what trust means in e-commerce customer …mcknig26/trtypology.pdfwhat trust means in e-commerce...

International Journal of Electronic Commerce Winter 2001ndash2002 Vol 6 No 2 pp 35ndash59Copyright copy 2002 ME Sharpe Inc All rights reserved

1086-44152002 $950 + 000

What Trust Means in E-Commerce CustomerRelationships An Interdisciplinary ConceptualTypology

D Harrison McKnight and Norman L Chervany

ABSTRACT Trust is a vital relationship concept that needs clarification because research-ers across disciplines have defined it in so many different ways A typology of trust typeswould make it easier to compare and communicate results and would be especially valu-able if the types of trust related to one other The typology should be interdisciplinarybecause many disciplines research e-commerce This paper justifies a parsimonious inter-disciplinary typology and relates trust constructs to e-commerce consumer actions defin-ing both conceptual-level and operational-level trust constructs Conceptual-level constructsconsist of disposition to trust (primarily from psychology) institution-based trust (from soci-ology) and trusting beliefs and trusting intentions (primarily from social psychology) Eachconstruct is decomposed into measurable subconstructs and the typology shows howtrust constructs relate to already existing Internet relationship constructs The ef fects ofWeb vendor interventions on consumer behaviors are posited to be partially mediated byconsumer trusting beliefs and trusting intentions in the e-vendor

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES Customer relationships human issues in e-commerceInternet consumers trust

Ms Wilson was looking for a lawyer to help her win custody ofher son Trolling the Internet she hit upon Mr Lais She was so im-pressed with his credentials including a claim to the title of ldquoAdvo-cate The Republic of Indiardquo that she agreed to wire him $5000 so hecould get right on the case That was the last she ever saw of hermoney Mr Lais made himself scarce too [She later found that] hehad a history of run-ins with bar regulators [and] was under a three-month suspension by the State Bar of California For lawyerswho have been suspended the Web can be a way to keep up a virtualshingle [68]

With 15 prescriptions costing $800 a month and no insurance cover-age 65-year-old Starr Tolleson is desperate to find ways to cut drugcosts But even though Internet pharmacies promise savings of 20or more Mrs Tolleson has yet to venture onto the Web ldquoIt is a littlefrightening to think that there is a possibility that the medicines thatyou order are not pure or are not the ones you have orderedrdquo says theFernandina Beach Fla retiree [56]

To many consumers e-commerce represents an excursion beyond the un-known into the unknowable A generation ago purchasing drugs or dry goodsfrom the corner store or dealing with a lawyer or doctor involved a knownquantity One could inspect the goods and evaluate the vendor before makingthe purchase The druggist and the family doctor and the neighborhood law-yer like their clients had been there for many years Clients knew them byreputation through trusted friends and by their own personal experience with

36 D HARRISON MCKNIGHT AND NORMAN L CHERVANY

them as professionals and as members of a club or church or PTA Since thenhowever the influx of new people into old communities the growth of urbanpopulations and more recently widespread job turnover and geographicmovement has shifted the basis of trust from personal knowledge to institu-tional knowledge [82] Clients are able to deal with professionals who arepersonally unknown to them because licensing and regulating entities onlylegitimate professionals who have passed certain competence hurdles With-out knowing lawyers or doctors personally clients can rely on them becausethey have passed the tests needed to put up a shingle Clients see the medi-cal or legal certificate on the wall and can test the professional through per-sonal interaction Since e-commerce provides little opportunity to verify thequality of goods through inspection or the quality of a professional throughinterpersonal interaction it makes even greater demands on the credulity ofconsumers

Trust is central to interpersonal and commercial relationships [27 51] be-cause it is crucial wherever risk uncertainty or interdependence exist [45 50]These conditions flourish in many settings but thrive in socially distant rela-tionships Researchers have found trust to be important to both virtual teamsand e-commerce [1 30 31 32 53 73] As increased transaction complexitymakes conditions more uncertain as is the case in computer-mediated com-merce the need for trust grows [50]

This article proceeds under the belief that conceptual work is as valid ascientific pursuit as empirical testing of theory Although conceptual effortsunlike empirical work do not report test results from the real world they areimportant because they form a firm basis upon which empirical studies buildas several researchers have argued (eg [76]) In the four-base model of re-search developed by Sagasti and Mitroff one base is the conceptual modelmdashthe step before building an empirically testable model [66] Schwabdemonstrates the importance of good conceptual work to construct validity[69] In his classic treatise on conducting research Kaplan devotes entire chap-ters to theory building and conceptualizing [34] Conceptual models help re-searchers by linking science to the real world upfront so that the results of thescientific research may later be of greater use to practice [66]

Testing a theory before it is properly conceptualized causes problems Theresulting research is often misinterpreted because researchers have not yetagreed on what the terms mean Moreover as Crozier warns ldquopremature rigorrdquocan keep a theory ldquofrom being adequately comprehensiverdquo [13 p 5] Narrowresults are not as likely to contribute to practice [76] The logical positivistview of science requires that theory be developed conceptually first and thenoperationally so that the results of operationalizing it will be applicable to theconceptual theory ldquoBecause we cannot identify observable representations ofa concept unless its meaning is clear the initial step is to clarify the mentalimagery conveyed by onersquos conceptsrdquo [71 p 98] In short pursuing empiricalwork before adequately defining concepts is like putting the cart before thehorse

A good deal of research on trust is under way with the potential to producesignificant understanding of e-commerce or other social phenomena How-ever a clearer understanding of what the term ldquotrustrdquo means is needed if the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 37

results are to be interpreted and compared across disciplines This paper jus-tifies and specifies a conceptual typology of trust constructs It then definesthe four resulting constructs and ten measurable subconstructs and relatesthem to other e-commerce concepts Distrust constructs are separate from trustconstructs [40] and lie outside the scope of this paper Distrust should bedefined as the mirror-image opposite of trust [48] Three example definitionsof distrust constructs are given below

The State of Trust Definitions

There are literally dozens of definitions of trust Some researchers find themcontradictory and confusing (eg [41 70 74]) others conclude that the con-cept is almost or elusive to define [22 80] and still others choose not to defineit [28 55] All of these problems are found in the e-commerce research do-main with researchers defining trust as a willingness to believe [20] or asbeliefs regarding various attributes of the other party [49 73] such as fair-ness goodness strength ability benevolence honesty and predictability SomeInternet researchers for whatever reason do not specifically define trust (eg[4 5 12 19 30 53 78]) A consensus definition would help researchers forme-commerce models that communicate shared meaning between researchersand practitioners Why does the term ldquotrustrdquo elicit either confusion or reluc-tance to define

One reason is that every discipline views trust from its own unique per-spective Like the story of the six blind men and the elephant a disciplinarylens colors researchersrsquo views of what trust is Psychologists see trust as apersonal trait sociologists see it as a social structure and economists see it asan economic-choice mechanism [39] Scholars in one discipline may not un-derstand and appreciate the view of trust held in other disciplines (eg [42])Hence definitions differ widely often clustering along disciplinary lines

A second reason for the confusion is that ldquotrustrdquo is a vague term Like othernatural language terms it has acquired many meanings [71] Three unabridgeddictionaries (Webster rsquos Random House and Oxford) give ldquotrustrdquo on aver-age 170 definitions while the terms ldquocooperationrdquo ldquoconfidencerdquo and ldquopre-dictablerdquo have an average of 47 definitions ldquoCooperationrdquo ldquoconfidencerdquo andldquopredictablerdquo are the terms that Mayer et al use to discriminate trust fromsimilar concepts [45]

Few researchers address this issue head-on by trying to reconcile the vari-ous types of trust into a sensible set of constructs that adequately cover itsdifferent meanings (exceptions [3 7 16 21 35 45 50]) In part this is becauseof disciplinary perspectives For example Lewis and Weigert as sociologistsargue that psychological views of trust are invalid because trust cannot bereduced to a personal characteristic [42] Disciplinary lenses help us see somethings but may also act as blinders [64]

The other problem is that empirical research drives most definitions of trustResearchers tend to develop narrow conceptualizations of trust that fit thetype of research they do They defend their narrow conceptualizations by re-ferring to the factor analysis Van de Ven warned that when theories on a topic


widely diverge the advocates ldquofor each theory engage in activities to maketheir theory better by increasing its internal consistency often at the expenseof limiting its scope As a result and as Pogge stated a way of seeing is a wayof not seeing From an overall Academy perspective such impeccable micrologic is creating macro nonsenserdquo [76 p 487] The broad proliferation of in-commensurate trust definitions is evidence that this has happened in trustresearch

The Need for Better Conceptual Trust Definitions

Researchers should agree on trust definitions for two practical reasons Firstcommon definitions would enable them to sort out findings across studiesCurrently this is very hard to do [27] Without agreed-upon definitions effec-tive meta-analyses is difficult and ineffective A search in ABI Inform yieldedonly two meta-analyses about trust both published recently and both focusedon sales relations This meager result may be a symptom of the difficulty ofcomparing trust studies especially across disciplines What trust research needsis a set of rules for translating one result to another as Rubin recommendedfor the equally diverse literature on love [65] Consensus knowledge abouttrust will then progress more rapidly

Second consistent definitions enable researchers to communicate clearlywith practitioners and provide them with better prescriptions Common-senseterms like ldquotrustrdquo should be accessed from the real world [36 p 11] and thensharpened for scientific use [3 6] Next they should be compared back tocommon-sense terms to see how well they match the meaning and range ofmeaning the terms connote in everyday use [66] Luhmann suggested thatresearchers should build trust theory and ldquothen enter a dialogue with the ev-eryday understanding of the social worldrdquo [44 p 3] This dialogue wouldenable trust research to be more valuable to practitioners and enable research-ers to obtain valuable practitioner knowledge Such interplay improves thepractical applicability of the scientific and renders researchable the common[36]

The trust prescriptions provided to practitioners are typically couched inthe same vague terminology (ldquotrustrdquo) that confuses so many researchers Vagueprescriptions that generic trust will solve the Internetrsquos problems are danger-ous because they may not address a specific problem in a productive wayWorse the researcherconsultantrsquos type of trust may be prescribed or appliedmistakenly to situations in which it is not appropriate This is like giving apatient pain medication for a heart problem because it worked for a head-ache As an example what better leads to consumer adoption of an Internetservice user trust perceptions about the Internet or user disposition to trustBoth have been referred to as trust but one may be much more crucial in thissituation than the other

The key to defining trust lies only indirectly in empirical work or even inconstruct validation After all it is the plethora of empirical studies that hasbrought trust research to so confusing a state Wrightsman argues that ldquothegeneral concept of trust deserves much more theoretical analysis Measure-


ment has advanced more rapidly than conceptual clarificationrdquo [79 p 411] Ifso then efforts to conceptualize should be redoubled as several trust research-ers suggest [35 39 74] Other scientists maintain that effective conceptuali-zation is vital to progress with any construct [34 69] Thus building a goodtheoretical conceptual view of trust will help move trust research forward

One Suggestion Create a Trust Typology

Because trust is so broad a concept and is defined in so many different waysa typology of trust constructs is an appropriate desideratum A good typol-ogy would do two things [75] First it would create order out of chaos bydistinguishing concepts that at first appear to be the same Second it wouldmake it possible to postulate how the different types of trust relate to eachother [69] creating a model of trust types ldquoThis is because a good typology isnot a collection of undifferentiated entities but is composed of a cluster oftraits which do in reality lsquohang togetherrsquo rdquo [75 p 178] However a typology isonly appropriate if it is parsimonious enough to be easily understood andthus useful to practice [45] Given the breadth of meaning of the trust con-struct this is difficult The more complex a concept is the less parsimoniousits dimensions may seem However as Hirschman has advised researchersshould loosen their most stringent demands regarding parsimony in order toincrease conceptual understanding of social phenomena that are by naturecomplex [29]

Producing an acceptable typology requires analysis of existing trust defini-tions In the research reported here various definitions were compared to findconceptual trends From about 80 articles and books on trust 65 were identi-fied that provided definitions of trust The articles and books were from thefields of psychologysocial psychology (23) sociologyeconomicspoliticalscience (19) and either management or communications (23) The books werespecifically about trust The articles tended to be from well-read journals intheir domain Each was either oft-cited by others or had a unique trust defini-tion The search was stopped when conceptual saturation was reached thatis when no new definitions emerged [26]

An analysis of these definitions showed that they fell into two broad group-ings Many of them could be categorized into different conceptual types suchas attitudes beliefs behaviors and dispositions whereas others could becategorized as reflecting different referents trust in something trust in some-one or trust in a specific characteristic of someone (eg honesty) In termsof specific characteristics 16 categories of trust-related characteristics wereidentified

As Table 1 shows the 16 categories can be distilled into five second-orderconceptual categories by comparing one type of characteristic with anotherNinety-three student raters validated the categorizations Seventy-one percentof their ratings agreed with those by the authors Most of the categorizationswere intuitive but based on the literature it was possible to differentiate pre-dictability and integrity by defining the latter as value-laden and the former asvalueless The value-laden literature definitions of dependable and reliable more


closely fit in the integrity category than in the predictability category Predict-ability was included as an economics-based subconstruct This differs fromMayer et al who excluded predictability from their trust typology [45] Thusfour second-order categories (competence benevolence integrity and predict-ability) cover 918 percent of the characteristics-based trust definitions found

The two types of groupings of trust definitions (construct type and refer-ent) did not appear to overlap in that the first refers to what type of constructtrust is and the second to the object of trust Therefore after the number ofattributes was reduced to five these two categories were used as dimensionsof a five-by-six table that made it possible to categorize the types of trust defi-nitions used by researchers (see Table 2) Each of the definitions in the 65 ar-ticles and books was mapped onto these dimensions The result was theexpected findingmdashthat trust definitions ranged all over the map

A Typology of Related Trust Constructs

From this mapping and from a conceptual analysis of how trust types relateto one other [47] an interdisciplinary model of trust types was formulatedThe model shown in Figure 1 has concepts representing all of the columns in

Trust-related Second-order Percentagecharacteristic conceptual category Definition count of total

1 Competent 142 Expert 33 Dynamic 3

Competence 20 204

4 Predictable Predictability 6 61

5 Good moral 66 Good will 107 Benevolent caring 188 Responsive 4

Benevolence 38 388

9 Honest 1110 Credible 111 Reliable 812 Dependable 6

Integrity 26 265

13 Open 314 Careful safe 315 Shared understanding 116 Personally attractive 1

Other 8 82

Total 98 1000

Table 1 Trust Referent Characteristicndashbased Definition Categories


Table 2 Disposition to trust reflects Table 2rsquos disposition column Institution-based trust reflects the structuralinstitutional column The attitude and be-lief columns were combined into trusting beliefs which were defined as havingboth affective and cognitive components (see [59]) Trusting intentions coversthe intention column

Trust-related behaviors was made a dotted-line concept outside the trusttypology because behavioral forms of trust already have other labels (egcooperation information sharing entering agreements with risk takinginvolvement with) What these have in common is that in each case one partybehaviorally depends on the other party Calling these trusting behaviors wouldneedlessly duplicate other constructs The umbrella term ldquotrust-relatedbehaviorsrdquo provides a second-order category for constructs like cooperationand risk taking keeping them separate from but related to trust constructs

The dispositional institutional and interpersonal trust constructs arediscriminant from each other for at least three reasons First as Figure 1 showsthey come from different research disciplines Because psychologists andsociologists for example think about the world very differently their conceptsalso differ primarily in terms of the nature of the research behind their originDisposition to trust comes primarily from trait psychology which says thatactions are molded by certain childhood-derived attributes that become moreor less stable over time Institution-based trust derives from sociology whichsays that behaviors are situationally constructed In this paradigm action isnot determined by factors within the person but by the environment or

Structural Dispo- institutional sition Attitude Belief Intention Behavior

Referentcharacteristic

Competence x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

Benevolence xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Integrity xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Predictability x xxxxxxxxxxx x

Other xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

Table 2 Mapping of Literature Trust Definitions

Notes1 Each x represents one trust definition2 Attitude includes affect and confidence Belief includes expectancy

Conceptual types


situation Trusting beliefs and intentions reflect the idea that interactionsbetween people and cognitive-emotional reactions to such interactionsdetermine behavior (eg [37]) Based on these large differences one couldargue that this typology contains constructs that are too diverse to be relatedat all Yet by establishing as the level of analysis the individual trusting theother party the starkness of the differences is subtly reduced such that eachconstruct relates to another more naturally For example institution-based trustis defined below as a belief about situations and structures rather than anintersubjective shared reality as some sociologists would have it This wasdone in part to create a more cohesive set of concepts but also to recognizethe sociological work that defines beliefsperceptions as concepts

The second reason the constructs are clearly discriminant from each otheris that they form different sentences in the ldquogrammarrdquo of trust That is trustwas modeled as an action sentence with a subject verb and direct object (seeFigure 2) The trustor is the subject or nominative of the sentence trust itself isthe verb or predicate and the trustee is the direct object Figure 1 shows (inparentheses ) that the direct object is the differentiating factor amongdispositional institutional and interpersonal constructs Per Figure 2 whiledispositional trust means that one trusts others generally institutional trustmeans that one trusts the situation or structures With interpersonal trust thedirect object is the specific other individual one trusts This suggests the essenceof the definitions of the psychological state known as trust to willingly becomevulnerable to the trustee whether another person an institution or peoplegenerally having taken into consideration the characteristics of the trusteeThis comprises a comprehensive definition of trust

A third way to distinguish these concepts is by their contextual orientation(see Table 3) Disposition to trust is cross-situational and cross-personal because

Note The Trust-Related Behaviors construct lies outside the trust typology

Figure 1 An Interdisciplinary Model of High-Level Trust Concepts

Dispositionto

Trust

Institution-BasedTrust

TrustingBeliefs

TrustingIntentions

Trust-Related

Behaviors

Interpersonal Trust

Social Psychology amp Economics(Trust in Specific Others)

Dispositional Trust

PsychologyEconomics(Trust inGeneral Others)

Sociology(Trust in theSituation orStructures)

Institutional Trust


it reflects the extent to which the trustor has a general propensitytendency todepend on most people across most situations Institution-based trust issituation-specific but cross-personal because it means that one trusts the specificsituation but does so irrespective of the specific people in that situation Trustingbeliefs and intentions have a person-specific direct object but are cross-situational in that one trusts the person across various contexts [40]

The four trust constructs in Figure 1 can be subdivided into lower levelconstructs that are measurable via scales (see Figure 3) Disposition to trust includesthe faith in humanity and trusting stance subconstructs Institution-based trustconsists of structural assurance and situational normality of the Web Trustingbeliefs includes competence benevolence integrity and predictability beliefscorresponding to the first four rows of Table 2 Trusting intentions includeswillingness to depend and subjective probability of depending on the Web vendor[14 16]

As the definitions below will show these subconstructs of the four mainconstructs are conceptually distinguishable from each other and from theconstruct They are not simply two parts of a dual construct Like the subtypes ofa data-modeling supertype each subconstruct partakes of the overall conceptualmeaning of the concept (supertype) but has certain attributes that distinguish itfrom the concept and from other subconstructs (subtypes) [8] For exampleconsider the biological categories and subcategories of the animal kingdom Acow and an elephant are both in the mammal category for example becausethey both give live birth have hair and nourish their babies through mammaryglands These attributes are common to all mammals but cows and elephants(subcategories) respectively have additional attributes not specified for amammal (category) The elephant is different from other mammals because ofattributes like size unique ears a flexible elongated snout tusks and its toe

Figure 2 Grammar of the Trust Model

Here the word ldquotrustrdquo is used as a surrogate for ldquowilling to depend onrdquo or ldquointends to depend onrdquo (trustingintentions or disposition to trust) ldquobelieves in the at tribute ofrdquo (trusting beliefs) or ldquobelieves it is a contextconducive to successrdquo (institution-based trust)

A Basic Sentence structure

NominativeNoun PredicateVerb Direct Object Type of Trust

Concept

(various)

B Examples of Sentence Variations

The trustor trusts the trustee

The E-commerce consumer trusts the E-vendor Interpersonal

The E-commerce consumer trusts the web itself

The E-commerce consumer trusts others generally

Institutional

Dispositional


Situation- Cross- Person- Cross-specific situational specific personal

Disposition to trust X XInstitution-based trust X XTrusting beliefs X XTrusting intentions X X

Table 3 Contextual Orientation of Trust Concepts

Situational Personal

Concept orientation

Figure 3 A Model of E-Commerce Customer Relationships TrustConstructs

Source Adapted from 47

Note Thinner arrows are proposed to be weaker links than thicker arrows usually due to mediation effects

Trusting Beliefs

StructuralAssurance of

the Web

Institution-based Trust

SituationalNormality of

the Web

Trust in Web VendorBusiness

Web VendorInterventionsndashPrivacy Policyndash3rd Party Sealsndash Interacting with

CustomersndashReputation

buildingndash Links to other

SitesndashGuarantees

Trust-RelatedInternet Behaviors

ndashPurchasingndashCooperatingndash Information

Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief

Predictabilitybelief

SubjectiveProbabilit y of

Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs


foot arrangement Similarly each of the subconstructs of the four main constructspartakes of the nature of the construct but has attributes that differentiate it fromits parent construct and from other subconstructs of its parent construct Theconstructs and subconstructs in Figure 1 can now be defined reflecting on theirmeaning and inter-relationships in light of e-commerce customer-vendor relations

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Constructs

Implicit in all the definitions presented here are two aspects not explicitlylisted in each definition felt security and a risky situation A feeling of securitymeans that one feels safe assured and comfortable (not anxious or fearful)about the prospect of depending on the trustee [42 59] Feelings of securityreflect the affective side of trust Both security and confidence are oftenincluded in research and dictionary definitions of trust (eg [11 25 43 67])The possibility of negative consequences or risk is what makes trust inunfamiliar or uncertain situations like the Internet important but problematic[22 25 60 81] One should therefore implicitly add to each definition belowthe phrase ldquowith a feeling of relative security in a situation of riskrdquo

The Internet provides a dual challenge in that both it and its players arerelatively new Researchers have found that in novel situations people relyon their general disposition to trust [33 63] Disposition to trust means theextent to which one displays a consistent tendency to be willing to depend onothers in general across a broad spectrum of situations and persons This con-struct derives primarily from disposition or trait psychology The precedingdefinition does not literally refer to a personrsquos trait Rather it means that onehas a general propensity to be willing to depend on others [45] Disposition totrust does not necessarily imply that one believes others to be trustworthyWhatever the reason one tends to be willing to depend on others People maygrow up with a disposition to trust or may develop it later in life [17] Eitherway it is acted out as a generalized reaction to lifersquos experiences with otherpeople [63] Because disposition to trust is a generalized tendency across situ-ations and persons it colors our interpretation of situations and actors in situ-ations Thus as Figure 1 indicates disposition to trust will influenceinstitution-based trust which reflects beliefs about the situation Dispositionto trust will affect trust in a specific other (interpersonal trust) but only whennovel situations arise in which the other and the situation are unfamiliar [33]To the extent that e-commerce is novel to a consumer disposition to trust willinfluence interpersonal trust in the vendor (see Figure 1) as Gefen found [24]Referring to the vignette that began this article perhaps it was a high disposi-tion to trust others that influenced Ms Wilson to trust Mr Lais initially

As a new phenomenon to many people the Internet presents almost thesame unnerving prospect as that presented to a person who walks on ice ofunknown thickness Will it hold up or will I break through and drown Inother words are Internet conditions such that I will be successful Institution-based trust means one believes that favorable conditions are in place that areconducive to situational success in an endeavor or aspect of onersquos life [41 4470 82] In the Internet context ldquofavorable conditionsrdquo refers to the legal regu-


latory business and technical environment perceived to support success Thisconstruct comes from the sociology tradition that people can rely on othersbecause of structures situations or roles that provide assurances that thingswill go well [2] Hence the causal link in Figure 1 goes from institution-basedtrust to trusting beliefs and intentions and not in the other direction Zuckertraced the history of regulations and institutions in America that enabled peopleto trust one other not because they knew one other personally but becauselicensing or auditing or laws or governmental enforcement bodies were inplace to make sure the other person was either afraid to harm you or pun-ished for doing so [82] Similarly beliefs that the Internet has legal or regula-tory protections for consumers (institution-based trust) should influence trustin a particular e-vendor (interpersonal trust) Mrs Tolleson (in the second vi-gnette) apparently feared that Internet protections were not sufficient to protecther from getting impure or incorrect medicines It is likely that institution-basedtrust will link more strongly to trusting beliefs than disposition to trust becausesituation tends to have stronger effects on interpersonal beliefs than disposi-tion when the situation is known [33] However if the situation itself is un-known as with prospective Internet users disposition to trust may have astronger relationship with interpersonal trust than does institution-based trust

In the Internet context the people involved include consumers and e-ven-dors The term ldquoe-vendorrdquo is here left vague so that it may encompass boththe Web store and the store owner or manager Interpersonal trust of e-ven-dors by consumers is critical for establishing transactional behavior As a WallStreet Journal article put it ldquoIt seems that trust equals revenue even on-linerdquo[57] Trusting beliefs means that one believes that the other party has one ormore characteristics beneficial to oneself In terms of characteristics the con-sumer wants the e-vendor to be willing and able to act in the consumerrsquosinterest honest in transactions and both capable of and predictable at deliv-ering as promised Ms Wilson had high trusting beliefs in Mr Lais at first butlow trusting beliefs after the transaction Trusting beliefs is not an expecta-tion as some have defined trust (eg [3 15]) but is specified as a cognitiveaffective belief in order to reflect the type of construct more normally used insocial science Perceptions about the other partyrsquos traits are often included intrust definitions [59 80] Trusting beliefs are here defined as person-specificin contrast to institution-based trust which is situation-specific

Can one depend on an e-vendor to deliver and not betray by divulgingpersonal information (eg credit card number) to other vendors If one iswilling to provide such information then this is the essence of being willingto depend on the vendor to keep the information confidential The informedconsumer has to reconcile these issues before being willing to transact busi-ness on the Web Trusting intentions means that one is willing to depend on orintends to depend on the other party even though one cannot control thatparty Trusting intentions definitions embody three elements synthesized fromthe trust literature First a readiness to depend or rely on another (such as MsWilson relying on her Web lawyer) is central to trusting intentions [16 25 4261] To depend means to have the trustee do something on onersquos behalf Sec-ond trusting intentions is person-specific [21 72] Finally trusting intentionsinvolves willingness that is not based on having control or power over the


other party [22 60 61] In the Internet context the consumer has less controlthan in the brick-and-mortar context and may incur greater negative conse-quences (eg a stolen identity) making trusting intentions especially prob-lematic Trusting intentions relates to the power literature because it is definedin terms of dependence and control This may be researched For example thefeeling of powerlessness against the faceless Internet is probably a factor re-lated to fear to do business on the Web Reflecting such feelings one distrustdefinition is added for contrast Distrusting intentions means that one is againstbeing willing to depend or intends not to depend on the other party Thefeelings behind this construct are usually strong and emotionally charged [48]as were Ms Wilsonrsquos post-transaction feelings toward Mr Lais

The link between trusting beliefs and trusting intentions is natural becausethe theory of reasoned action posits that beliefs influence intentions [18] Inthe Internet setting it seems reasonable that strong beliefs that the vendor ishonest competent benevolent and predictable should lead to willingness todepend or to intend to depend on the vendor (see Figure 3) People are will-ing to depend on those they feel have beneficial characteristics Additionaltheoretical justification for model linkages among the above trust constructsis provided by McKnight Cummings and Chervany [47]

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Subconstructs

Disposition to trust has two subconstructs faith in humanity and trustingstance Faith in humanity refers to underlying assumptions about people whiletrusting stance is like a personal strategy Faith in humanity means that oneassumes others are usually competent benevolent honestethical and pre-dictable (eg [62 79]) Mayer et al gave the example that if you were going todrown could you trust nonspecific others to come to your aid [45]You wouldif having high faith in humanity you assumed that others generally careenough to help Likewise you would be more likely to have high trustingbeliefs that an Internet vendor is trustworthy if your faith in humanity is highsince it is people that operate e-businesses (see Figure 3) Those with highfaith in humanity tend to be less judgmental or critical of others upfront andare usually more tolerant of their mistakes

Trusting stance means that regardless of what one assumes about otherpeople generally one assumes that one will achieve better outcomes by deal-ing with people as though they were well-meaning and reliable Thereforetrusting stance is like a personal choice or strategy to trust others Because itinvolves a choice that is presumably based on a subjective calculation of theodds of success in a venture trusting stance derives from the calculative eco-nomics-based trust research stream (eg [60]) Here is an example A con-sumer asked why he or she trusted a Web store might answer ldquoBecause Ialways trust Web stores until they give me a reason not to trust themrdquo Some-one with high trusting stance would probably have high trusting intentions(see Figure 3) that is would be willing to take normal risks (eg risk of creditcard fraud) to buy goods or services on-line until an adverse experience forcesa change of mind about e-vendors


Trusting stance and faith in humanity are alike in that they each constitutea tendency or propensity to trust other people [45] They differ in terms oftheir assumptions Because faith in humanity relates to assumptions aboutthe attributes of other people it is more likely than trusting stance to be anantecedent to trusting beliefs (in people) (see Figure 3) Trusting stance willrelate more to trusting intention since it is a strategy related to trusting othersrather than a belief about people [47]

Institution-based trust has two subconstructs structural assurance and situ-ational normality of the Web Structural assurance means that one believes thatprotective structuresmdashguarantees contracts regulations promises legal re-course processes or proceduresmdashare in place that are conducive to situationalsuccess [70 82] For example users of the Internet have structural assuranceto the extent to which they believe that legal and technological Internet safe-guards (eg encryption) protect them from privacy loss identity loss or creditcard fraud generally [30] Structural assurance is the opposite of perceivedWeb risk With a high level of structural assurance regarding the Internet onewould be more likely to believe in the goodness of Internet vendors (trust-ing beliefs ) and to rely on specific Internet vendors (trusting intentions) be-cause of the secure feeling structural assurance engenders (see Figure 3)

Situational normality means that one believes that the situation in a ventureis normal or favorable or conducive to situational success Situation (on theWeb) reflects Garfinkelrsquos idea that trust is the perception that things in a situ-ation are normal proper customary fitting or in proper order [2 23 41]Garfinkel found in natural experiments that people do not trust others whenthings ldquogo weirdrdquo that is when they face inexplicable abnormal situationsFor example one subject told the experimenter that hersquod had a flat tire on theway to work The experimenter responded ldquoWhat do you mean you had aflat tirerdquo The subject replied in a hostile way ldquoWhat do you mean lsquoWhat doyou meanrsquo A flat tire is a flat tire That is what I meant Nothing special Whata crazy questionrdquo [23 p 221] At this point trust between them broke downbecause the illogical question produced an abnormal situation Situationalnormality means that a properly ordered setting is likely to facilitate a suc-cessful venture When Web consumers believe that the Internet situation isnormal and that their role and the vendorrsquos roles in the situation are appro-priate and conducive to success then they have a basis for trusting the ven-dor in the situation Hence situational normality regarding the Internet settingwill affect trusting beliefs and trusting intentions about Internet vendors (seeFigure 3)

Just as those with high faith in humanity are less critical of people they areprobably also less critical of situations and more positive about the structuresbeneath situations Therefore one with a high faith in humanity should havehigh situational normality and structural assurance regarding the e-commercesetting Similarly those who give people the benefit of the doubt because ofhigh trusting stance will be more likely to have high situational normality andstructural assurance beliefs Hence both disposition to trust constructs shouldinfluence both institution-based trust constructs as Figure 3 indicates

The trusting beliefs subconstructs defined here are of four types buildingon Mayer et al [45] although it is recognized that other types exist Trusting


belief-competence means that one believes that the other party has the ability orpower to do for one what one needs done In the case of the Internet relation-ship the consumer would believe that the vendor can provide the goods andservices in a proper and convenient way Trusting belief-benevolence means thatone believes that the other party cares about one and is motivated to act inonersquos interest A benevolent Internet vendor would not be perceived to actopportunistically by taking advantage of the trustor Benevolence reflects thespecific relationship between trustor and trustee not trustee kindness to allTrusting belief-integrity means that one believes that the other party makes good-faith agreements tells the truth acts ethically and fulfills promises [7] Thiswould reflect the belief that the Internet vendor will come through on its prom-ises and ethical obligations such as to deliver goods or services or to keepprivate information secure Thus integrity is more about the character of thetrustee than about the trustor-trustee relationship Trusting belief-predictabilitymeans that one believes the other partyrsquos actions (good or bad) are consistentenough that one can forecast them in a given situation Those with high trust-ing belief-predictability would believe that they can predict the Internetvendorrsquos future behavior in a given situation This construct as opposed totrusting belief-integrity is value-neutral such that the vendor is believed pre-dictably to do either good or bad things in the future The vendor may havegood or bad traits but is perceived to be consistent in those traits For ex-ample a consumer with a high level of predictability belief would forecastthat Amazoncom will consistently deliver a book in seven days One with ahigh belief level would forecast that Amazoncom will need a follow-up e-mail before it sends off the package Predictability is separate from but inter-acts with the other constructs because having predictability means that thetrusteersquos willingness and ability to serve trustor interests does not vary orchange over time Thus in contrast to the view of Mayer et al predictabilityis important to the trust typology

Which of the four beliefs is more important In a sense they complementone another comprising an unassailable foundation for trusting intentionsand trust-related behaviors [45] That is if the trustor has high beliefs in thecompetence integrity benevolence and predictability of the trustee thenthe trustor will have the highest level of willingness to depend on the trusteebecause these attributes address nearly every contingent circumstance inthe relationship Specifically a vendor consistently (predictability belief )shown to be willing (benevolence belief ) and able (competence belief ) toserve consumer interests with total honesty (integrity belief ) is indeed wor-thy of trust

On the individual level however the belief that addresses the greatest fearof the prospective Web user is the belief that is most important For exampleif a consumer fears that his or her credit card number might inadvertently bemade available to other Web users the consumerrsquos competence belief that thevendor will use its technical prowess to take proper precautions using SSL orother tools will address this issue If the fear is that the vendor might sellpersonal information to other vendors for marketing purposes then trustingbelief-integrity may be the most important because of the ethical issues MsWilson may at first have placed greater emphasis on credential-based compe-


tence but after the transaction would probably emphasize Mr Laisrsquos (lack of)integrity On the level of potential Web users as a whole the most importanttrusting belief will address the most important issue affecting overall use Ini-tially if this is the private data security issue then competence may be themost important belief However this is an empirical question and research-ers are hereby challenged to test it

Some or all of these trusting beliefs will probably merge together into oneconstruct when the trustor knows little about the trustee but as the parties getto know each other the trustor will be able to differentiate among the trustingbeliefs more discretely [40] The two most likely to merge are integrity and be-nevolence since they both imply that the trustee will do the trustor good in-stead of harm

The subconstructs of trusting intentions include willingness to depend andsubjective probability of depending Willingness to depend means that one isvolitionally prepared to make oneself vulnerable to the other party in a situa-tion by relying on the other party (eg [16 45]) Here the e-consumer is will-ing to depend on the vendor to do its part of the transaction in a proper andefficient way Subjective probability of depending means the extent to which oneforecasts or predicts that one will depend on the other party [14] This meansthat consumers predict that they will rely or depend on the e-commerce ven-dor in the future While willingness to depend expresses volition or desiresubjective probability of depending expresses something strongermdasha verifi-able intent or commitment to depend These constructs could refer to aconsumerrsquos willingness or intention to depend on the vendor to fulfill an or-der provide a service provide excellent advice keep personal informationconfidential and secure or warrant its products To provide contrast two dis-trusting intentions subconstructs are defined No willingness to depend meansthat one is against making oneself vulnerable to the other party by relying onthe other party Subjective probability of not depending means the extent to whichone forecasts or predicts that one will not depend on the other party Thesedefinitions are mirror opposites of the trust definitions Other distrust con-structs could be defined [48] but are not included here

Linking Trust Constructs to Other Internet Constructs

Figure 3 links trust variables to two Internet constructs First trusting inten-tions and trusting beliefs are linked to a construct termed trust-related Internetbehaviors This construct is defined constitutively as behaviors that demon-strate that one is willing to purchase from or do business with the Internetvendor cooperate with it and share information with it Trust-related Internetbehaviors is not a trust construct but a naturally following consequence ofthe interpersonal trust constructs Just as the theory of reasoned action showsthat behavioral beliefs and intentions lead to related behaviors [18] so themodel presented here posits that in the Internet setting trusting beliefs andintentions will influence one to actually do business with the Web vendor Itposits that trusting intentions will only partially mediate trusting beliefs be-cause these beliefs are likely to become very specific over time [72] Therefore


one or more trusting beliefs will probably have a direct effect on specific Internetbehaviors For example belief in vendor benevolence may have a partiallymediated effect on consumer information sharing because it provides assur-ances specific to this construct

So far only trusting beliefs and intentions have been posited as antecedentfactors to Internet behaviors like purchasing But vendors can also try to in-fluence consumers to purchase and cooperate and share information throughthe Web vendor interventions shown in Figure 3 Web vendor interventionsare actions a vendor may take to provide assurances to consumers about thevendorrsquos site Rather than relating to the Web environment as a whole asinstitution-based trust does a Web vendor intervention assures customers thatthis particular vendor site is safe in spite of whatever deficiencies exist in theoverall Web environment Over time if such interventions become standardand actual practices the overall Web may be widely perceived as a safer moresecure place increasing institution-based trust

At this point it is necessary to explain how the trust constructs relate toWeb vendor interventions (see Figure 3) Existing Internet theory postulatesthat privacy policies third-party seals [4] interacting with customers reputa-tion building links to other sites and guarantees may help induce such con-sumer behaviors as purchasing and personal information sharing (eg [30])as reflected by the arrow from Web vendor interventions to trust-relatedInternet behaviors The potential contribution to theory made in this paper isthe suggestion that although the direct link exists the effects of trust-buildinginterventions on Internet behaviors will be partially mediated by trusting be-liefs and intentions Therefore arrows have been drawn from interventions totrusting beliefs and trusting intentions The rationale for these mediating linkswill now be discussed

Privacy Policy and Third-Party Privacy Seals

If a vendor posts a privacy policy or uses a third-party seal (eg TRUSTe)indicating that a privacy policy exists on the site the consumer should believethat this vendor is ethical with regard to capturing personal information (trust-ing beliefmdashintegrity) Thus the consumer is more likely to be willing to sharepersonal information with this vendor (trusting intentions) A consumer whointends to share personal information is more likely to actually share the in-formation (trust-related Internet behaviorsmdashinformation sharing)

Interacting with Customers

If a vendor interacts on-line with its customers it should be able to convey tothem that it is benevolent competent honest andor predictable The inter-action provides the customer with evidence that the vendor has various posi-tive attributes thereby strengthening trusting beliefs The interaction alsoprovides the customer with assurances that support willingness to depend onthe vendor (trusting intentions) Therefore the customer is more likely to en-gage in trust-related Internet behaviors like purchasing cooperating and shar-ing information


Reputation Building

The vendor may advertise its good reputation in order to induce purchasingbehaviors But improving its reputation will also improve trusting beliefsbecause reputation is the second-hand rumor that one has positive generaltraits whereas trusting beliefs constitute the first-hand belief Trusting inten-tions directly result from these beliefs

Links to Other Sites

Links to other reputable sites may provide assurance enabling purchasing orother Internet behaviors [73] However outside links imply that one has goodcompany because one is good company which would have a positive impacton trusting beliefs about the site vendor

Guarantees or Other Seals

Guarantees or third-party seals related to the reliability of the site (eg BBBAICPArsquos WebTrust or SysTrust) would raise trusting beliefs in the integrity ofthe vendor thereby engendering willingness to depend on that vendor Thetrusting belief affected depends on the nature of the seal

In sum each consumer trust-building intervention tends to build trustingbeliefs and intentions that act as intermediate mechanisms for producing trust-related Internet behaviors If the preceding arguments hold true empiricallytrusting beliefs and trusting intentions will partially mediate the effects ofthese interventions on trust-related Internet behaviors

Reasons the Typology May Be Applicable

1 The authors have created and tested scales for each of these trustsubconstructs as will be reported elsewhere Thus all thesubconstructs are measurable facilitating new research on either partor all of the model

2 The constructs are specific and parsimonious enough to be easilyunderstood and distinguished Subconstructs tie closely to constructsin a precise definitional way such that moving from subconstruct toconstruct does not constitute the vagueness of concept stretching [54]

3 The constructs are grounded in the literature in terms of the moreoften used types of trust

4 The constructs traverse several disciplines Although they do notcorrespond exactly to each disciplinersquos trust concepts they capturesignificant conceptual meaning from each [58]

5 The constructs form a model that is potentially helpful in the e-commerce relationship domain The model provides ldquoheuristicvaluerdquo by generating research possibilities that connect dispositionalinstitutional and interpersonal types of trust [34]


6 The definitions were genericized so that the constructs can travel toother research domains [54]

The reader may wish to compare the typology with other trust typologiesin terms of coverage Gabarro Rempel Holmes and Zanna and Mishra ad-dressed several types of trusting beliefs [21 50 59] Bromiley and Cummingshad three types of beliefs and intentions that addressed benevolence and in-tegrity attributes [7] Barber defined three distinct types of trust [3] McAllisteraddressed two trust types cognitive-based and affective-based trust [46]Mayer Davis and Schoorman were very thorough positing both trust itselfpropensity to trust and integrity ability and benevolence perceptions [45]They also mentioned the need for institutional trust constructs This articleextends the work of McKnight et al [47] by delineating two trusting inten-tions adding trust-related behaviors including an affective definitional basisfor the trust concepts (felt security) and linking disposition to trust with situ-ational normality

Model Limitations

The model has two potential drawbacks First because it ventures across dis-ciplinary lines it risks losing some of the meanings associated with the origi-nal trust definitions [77] This limitation has been addressed up front as Vande Ven and Ferry suggested by making the definitions clear and by ground-ing them in the originating literature Splitting institution-based trust into twoclearly defined and grounded constructs situational normality and structuralassurance is an example of how proper conceptual grounding in the litera-ture has been ensured Second some of the model constructs are delineatedso finely that they may not be discriminant in empirical studies The best ex-ample of this is the four trusting beliefs Although these beliefs are often dis-criminant when the trustor knows the trustee well they tend to factor togetherwhen the trustor and trustee are not well knownmdashespecially trusting be-liefmdashbenevolence and trusting beliefmdashintegrity On the other hand the dis-position to trust and institution-based trust subconstructs are consistentlydistinguishable

Conclusion

Lewis and Weigert called trust a highly complex and multi-dimensional phe-nomenon [41] The classification system presented in this article clarifies thecomplexity by specifying categories for most existing trust meanings therebyfacilitating meta-analyses of trust research (see Table 2) This trust typologyhelps address conceptual confusion by representing trust as a coherent de-fined set of four concepts and ten subconstructs These constructs are alsoclarified by explaining how they relate to one other and to already-used Internetrelationship constructs This depiction of trust has heuristic value because itgenerates research possibilities [34] The model will help researchers examine


e-commerce customer relationships in new ways since it includes personalinstitutional and interpersonal concepts Another benefit is that the modelpresents a vocabulary (and grammar) of specifically defined trust types thatscholars and practitioners can use to converse on this important topic Finallybecause the operational model constructs are well grounded in actual phe-nomena more specific (and thus more helpful ) trust prescriptions should re-sult This is especially true in the Internet world where researchers arealready finding that perceptions about the situation and propensity to trustare important to consumer trust in Internet vendors (eg [24]) Given thecurrent holes in general Web protections additional structural assurancesare needed

For unscrupulous lawyers the Web is the perfect marketing toolmdashcheap pervasive and lacking serious regulation Bar authorities whowere already struggling in the Old Economy are throwing up theirhands in the New Most donrsquot even try to keep tabs on lawyersrsquoInternet ads citing a lack of resources Ms Wilson still kicks herselffor not doing a more thorough background check on Mr Lais butsays she thinks the bar should have tried harder too The bar says itwasnrsquot aware of the site until Ms Wilson started complaining andthat even if it had been taking the legal steps to shut it down mighthave taken longer than his three-month suspension [68]

REFERENCES

1 Ba S Whinston AB and Zhang H Building trust in the electronicmarket through an economic incentive mechanism In P De and JI DeGross(eds) Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on InformationSystems Charlotte NC Omnipress 1999 pp 208ndash213

2 Baier A Trust and antitrust Ethics 96 (January 1986) 231ndash2603 Barber B The Logic and Limits of Trust New Brunswick NJ Rutgers

University Press 19834 Benassi P TRUSTe An online privacy seal program Communications of

the ACM 42 2 (February 1999) 56ndash595 Bensaou M Electronically-mediated partnerships The use of CAD

technologies in supplier relations In P De and JI DeGross (eds) Proceed-ings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems CharlotteNC Omnipress 1999 pp 307ndash323

6 Berscheid E and Meyers SA A social categorical approach to aquestion about love Personal Relationships 3 (1996) 19ndash43

7 Bromiley P and Cummings LL Transactions costs in organizationswith trust In R Bies B Sheppard and R Lewicki (eds) Research on Nego-tiations in Organizations vol 5 Greenwich CT JAI Press 1995 pp 219ndash247

8 Brown RG Data modeling methodologiesmdashcontrasts in style In B vonHalle and D Kull (eds) Data Management Handbook Boston Auerbach1993 pp 389ndash439

9 Chrusciel D and Zahedi FM Seller-based vs buyer-based Internetintermediaries A research design In WD Haseman and DL Nazareth


(eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information SystemsMilwaukee Omnipress 1999 pp 241ndash24310 Clarke R Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for interventionCommunications of the ACM 42 2 (February 1999) 60ndash6811 Cook J and Wall T New work attitude measures of trust organiza-tional commitment and personal need non-fulfillment Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology 53 (1980) 39ndash5212 Cranor LF Internet privacy Communications of the ACM 42 2 (February1999) 28ndash3113 Crozier M The Bureaucratic Phenomenon Chicago University of ChicagoPress 196414 Currall SC and Judge TA Measuring trust between organizationalboundary role persons Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes64 2 (1995) 151ndash17015 Deutsch M The Resolution of Conflict Constructive and DestructiveProcesses New Haven Yale University Press 197316 Dobing B Building trust in user-analyst relationships PhD disserta-tion University of Minnesota 199317 Erikson EH Identity Youth and Crisis New York Norton 196818 Fishbein M and Ajzen I Belief Attitude Intention and Behavior AnIntroduction to Theory and Research Reading MA Addison-Wesley 197519 Fritscher M Towards a unique world-wide digital certificate In WDHaseman and DL Nazareth (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Confer-ence on Information Systems Milwaukee Omnipress 1999 pp 432ndash43420 Fung RKK and Lee MKO EC-trust (trust in electronic commerce)Exploring the antecedent factors In WD Haseman and DL Nazareth(eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information SystemsMilwaukee Omnipress 1999 pp 517ndash51921 Gabarro J J The development of trust influence and expectations InAG Athos and JJ Gabarro (eds) Interpersonal Behavior Communication andUnderstanding in Relationships Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1978 pp290ndash30322 Gambetta D Can we trust trust In D Gambetta (ed ) Trust Making andBreaking Cooperative Relations New York Blackwell 1988 pp 213ndash23723 Garfinkel H A conception of and experiments with ldquotrustrdquo as acondition of stable concerted actions In OJ Harvey (ed ) Motivation andSocial Interaction New York Ronald Press 1963 pp 187ndash23824 Gefen D E-commerce The role of familiarity and trust OMEGA 28 6(2000) 725ndash73725 Giffin K The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory ofinterpersonal trust in the communication process Psychological Bulletin 68 2(1967) 104ndash12026 Glaser B and Strauss A The Discovery of Grounded Theory ChicagoAldine 196727 Golembiewski RT and McConkie M The centrality of interpersonaltrust in group processes In GL Cooper (ed ) Theories of Group ProcessesLondon John Wiley 1975 pp 131ndash18528 Granovetter M Economic action and social structure The problem of


embeddedness American Journal of Sociology 91 3 (1985) 481ndash51029 Hirschman AO Against parsimony Three easy ways of complicatingsome categories of economic discourse American Economic Review 74 1(1984) 89ndash9630 Hoffman DL Novak TP and Peralta M Building consumer trustonline Communications of the ACM 42 4 (April 1999) 80ndash8531 Jarvenpaa SL and Leidner DE Communication and trust in globalvirtual teams Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3 4 (June 1998)1ndash2932 Jarvenpaa SL Tractinsky N and Vitale M Consumer trust in anInternet store Working paper Department of MSIS University of TexasApril 199833 Johnson-George C and Swap WC Measurement of specific interper-sonal trust Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in aspecific other Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 3 (1982) 1306ndash131734 Kaplan A The Conduct of Inquiry New York Chandler 196435 Kee HW and Knox RE Conceptual and methodological consider-ations in the study of trust and suspicion Journal of Conflict Resolution 14 3(1970) 357ndash36636 Kelley HH Common-sense psychology and scientific psychologyAnnual Review of Psychology 43 (1992) 1ndash2337 Kelley HH Berscheid E Christensen A Harvey JH Huston TLLevinger G McClintock E Peplau LA and Peterson D R Analyzingclose relationships In HH Kelley E Berscheid A Christensen JHHarvey TL Huston G Levinger E McClintock LA Peplau andDR Peterson (eds) Close Relationships New York W H Freeman 1983 pp20ndash6738 Klose M and Lechner U Design of business media An integratedmodel of electronic commerce In WD Haseman and DL Nazareth (eds)Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems Milwau-kee Omnipress 1999 pp 559ndash56139 Lewicki RJ and Bunker BB Trust in relationships A model of trustdevelopment and decline In BB Bunker and JZ Rubin (eds) ConflictCooperation and Justice San Francisco Jossey-Bass 1995 pp 133ndash17340 Lewicki RJ McAllister DJ and Bies R J Trust and distrust Newrelationships and realities Academy of Management Review 23 3 (1998) 438ndash45841 Lewis JD and Weigert AJ Trust as a social reality Social Forces 63 4(1985) 967ndash98542 Lewis JD and Weigert AJ Social atomism holism and trust Sociologi-cal Quarterly 26 4 (1985) 455ndash47143 Lindskold S Trust development the GRIT proposal and the effects ofconciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation Psychological Bulletin 8 3 (July1978) 772ndash79344 Luhmann N Trust and Power New York John Wiley 197945 Mayer RC Davis JH and Schoorman FD An integrative model oforganizational trust Academy of Management Review 20 3 (1995) 709ndash734


46 McAllister DJ Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations forinterpersonal cooperation in organizations Academy of Management Journal38 3 (1995) 24ndash5947 McKnight DH Cummings LL and Chervany NL Initial trustformation in new organizational relationships Academy of ManagementReview 23 3 (1998) 473ndash49048 McKnight DH and Chervany NL While trust is cool and collecteddistrust is fiery and frenzied A model of distrust concepts In D Strong DStraub and JI DeGross (eds) Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conferenceon Information Systems Boston Omnipress 2001 pp 883ndash88849 Menon NM Konana P Browne GJ and Balasubramanian SUnderstanding trustworthiness beliefs in electronic brokerage usage In PDe and JI DeGross (eds) Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conferenceon Information Systems Charlotte NC Omnipress 1999 pp 552ndash55550 Mishra AK Organizational responses to crisis The centrality of trust InRM Kramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theoryand Research Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 261ndash28751 Morgan RM and Hunt SD The commitment-trust theory of relation-ship marketing Journal of Marketing 58 3 (1994) 20ndash3852 Muthitacharoen A Investigating consumerrsquos attitude toward Internetshopping In WD Haseman and DL Nazareth (eds) Proceedings of theFifth Americas Conference on Information Systems Milwaukee Omnipress1999 pp 532ndash53453 Noteberg A Christiaanse E and Wallage P The role of trust andassurance services in electronic channels An exploratory study In P De andJI DeGross (eds) Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference onInformation Systems Charlotte NC Omnipress 1999 pp 472ndash47854 Osigweh C Concept fallibility in organizational science Academy ofManagement Review 14 4 (1989) 579ndash59455 Ouchi WG Theory Z How American Business Can Meet the JapaneseChallenge Reading MA Addison-Wesley 198156 Parker-Pope T How to tell whether that online drugstore is really agood deal Wall Street Journal February 16 2001 B157 Petersen A Private matters It seems that trust equals revenue evenonline Wall Street Journal February 12 2001 R24 R3158 Poole MS and Van de Ven AH Using paradox to build managementand organization theories Academy of Management Review 14 4 (1989)562ndash57859 Rempel JK Holmes J G and Zanna M P Trust in close relationshipsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (1985) 95ndash11260 Riker WH The nature of trust In JT Tedeschi (ed) Perspectives onSocial Power Chicago Aldine 1971 pp 63ndash8161 Ring PS and Van de Ven AH Developmental processes of cooperativeinterorganizational relationships Academy of Management Review 19 1(1994) 90ndash11862 Rosenberg M Occupations and Values Glencoe IL Free Press 195763 Rotter Julian B Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust Ameri-can Psychologist 26 5 (May 1971) 443ndash452


64 Rousseau DM Sitkin SB Burt RS and Camerer C Not so differentafter all A cross-discipline view of trust Academy of Management Review 233 (1998) 393ndash40465 Rubin Z Preface In RJ Sternberg and ML Barnes (eds) The Psychol-ogy of Love New Haven Yale University Press 1988 pp viindashxii66 Sagasti FR and Mitroff II Operations research from the viewpoint ofgeneral systems theory OMEGA 1 6 (1973) 695ndash70967 Scanzoni J Social exchange and behavioral interdependence In RLBurgess and TL Huston (eds) Social Exchange in Developing RelationshipsNew York Academic Press 1979 pp 61ndash9868 Schmitt RB Lowering the bar Lawyers flood Web but many ads fail totell the whole truth Wall Street Journal February 15 2001 A1 A1269 Schwab DP Construct validity in organizational behavior In BM Stawand LL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 2 Green-wich CT JAI Press 1980 pp 3ndash4370 Shapiro SP The social control of impersonal trust American Journal ofSociology 93 3 (1987) 623ndash65871 Singleton R Jr Straits BC Straits MM and McAllister RJ Ap-proaches to Social Research New York Oxford University Press 198872 Sitkin SB and Roth NL Explaining the limited effectiveness oflegalistic ldquoremediesrdquo for trustdistrust Organization Science 4 3 (August1993) 367ndash39273 Stewart KJ Transference as a means of building trust in world wideWeb sites In P De and JI DeGross (eds) Proceedings of the TwentiethInternational Conference on Information Systems Charlotte NC Omnipress1999 pp 459ndash46474 Taylor RG The role of trust in labor-management relations OrganizationDevelopment Journal (summer 1989) 85ndash8975 Tiryakian EA Typologies In DL Sills (ed) International Encyclopedia ofthe Social Science vol 16 New York Macmillan and Free Press 1968 pp177ndash18676 Van de Ven A H Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory Acad-emy of Management Review 14 4 (1989) 486ndash48977 Van de Ven AH and Ferry D L Measuring and Assessing OrganizationsNew York John Wiley 198078 Wang H Lee MKO and Wang C Consumer privacy concerns aboutInternet marketing Communications of the ACM 41 3 (March 1998) 63ndash7079 Wrightsman LS Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward humannature In JP Robinson PR Shaver and LS Wrightsman (eds) Measuresof Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes vol 1 San Diego AcademicPress 1991 pp 373ndash41280 Yamagishi T and Yamagishi M Trust and commitment in the UnitedStates and Japan Motivation and Emotion 18 2 (1994) 129ndash16681 Zand DE Trust and managerial problem solving Administrative ScienceQuarterly 17 2 (1972) 229ndash23982 Zucker LG Production of trust Institutional sources of economicstructure 1840ndash1920 In BM Staw and LL Cummings (eds) Research inOrganizational Behavior vol 6 Greenwich CT JAI Press 1986 pp 53ndash111


D HARRISON MCKNIGHT (mcknightbusmsuedu) is an assistant professor inthe Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University He received his PhDfrom the University of Minnesota His research interests include trust in e-commerceand information system settings leadership and the retention and motivation of com-puter personnel

NORMAN L CHERVANY (nchervanycsomumnedu) is a professor of informa-tion and decision sciences at the Carlson School of Management University of Min-nesota He received his doctorate in decision sciences from Indiana University Hisresearch interests revolve around the relationships among information technologysystems and organizational strategy organizational design work design and projectimplementation


them as professionals and as members of a club or church or PTA Since thenhowever the influx of new people into old communities the growth of urbanpopulations and more recently widespread job turnover and geographicmovement has shifted the basis of trust from personal knowledge to institu-tional knowledge [82] Clients are able to deal with professionals who arepersonally unknown to them because licensing and regulating entities onlylegitimate professionals who have passed certain competence hurdles With-out knowing lawyers or doctors personally clients can rely on them becausethey have passed the tests needed to put up a shingle Clients see the medi-cal or legal certificate on the wall and can test the professional through per-sonal interaction Since e-commerce provides little opportunity to verify thequality of goods through inspection or the quality of a professional throughinterpersonal interaction it makes even greater demands on the credulity ofconsumers

Trust is central to interpersonal and commercial relationships [27 51] be-cause it is crucial wherever risk uncertainty or interdependence exist [45 50]These conditions flourish in many settings but thrive in socially distant rela-tionships Researchers have found trust to be important to both virtual teamsand e-commerce [1 30 31 32 53 73] As increased transaction complexitymakes conditions more uncertain as is the case in computer-mediated com-merce the need for trust grows [50]

This article proceeds under the belief that conceptual work is as valid ascientific pursuit as empirical testing of theory Although conceptual effortsunlike empirical work do not report test results from the real world they areimportant because they form a firm basis upon which empirical studies buildas several researchers have argued (eg [76]) In the four-base model of re-search developed by Sagasti and Mitroff one base is the conceptual modelmdashthe step before building an empirically testable model [66] Schwabdemonstrates the importance of good conceptual work to construct validity[69] In his classic treatise on conducting research Kaplan devotes entire chap-ters to theory building and conceptualizing [34] Conceptual models help re-searchers by linking science to the real world upfront so that the results of thescientific research may later be of greater use to practice [66]

Testing a theory before it is properly conceptualized causes problems Theresulting research is often misinterpreted because researchers have not yetagreed on what the terms mean Moreover as Crozier warns ldquopremature rigorrdquocan keep a theory ldquofrom being adequately comprehensiverdquo [13 p 5] Narrowresults are not as likely to contribute to practice [76] The logical positivistview of science requires that theory be developed conceptually first and thenoperationally so that the results of operationalizing it will be applicable to theconceptual theory ldquoBecause we cannot identify observable representations ofa concept unless its meaning is clear the initial step is to clarify the mentalimagery conveyed by onersquos conceptsrdquo [71 p 98] In short pursuing empiricalwork before adequately defining concepts is like putting the cart before thehorse

A good deal of research on trust is under way with the potential to producesignificant understanding of e-commerce or other social phenomena How-ever a clearer understanding of what the term ldquotrustrdquo means is needed if the






























Competence 20 204



Benevolence 38 388


Integrity 26 265


Other 8 82

Total 98 1000















Conceptual types







Dispositionto

Trust


TrustingBeliefs

TrustingIntentions

Trust-Related

Behaviors

Interpersonal Trust


Dispositional Trust



Institutional Trust









Concept

(various)






Institutional

Dispositional






Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES


















































Competence 20 204



Benevolence 38 388


Integrity 26 265


Other 8 82

Total 98 1000















Conceptual types







Dispositionto

Trust


TrustingBeliefs

TrustingIntentions

Trust-Related

Behaviors

Interpersonal Trust


Dispositional Trust



Institutional Trust









Concept

(various)






Institutional

Dispositional






Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES


































Conceptual types







Dispositionto

Trust


TrustingBeliefs

TrustingIntentions

Trust-Related

Behaviors

Interpersonal Trust


Dispositional Trust



Institutional Trust









Concept

(various)






Institutional

Dispositional






Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES



























Dispositionto

Trust


TrustingBeliefs

TrustingIntentions

Trust-Related

Behaviors

Interpersonal Trust


Dispositional Trust



Institutional Trust









Concept

(various)






Institutional

Dispositional






Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES





























Concept

(various)






Institutional

Dispositional






Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES


























Concept orientation




Trusting Beliefs


the Web



the Web








Sharing

Disposition toTrust

Faith inHumanity

TrustingStance

Benevolencebelief

Competencebelief

Integritybelief



Depending

Willingnessto

Depend

TrustingIntentions

TrustingBeliefs










































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES






























































Reputation Building
















Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES
























Model Limitations


Conclusion





REFERENCES
























REFERENCES





















what trust means in e-commerce customer …mcknig26/trtypology.pdfwhat trust means in e-commerce...

Documents