Search

Are competent actors still trusted when they promote themselves? The answer to this question could have far-reaching implications for understanding trust production in a variety of economic exchange settings in which ability and impression management play vital roles, from succeeding in one's job to excelling in the sales of goods and services. Much social science research assumes an unconditional positive impact of an actor's ability on the trust placed in that actor: in other words, competence breeds trust. In this report, however, we challenge this assumption. Across a series of experiments, we manipulated both the ability and the self-promotion of a trustee and measured the level of trust received. Employing both online laboratory studies ( n = 5,606) and a field experiment ( n = 101,520), we find that impression management tactics (i.e., self-promotion and intimidation) can substantially backfire, at least for those with high ability. An explanation for this effect is encapsuled in attribution theory, which argues that capable actors are held to higher standards in terms of how kind and honest they are expected to be. Consistent with our social attribution account, mediation analyses show that competence combined with self-promotion decreases the trustee's perceived benevolence and integrity and, in turn, the level of trust placed in that actor.

Why do people distrust others in social exchange? To what degree, if at all, is distrust subject to genetic influences, and thus possibly heritable, and to what degree is it nurtured by families and immediate peers who encourage young people to be vigilant and suspicious of others? Answering these questions could provide fundamental clues about the sources of individual differences in the disposition to distrust, including how they may differ from the sources of individual differences in the disposition to trust. In this article, we report the results of a study of monozygotic and dizygotic female twins who were asked to decide either how much of a counterpart player's monetary endowment they wanted to take from their counterpart (i.e., distrust) or how much of their own monetary endowment they wanted to send to their counterpart (i.e., trust). Our results demonstrate that although the disposition to trust is explained to some extent by heritability but not by shared socialization, the disposition to distrust is explained by shared socialization but not by heritability. The sources of distrust are therefore distinct from the sources of trust in many ways., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

How does lacking vs. possessing power in a social exchange affect people's trust in their exchange partner? An answer to this question has broad implications for a number of exchange settings in which dependence plays an important role. Here, we report on a series of experiments in which we manipulated participants' power position in terms of structural dependence and observed their trust perceptions and behaviors. Over a variety of different experimental paradigms and measures, we find that more powerful actors place less trust in others than less powerful actors do. Our results contradict predictions by rational actor models, which assume that low-power individuals are able to anticipate that a more powerful exchange partner will place little value on the relationship with them, thus tends to behave opportunistically, and consequently cannot be trusted. Conversely, our results support predictions by motivated cognition theory, which posits that low-power individuals want their exchange partner to be trustworthy and then act according to that desire. Mediation analyses show that, consistent with the motivated cognition account, having low power increases individuals' hope and, in turn, their perceptions of their exchange partners' benevolence, which ultimately leads them to trust.

A violation of trust can have quite different consequences, depending on the nature of the relationship in which the trust breach occurs. In this article, we identify a key relationship characteristic that affects trust recovery: the extent of relationship experience before the trust breach. Across two experiments, this investigation establishes the behavioral effect that greater relationship experience before a trust breach fosters trust recovery. A neuroimaging experiment provides initial evidence that this behavioral effect is possible because of differential activation of two brain systems: while decision making after early trust breaches engages structures of a controlled social cognition system (C-system), specifically the anterior cingulate cortex and lateral frontal cortex, decision making after later trust breaches engages structures of an automatic social cognition system (X-system), specifically the lateral temporal cortex. The present findings make contributions to both social psychological theory and the neurophysiology of trust.

When people want to conduct a transaction, but doing so would be morally disreputable, they can obfuscate the fact that they are engaging in an exchange while still arranging for a set of transfers that are effectively equivalent to an exchange. Obfuscation through structures such as gift-giving and brokerage is pervasive across a wide range of disreputable exchanges, such as bribery and sex work. In this article, we develop a theoretical account that sheds light on when actors are more versus less likely to obfuscate. Specifically, we report a series of experiments addressing the effect of trust on the decision to engage in obfuscated disreputable exchange. We find that actors obfuscate more often with exchange partners high in loyalty-based trustworthiness, with expected reciprocity and moral discomfort mediating this effect. However, the effect is highly contingent on the type of trust; trust facilitates obfuscation when it is loyalty-based, but this effect flips when trust is ethics-based. Our findings not only offer insights into the important role of relational context in shaping moral understandings and choices about disreputable exchange, but they also contribute to scholarship on trust by demonstrating that distinct forms of trust can have diametrically opposed effects.

This article adopts a relational perspective to demonstrate that characteristics of the dyadic relationship between supervisors and their employees are critical to understanding individual-level exploration—understood as the extent to which organizational members pursue new opportunities and experiment with changes to current practices. To this end, we introduce the concept of power framing—that is, whether the control over valued resources is emphasized as the ability to reward or to punish—and propose that supervisor power framing shapes employee exploration. In an experimental study, we demonstrate that reward (versus punishment) power framing increases employee exploration behavior and that this effect is mediated by perceived trustworthiness of the supervisor. In a second survey study, we replicate these findings in a field sample and show that the relationship between reward power framing and exploration depends on the degree to which the focal employee is sensitive to power characteristics (i.e., power distance orientation). This investigation advances scholarship on the microfoundations of exploration while also highlighting the ability of leaders to alter trustworthiness perceptions and induce employee exploration through power framing. Funding: This work was supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER Award from the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences [Grant 1943688] granted to O. Schilke. Additional funding was provided by the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.1672. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, we argue that the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution calls for a reexamination of trust patterns within and across organizations. We identify fundamental changes in terms of (1) what form organizational trust takes, (2) how it is produced, and (3) who needs to be trusted. First, and most broadly, trust is likely to become more impersonal and systemic. Trust between actors is increasingly substituted by trust in a system based on digital technology. Second, in terms of trust production modes, characteristic- and institution-based trust production will gain in importance. Third, despite the move toward system trust, there will nonetheless be a need to trust certain individuals; however, these trustees are no longer the counterparts to the interaction but rather third parties in charge of the technological systems and data. Thus, the focal targets of interpersonal trust are changing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust is key to understanding the dynamics of social relations, to the extent that it is often viewed as the glue that holds society together. We review the mounting sociological literature to help answer what trust is and where it comes from. To this end, we identify two research streams—on particularized trust and generalized trust, respectively—and propose an integrative framework that bridges these lines of research while also enhancing conceptual precision. This framework provides the springboard for identifying several important avenues for future research, including new investigations into the radius of trust, the intermediate form of categorical trust, and the interrelationships between different forms of trust. This article also calls for more scholarship focusing on the consequences (versus antecedents) of trust, addressing more fully the trustee side of the relation, and employing new empirical methods. Such novel approaches will ensure that trust research will continue to provide important insights into the functioning of modern society in the years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this chapter, the authors weave together a set of ideas that lead us closer to a more general institutional theory - one that embraces multiple levels of analysis, including the micro-level. The authors build on the roots of micro-institutional thought - including phenomenological and ethnomethodological underpinnings - as well as very active, social-psychological research areas that address key mechanisms in institutionalization. Among these, the authors discuss the important roles of legitimacy, trust, social influence, and routines. There is great promise for micro-institutional inquiry to make an integral contribution to institutional theory by bringing processes and people back in. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study explores whether and how an organization's different types of governance modes—alliances, mergers, and divestitures—may be intertwined over time. As such, we consider whether boundary decisions may be socially embedded not just within, but across different governance modes. In particular, we focus the analysis on a specific three-stage temporal sequence, which represents a common trajectory of consecutive governance modes: (1) alliance, followed by (2) merger, followed by (3) divestiture. Based on data from the Securities Data Company (SDC) Platinum database and the Compustat database, our survival analysis results indicate that premerger alliances are significantly associated with divestiture likelihood: mergers between organizations that had been involved in an alliance before entering into the merger are found less likely to be divested. The article's results underline the merits of simultaneously considering multiple types of ties when analyzing issues related to organizational embeddedness, complement recent research on sequential corporate strategy patterns, and shed new light on the important empirical phenomenon of premerger alliances. Whiteboard Video [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do organizations build trust under varying degrees of uncertainty? In this article, we propose that different degrees of uncertainty require different bases of trust. We distinguish between three different forms of trust production (process-based, characteristics- based and institution-based) and develop hypotheses regarding their relative effectiveness under low versus high levels of product and performance uncertainty. Using survey data on 392 interorganizational buyer-seller relationships, we find support for our position that a high degree of uncertainty favours process-based trust production, whereas characteristics-based trust production is relatively more effective when uncertainty is low. The effectiveness of institution-based trust production is not significantly affected by uncertainty. We derive implications for organizational trust production under different degrees of uncertainty, which should encourage new research on trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the sources of organizational trustworthiness remains bifurcated. Some scholars have adopted a calculative perspective, stressing the primacy of actors' rational calculations, while others have approached trustworthiness from a relational perspective, focusing on its social underpinnings. We help to reconcile these seemingly disparate views by adopting an integrative approach that allows us to clarify the boundaries of both perspectives. Based on dyadic survey data from 171 strategic alliances, we find that the calculative perspective (represented by contractual safeguards) has higher predictive power when the partner lacks a favorable reputation. In contrast, the relational perspective (represented by organizational culture) predicts trustworthiness more strongly when familiarity with the partner organization is high. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust, when established, contributes to the smooth running of political and economic systems which require the success of collective undertakings. Trust must be based on trustworthiness of the actors involved and the reliability of the institutions that are created to provide for the public good. Public trust is low when this is not the case. Even in the realm of business enterprises, market-based transactions, and the world of for-profit entities, trustworthiness and reliability build confidence in those who are the potential clients or consumers. In this paper, we discuss the role of trustworthiness in relations between physicians and their clients as one example of the role of public trust in professionals. We also discuss the role of trustworthiness in the realm of strategic alliances focusing on organizational culture and contractual safeguards as significant determinants of trust formation. We discuss the implications of this research and related work on the potential for increased trust at the relational, organizational and general societal levels in an ever-changing complex, global and interdependent world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]