents = 0.74
Cummings and Good-faith efforts 1. Created new items 323 MBA and Good-faith effort = 0.95 Convergence
Bromiley (1996) Honesty in exchange based on protocol Executive MBA Nomological
Limited opportunism 2. Reviewed for face students Honesty in exchange = 0.95
validity by research group
3. Separate group of Limited opportunism = 0.94
researchers sorted (composite reliability via
items into categories structural equation modeling)
4. Assessed discriminant
validity versus commitment
Table B1. (Continued )

Item generation Reliability

Measure Dimensions process Sample(s) (Cronbach’s Alpha) Validity
Mayer and Davis Trustworthiness 1. Generated preliminary set 259 veterinary doctors Ability = 0.85 to 0.93 Convergent
(1999)
Ability of items Benevolence = 0.87 to 0.95 Discriminant

Benevolence 2. Pilot tested on 166, 170 and 193 Integrity = 0.82 to 0.96 Nomological

Integrity two groups production employees Trust = 0.59 to 0.82
across three time periods
Also computed test
retest
Trust validity across different waves
of data collection (0.75 and
0.66 between wave one and two
and wave two and three
respectively)
Gillespie (2003) Reliance 1. Derived two theoretical 88 matched leader- Reliance = 0.90 to 0.92 Convergent
dimensions member dyads and Discriminant
Disclosure 2. Field interviews validate Nomological
dimensions Disclosure = 0.89 to 0.95 Cross-

Journal of Trust Research

3. Generated preliminary set 39 matched peer dyads validation
of items for each dimension from personnel of large study with
4. Pretested on two groups public R&D different
organisation sample.

55
56 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Managerial Interpersonal Trust Instrument

Cognition-based trust
1. This person approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication.
2. Given this person’s track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence
and preparation for the job.
3. I can rely on this person not to make my job more difficult by careless work.
4. Most people, even those who aren’t close friends of this individual, trust and
respect him/her at work.
5. Other work associates of mine who must interact with this individual consider
him/her to be trustworthy.
6. If people knew more about this individual and his/her background, they would
be more concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely.*
Affect-based trust
1. We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings,
and hopes.
2. I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work and
know that (s)he will want to listen.
3. We would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could
no longer work together.
4. If I shared my problems with this person, I know (s)he would respond
constructively and caringly
5. I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional
investments in our working relationship.
* = reverse coded
Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)

Note: This material is taken from p. 37 of McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based
trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, pp. 24
59. Used with permission from the Academy of Management.

Comments
There are several strengths of this measurement instrument. The author used a rigorous and
theoretically driven process to generate and purify items. Data from different samples were
used for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The subjects reported on trust in real,
on-going work relationships. The research design included relationships that varied in their
strength. The analysis included assessments of convergent, discriminant and nomological
validity.
Given that the measurement instrument was designed for peer relationships among
managers, its applicability to relationships that vary in terms of authority and power is
unknown. Dirks replicated this measure verbatim in two studies (1999, 2000) and found in
both cases that trust was best represented by a single factor that combined the cognition-based
and affect-based dimensions. The measure was also replicated verbatim by Kirsch, Ko and
Haney (2010) and represented as a single combined factor. The observation of a single
dimension also raises a question regarding the extent to which the measure reflects the
willingness or positive expectation element of the trust definition. The wording of some items
in this instrument also raises a question about the ability of respondents to report accurately
on behalf of a counterpart in a relationship (e.g. ‘We have a sharing relationship’) or on behalf
of others’ view of the counterpart (e.g. ‘Most people . . . trust and respect him/her’). The
conditions under which respondents are able to make such assessments accurately are
unknown.
 Journal of Trust Research 57

Boundary Role Persons Trust (Currall & Judge, 1995)

Construct
This measure was designed to capture trust between individuals working across organizational
boundaries, what the authors refer to as boundary role persons. More specifically, the
instrument is a measure of interpersonal trust: the trust that a focal boundary role person has
for a particular target boundary role person with whom s/he has a relationship. The measure
is unique in that it focuses on the willingness to engage in trusting behaviors, which, the authors
argue, is a more proximate antecedent of trust than measures that rely on a focal person’s
perception of a counterpart’s characteristics (i.e. a counterpart’s trustworthiness). Therefore,
the authors define trust as ‘an individual’s behavioral reliance on another person under a
condition of risk’ (Currall & Judge, 1995: 153), which is primarily oriented toward capturing
the willingness aspect of the Rousseau et al. (1998) definition of trust, without also reflecting
the positive expectation element. A multi-dimensional measure is developed to allow for the
possibility that trusting behaviours are manifest differently across individuals. Based on a
review of the interorganisational and boundary-spanning literatures, the authors identified
four dimensions of trusting behaviour: communicating openly and honestly, relying on informal
agreements (instead of formal safeguards such as contracts), maintaining surveillance
(indicating lack of trust) and coordinating interdependent tasks.

Boundary Role Persons Trust Instrument

Instructions: Answer the questions in terms of what you would actually do in dealing
with the (counterpart BRP).

Communication
1. Think carefully before telling the (counterpart BRP) my opinions.*
2. Give the (counterpart BRP) all known and relevant information about
important issues even if there is a possibility that it might jeopardise the
(respondent’s organisation).
3. Give the (counterpart BRP) all known and relevant information about
important issues even if there is a possibility that it might jeopardise my job as
the (respondent’s job).
4. Minimise the information I give to the (counterpart BRP).*
5. Deliberately withhold some information when communicating with the
(counterpart BRP).*
Informal Agreement
1. Enter into an agreement with the (counterpart BRP) even if his/her future
obligations concerning the agreement are not explicitly stated.
2. Enter into an agreement with the (counterpart BRP) even if I think other
people might try to persuade him/her to break it.
3. Enter into an agreement with the (counterpart BRP) even if it is unclear
whether he/she would suffer any negative consequences for breaking it.
4. Decline the (counterpart BRP’s) offer to enter into an unwritten agreement.*
5. Suggest that the (counterpart BRP) and I enter into an unwritten agreement.
Surveillance
1. Watch the (counterpart BRP) attentively in order to make sure he/she doesn’t
do something detrimental to the (respondent’s organisation).*
2. Keep surveillance over the (counterpart BRP) (i.e. ‘look over his/her
shoulder’) after asking him/her to do something.*
3. Feel confident after asking the (counterpart BRP) to do something.
4. Check with other people about the activities of the (counterpart BRP) to make
sure he/she is not trying to ‘get away’ with something.*
5. In situations other than contract negotiations, check records to verify facts
stated by the (counterpart BRP).*

(continued)
58 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Boundary Role Persons Trust Instrument

(continued)

Task Coordination (Superintendents)

1. Ask the president to convince membership of the local teacher’s union to give
support to a newly initiated cooperative program between teachers and school
administrators.
2. Ask the president to convince several incompetent teachers to take early
retirement.
3. Ask the president to stop false rumours about personnel decisions that are
circulating among the teachers.
4. Ask the president to convince the teachers to file grievances only in extreme
cases.
5. Rely on the president to convince the membership of the teacher’s local to
have realistic expectations about what contract changes will be made in the
next negotiation.
Task Coordination (Presidents)
1. Ask the superintendent to try to persuade the district’s administrators to lend
their support to a newly initiated cooperative program between teachers and
administrators.
2. Rely on the superintendent to make decisions about teacher transfers and
assignments with a genuine concern for teacher preferences.
3. Rely on the superintendent to dismiss teachers only in cases when poor
performance has been clearly and impartially demonstrated.
4. Rely on the superintendent to solve a grievance through informal and
cooperative discussions.
5. Rely on the superintendent to adhere to the collective bargaining contract.

* = reverse coded
Scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely)

Note: Reprinted from Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), Curral,
S. C., & Judge, T. A., Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons, pp.
151
170, Copyright # 1995, with permission from Elsevier.

Comments
This measurement instrument has a number of virtues. The authors developed and refined items
in a way that was both theoretically grounded and practically relevant to the research context.
The multiple dimensions allow for the measurement of aspects of trust that are both common
across and specific to the organisational context. The use of two sets of subjects during the
piloting of the instrument and a separate set of subjects during the testing and validation is
another strength. All subjects were drawn from, and reported on, actual interorganisational
working relationships. The validation process was quite comprehensive covering convergent,
discriminant, between-sample and nomological validity. Further, the inclusion of data from both
parties to a relationship allowed the authors to perform additional analyses of construct validity.
A unique feature of this measurement instrument is the deliberate emphasis on the
willingness to engage in trusting behaviour. Apart from providing a proximal indicator of
trust, the focus on behaviours provides an approach to measuring trust that is potentially
‘scalable’ with regard to more aggregate levels of analysis. As the authors have argued
elsewhere (Currall and Inkpen, 2002), trust as an action is much more amenable to
measurement at multiple levels of analysis. At the same time, this approach raises an
important question about the consistency of trust conceptualised as an action and as an
expectation, consistent with the definition of trust as a psychological state (Rousseau et al.,
1998). A somewhat related issue is the inclusion of surveillance as a (negative) dimension of
trust and whether it is actually tapping into distrust, which, as noted earlier, has been argued
 Journal of Trust Research 59

to be distinct from trust (Lewicki, et al., 1998; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Kramer, 1996). Our review
of the literature did not identify any studies that have replicated this instrument.

Organisational Trust Inventory (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996)

Construct
This instrument was designed to measure trust at the level of collective entities. In particular,
the authors focus on ‘the degree of trust between units of an organization or between
organizations’ (p. 302). At the same time, the authors view trust as having its basis in
individuals. Specifically, trust is conceptualised as ‘an individual’s belief or a common belief
among a group of individuals that another individual or group (a) makes good-faith efforts to
behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit or implicit, (b) is honest in whatever
negotiations preceded such commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another
even when the opportunity is available’ (p. 303). The three dimensions of trust
good-faith
effort, honesty in exchange, and limited opportunism
define beliefs about negotiating behaviour
and execution of subsequent agreements. The definition is primarily oriented toward capturing
the positive expectation aspect of the Rousseau et al. (1998) definition of trust, without also
reflecting the willingness element. The authors explicitly conceptualise organisational trust in a
way that is directly contrary to the assumptions of Williamson’s (1975) transaction cost
economics. The authors also view trust-as-a-belief as being manifested as an affective state, as a
cognition, and as an intended behaviour. Combined, the three dimensions of trust and the three
components of belief result in a 3 x 3 definitional matrix of trust and the organisational trust
inventory contains survey items tapping each of the nine cells of the matrix.

Organisational Trust Inventory – Short Form

Instructions: Please choose the unit or department about which you can most
knowledgeably report the opinions of members of your department or unit.

1. Your department or unit is ______________________________________.

2. The other department or unit about which you are responding is ________.

Please circle the number to the right of each statement that most closely describes the
opinion of members of your department toward the other department. Interpret the
blank spaces as referring to the other department about which you are commenting.

1. We think that the people in _____ tell the truth in negotiations.

2. We think that _____ meets its negotiated obligations to our department.
3. In our opinion, _____ is reliable.
4. We think that the people in _____ succeed by stepping on other people.*
5. We feel that _____ tries to get the upper hand.*
6. We think that _____ takes advantage of our problems.*
7. We feel that _____ negotiates with us honestly.
8. We feel that _____ will keep its word.
9. We think _____ does not mislead us.
10. We feel that _____ tries to get out of its commitments.*
11. We feel that _____ negotiates joint expectations fairly.
12. We feel that _____ takes advantage of people who are vulnerable.*

* = reverse coded
Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)

Note: This material is taken from pp. 328
329 of Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The
organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R.
Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Used with permission from Sage.
60 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

Comments
A principal strength of the organisational trust inventory is the careful and rigorous process
used for developing and refining its measurement items. In addition, the strong theoretical
foundation of the measure’s dimensions in the transaction cost literature makes the instrument
particularly useful for studying the role of trust in relationships involving negotiation and
exchange (e.g. interorganisational relations). At the same time, whether the measurement
instrument can be readily adapted to other organisational contexts remains an open question.
A novel feature of the organisational trust inventory is the fact that it not only conceptualised
distinct dimensions of trust, but also identified different ways that trust belief components can
be manifested. The resulting 3 x 3 definitional matrix provides a sophisticated means of
capturing the complexity of trust.
The array of dimensions and belief components does, however, raise some questions about
the distinctions among the measure’s various facets, which are all highly related. An
assessment of the measure’s discriminant analysis, by estimating and comparing nested
structural equation models for instance, would provide some insight into this question. In
addition, discriminant analysis that considered all of the organisational trust measures in the
context of a broader theoretical model would allow for examination of whether and how the
different dimensions and belief components of trust are linked to theoretically related
constructs, thereby broadening the evaluation of nomological validity. Further, since the
measure was explicitly designed to capture the expectation aspect of trust, it raises a question
about the extent to which it also reflects the willingness element stressed by Rousseau et al.
(1998). Finally, the wording of the items in this instrument also raises a question about the
ability of respondents to report accurately on behalf of other members of his or her group or
unit. The conditions under which respondents are able to make such assessments accurately
are not well known and potentially limit the use of the instrument to certain organisational
contexts. Naquin and Paulson (2003) replicated the Organizational Trust Inventory verbatim
and report ‘acceptable’ reliability (i.e. Chronbach’s alpha  0.70), but provide no additional
information about construct validity.

Organisational trust (Mayer & Davis, 1999)

Construct
This measurement instrument was designed to operationalise the integrative model of
organisational trust proposed by Mayer, et al. (1995). The development and validation of
the instrument was initially reported in an unpublished working paper by Schoorman et al.
(1996). Since this paper did not report the measurement items and remains unpublished, and
since a subsequent paper by Mayer and Davis (1999) does present the measurement items
along with additional validity analyses, we summarise both papers here.
The integrative model of organisational trust defines trust as ‘the willingness of a party to
be vulnerable to the actions of another party’ (Schoorman et al., 1996, p. 10; Mayer & Davis,
1999, p. 124). Thus, the willingness aspect of trust is featured over the expectation element
identified in the Rousseau et al. (1998) definition. At the same time, this conceptualization
differentiates trust from its antecedents
the propensity to trust others in general (i.e.
dispositional trust) and the perception that another party is trustworthy, which may reflect in
part the expectation element. The conceptualisation also distinguished trust from its
outcomes, specific actions whereby the trustee takes risks in the relationship with a trustor.
Hence, the integrative model of organisational trust identifies dispositional trust, trustworthi-
ness, trust and risk-taking in the relationship as related, but distinct concepts.
The model further specifies that trustworthiness of a counterpart is assessed along three
dimensions. Ability is the first dimension and represents the skills, competencies and other
characteristics that allow a counterpart to have influence in some domain. The second
dimension is benevolence, defined as the belief that a counterpart wants to do good to the
counterpart, not solely from an egocentric profit motive. Integrity is the third dimension and
reflects the belief that the counterpart adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds
acceptable.
The instrument was designed to be relevant to a variety of organisational relation-
ships. Schoorman et al. (1996) use the measure to study managers’ trust in subordinates
 Journal of Trust Research 61

and Mayer and Davis (1999) use the instrument to study employees’ trust in top
management.

Organisational Trust Instrument

Instructions: Think about [company name]’s top management team [names listed in
parentheses for clarity]. For each statement, write the number that best describes
how much you agree or disagree with each statement

Trustworthiness (Ability)
1. Top management is very capable of performing its job.
2. Top management is known to be successful at the things it tries to do.
3. Top management has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done.
4. I feel very confident about top management’s skills.
5. Top management has specialised capabilities that can increase our
performance.
6. Top management is well qualified.
Trustworthiness (Benevolence)
1. Top management is very concerned about my welfare.
2. My needs and desires are very important to top management.
3. Top management would not knowingly do anything to hurt me.
4. Top management really looks out for what is important to me.
5. Top management will go out of its way to help me.
Trustworthiness (Integrity)
1. Top management has a strong sense of justice.
2. I never have to wonder whether top management will stick to its word.
3. Top management tries hard to be fair in dealings with others.
4. Top management’s actions and behaviours are not very consistent.*
5. I like top management’s values.
6. Sound principles seem to guide top management’s behaviour.
Trust
1. If I had my way, I wouldn’t let top management have any influence over
issues that are important to me.*
2. I would be willing to let top management have complete control over my
future in this company.
3. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on top management.*
4. I would be comfortable giving top management a task or problem which was
critical to me, even if I could not monitor their actions.

* = reverse coded
Scale (1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly)

Note: Copyright # 1999 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with

permission. The official citation that should be used in referencing this material is Appendix
(adapted), page 136, from Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance
appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(1): 123
136. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123. No further reproduction or
distribution is permitted without written permission from the American Psychological
Association.

Comments
A strength of the organisational trust measures is that they can be applied to a wide variety of
organisational relationships. At the same time, the measure for risk-taking in relationships
provides a means of incorporating context-specific aspects of trust. Moreover, the risk-taking
measure was carefully developed with two sets of pilot groups. The trustworthiness and trust
62 B. McEvily and M. Tortoriello

items, however, do not appear to have been developed with the same sort of detailed process.
In addition, given that only one of the 17 items for trustworthiness is negatively worded, there
is the potential for some response-mode bias. Perhaps the greatest strength of the
organisational trust measures is that they are directly linked to Mayer et al.’s (1995)
theoretical model of trust. Another strength of this ‘family’ of measures is that they are fairly
comprehensive in their inclusion of dispositional trust, trustworthiness, trust and risk-taking
in relationship. The measures also incorporate both the expectation (i.e. trustworthiness and
trust) and behavioural (risk-taking in relationship) aspects of trust.
This constellation of measures does, however, raise some questions about the distinctions
among the various factors, particularly trustworthiness and trust. Additional discriminant
analysis that compared a model where the relationship between trustworthiness and trust is
estimated with a model constraining the relationship to equality would provide some insight to
this question. In addition, discriminant analysis that considered all of the organisational trust
measures in the context of a broader theoretical model would allow for examination of
differences in the pattern of relationships between the organisational trust measures and other
theoretically related constructs. Mayer and Gavin (2005) replicated the Organisational Trust
Instrument (trustworthiness and trust) verbatim and report Chronbach’s alpha reliabilities
ranging from 0.85 to 0.92 for the trustworthiness dimensions and 0.72 and 0.81 (for two
different respondents, respectively) for trust. The results of confirmatory factor analysis also
supported the validity of the measurement model including three dimensions of trustworthi-
ness and trust. A final issue that has yet to be addressed by research is the extent to which the
Mayer and Davis (1999) family of measures captures not only the willingness, but also the
expectation, element of trust emphasised in the Rousseau et al. (1998) definition.

Behavioural Trust Inventory (Gillespie, 2003)

Construct
This instrument was designed to provide a measure of trust in working relationships that is
applicable across multiple domains of organisational activity. Consistent with the organisa-
tional literature, the author adopts the widely cited definition of trust as ‘a psychological state
comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behaviors of another’ (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). Thus, the definition
explicitly incorporates both the willingness and expectation elements emphasised by Rousseau
et al. (1998). A unique feature of this instrument is its explicit focus on measuring the
willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, as evidenced by behaviours which
would objectively open the trustor to being harmed if trust was violated. The author points
out that despite the general agreement in the organisational literature on the defining features
of trust, few studies actually operationalise trust as the willingness to be vulnerable by
engaging in trusting behaviours. In contrast, she argues, studies often measure perceptions of
trustworthiness, which is a more distal and less accurate indicator of trust. She goes on to
observe that those instruments that do seek directly to measure trust are limited to specific
contexts (Currall & Judge, 1995; Cummings & Bromiley, 1996) or have not adequately
developed the dimensionality of the willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer & Davis, 1999).
After reviewing the organisational literature, the author concluded that behavioural
expressions of trust were largely captured by Zand’s (1972) model of trust that emphasises two
dimensions. Reliance represents one domain of trusting behaviour wherein an individual
depends on ‘another’s skills, knowledge, judgments or actions, including delegating and giving
autonomy’ (Gillespie, 2003, p. 10). Disclosure is a second domain of trusting behaviour that
involves ‘sharing work-related or personal information of a sensitive nature’ (Gillespie, 2003,
p. 10). The author also conducted a qualitative investigation involving 96 interviews with
members of a public research and development organisation to determine the appropriateness
of the two domains of trusting behaviour. Team leaders and two of their members were asked
to identify trusting and distrusting behaviours and interview transcripts were examined to
extract trusting behaviours. The author observed that the behaviours identified fell into two
categories corresponding to reliance and disclosure.
 Journal of Trust Research 63

Behavioural Trust Inventory

Instructions: How willing are you to …

Reliance
1. Rely on your leader’s work-related judgements.
2. Rely on your leader’s task-related skills and abilities.
3. Depend on your leader to handle an important issue on your behalf.
4. Rely on your leader to represent your work accurately to others.
5. Depend on your leader to back you up in difficult situations.
Disclosure
1. Share your personal feelings with your leader.
2. Confide in your leader about personal issues that are affecting your work.
3. Discuss how you honestly feel about your work, even negative feelings and
frustration.
4. Discuss work-related problems or difficulties that could potentially be used
to disadvantage you.
5. Share your personal beliefs with your leader.

Scale (1 = not at all willing to 7 = completely willing)

Note: Permission received from the author Nicola Gillespie (not yet published), from her
paper ‘Measuring trust in work relationships: The Behavioral Trust Inventory’.

Comments
Overall, the behavioural trust inventory was developed and validated with an impressive level
of care and detail. The dimensions and items were carefully generated based on theory and
field interviews and an extensive array of validity analyses were performed using data from
several different samples. One limitation of the process used to develop items is that it did not
produce any negatively worded items, raising the possibility of response-mode bias. In
addition, while the assessment of nomological validity did examine the measures in the context
of an integrative model of organisational trust, many of these analyses are based on bivariate
correlations and the multivariate models estimated include only one other predictor variable
besides the trusting behaviour measures. These points aside, the author marshals a
considerable volume of evidence in support of the construct validity of the proposed
instruments. Moreover, the author makes a compelling case for adopting a direct approach to
evaluating trust based on the willingness to be vulnerable by taking trusting behaviours. The
advantages of doing so are that such a measure is generalisable to a wide variety of
organisational settings, is a highly proximal indicator of actual trust and is potentially
transferable to more aggregate levels of analysis (see similar comments in the discussion of
the Currall and Judge (1995) measure). At the same time, the exclusive emphasis on the
willingness aspect of trust necessarily omits the expectation element highlighted in the
Rousseau et al. (1998) definition.