Skip to main content

Is Trust Always Better than Distrust? The Potential Value of Distrust in Newer Virtual Teams Engaged in Short-Term Decision-Making

Group Decision and Negotiation volume 24, pages 723–752 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

The debate on the benefits of trust or distrust in groups has generated a substantial amount of research that points to the positive aspects of trust in groups, and generally characterizes distrust as a negative group phenomenon. Therefore, many researchers and practitioners assume that trust is inherently good and distrust is inherently bad. However, recent counterintuitive evidence obtained from face-to-face (FtF) groups indicates that the opposite might be true; trust can prove detrimental, and distrust instrumental, to decision-making in groups. By extending this argument to virtual teams (VTs), we examined the value of distrust for VTs completing routine and non-routine decision tasks, and showed that the benefits of distrust can extend to short-term VTs. Specifically, VTs seeded with distrust significantly outperformed all control groups in a non-routine decision-making task. In addition, we present quantitative evidence to show that the decision task itself can significantly affect the overall levels of trust/distrust within VTs. In addition to its practical and research implications, the theoretical contribution of our study is that it extends to a group level, and then to a VT setting, a theory of distrust previously tested in the psychology literature in the context of completing non-routine and routine decision tasks at an individual level.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. It is important to recognize that relative levels of trust and distrust might vary among individuals within a VT, as some people are naturally more trusting and some are naturally more distrusting, although this is mitigated by random assignment. To account for this variance, McKnight et al. (2002b) measured the difference between an individual’s disposition to trust and his or her current level of trust. As a result, the difference between these two constructs more fully represents change in trust, due to an outside stimulus (in this study, from a routine or non-routine problem). McKnight et al. (2004) applied this same principle to disposition to distrust and current level of distrust. Disposition to trust is defined as the tendency of an individual to trust others; disposition to distrust is the tendency of an individual to distrust others (McKnight et al. 2004).

  2. Previous research has demonstrated that students can be adequate subjects from which to generalize, as long as they are adequate for the research task used in a given study (Gordon et al. 1986; Greenberg 1987). As McKnight et al. (2002b) argued, students are appropriate for these types of trust studies, because such studies do not require an organizational context. Our pilot studies indicated wide variance in the operationalized problem domain with a broader range of participants. We discovered that the baseline knowledge of students was easily controlled because we could use technology and topics they worked on directly in a course in which they were all enrolled. This allowed for much more control and reliability in constructing routine and non-routine decision problems. To do so for a broader audience, in which Excel skills would be far more varied, would have been unwieldy from an experimental viewpoint.

    Although generalizability is always a concern for experiments, Lynch (1999) has observed: “Findings from single real-world settings and specific sets of ‘real’ people are no more likely to generalize than are findings from single laboratory settings with student subjects. Just as in the laboratory, the real world varies in background facets of subject characteristics, setting, context, relevant history, and time.” That is, any sample would have its peculiarities, and complete generalizability is only possible following replication of multiple samples in multiple settings. For similar reasons, students have been used effectively in trust-related team/group research in many studies appearing in top technology and behavioral science journals. A non-exhaustive list includes (Alnuaimi et al. 2010; Chidambaram and Jones 1993; Hill et al. 2009; Jarvenpaa et al. 1998, 2004; Kanawattanachal and Yoo 2007; Lowry et al. 2010; Warkentin et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 2007).

References

  • Alnuaimi OA, Robert LP, Maruping LM (2010) Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. J Manag Inf Syst 27(1):203–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashleigh M, Nandhakumar J (2007) Trust and technologies: implications for organizational work practices. Decis Support Syst 43(2):607–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benamati J, Serva MA, Fuller MA (2006) Are trust and distrust distinct constructs? An empirical study of the effects of trust and distrust among online banking users. Paper presented at the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’06), Kauai, HI

  • Bommer WH, Miles EW, Grover SL (2003) Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. J Organ Behav 24(2):181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown H, Poole M, Rodgers T (2004) Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and trust in virtual collaboration. J Manag Inf Syst 20(4):115–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram L, Jones B (1993) Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: a comparison of face- to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS Q 17(4):465–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res 14(2):189–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings LL, Bromley P (1996) The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development and validation. In: Tyler TR, Kramer RM (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 302–330

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Currall S, Judge T (1995) Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 64(2):151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JH (1973) Group decisions and social interactions: a theory of social decision schemes. Psychol Rev 80(2):97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis A, Khazanchi D, Murphy J, Zigurs I, Owens D (2009) Avatars, people, and virtual worlds: foundations for research in metaverse. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(2):90–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Day E, Arthur W Jr, Miyashiro B, Edwards B, Tubrè T, Tubrè A (2004) Criterion-related validity of statistical operationalizations of group general cognitive ability as a function of task type: comparing the mean, maximum, and minimum. J Appl Soc Psychol 34(7):1521–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2006) When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. J Manag 32(1):83–107

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW, Weingart WR (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 88(4):741–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong BA, Elfring T (2010) How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Acad Manag J 53(3):535–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA (2012) The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 97(2):360–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, Doty D (2013) Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: toward a process-state perspective. J Appl Psychol 98(4):559–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRosa DM, Hantula DA, Kock N, D’Arcy J (2004) Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: a media naturalness perspective. Human Resour Manag 43(2–3):219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2(4):265–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Market Res 38(2):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimoka A (2010) What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Q 34(2):373–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks K (1999) The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. J Appl Psychol 84(3):445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci 12(4):450–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley RS, Fryxell GE (1999) Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: the moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Acad Manag J 42(4):389–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eayrs MA (1993) Time, trust and hazard: hairdressers’ symbolic roles. Symb Interact 16(1):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger H, Grossmann V (2005) Non-routine tasks, restructuring of firms, and wage inequality within and between skill-groups. J Econ 86(3):197–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein S (1996) Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. J Person Soc Psychol 70(6):1164–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felps W, Mitchell TR, Byington E (2006) How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Res Organ Behav 27(2006):175–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D (2000) E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega Int J Manag Sci 28(6):725–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW (2004) Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega Int J Manag Sci 32(6):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(5):91–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Geng X, Whinston A, Zhang H (2005) Health of electronic communities: an evolutionary game approach. J Manag Inf Syst 21(3):83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez C, Tyler T (2008) The psychology of enfranchisement: engaging and fostering inclusion of members through voting and decision-making procedures. J Soc Issues 64(3):447–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N (1986) The “science of the sophomore” revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Acad Manag Rev 11(1):191–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J (1987) The college sophomore as guinea pig: setting the record straight. Acad Manag Rev 12(1):157–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill NS, Bartol KM, Tesluk PE, Langa GA (2009) Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 108(2):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes JG (1991) Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In: Jones WH, Perlman D (eds) Advances in personal relationships, 2nd edn. Jessica Kingsley, London, pp 57–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa S, Leidner D (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6):791–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa S, Knoll K, Leidner D (1998) Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst 14(4):791–815

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Shaw TR, Staples DS (2004) Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. Inf Syst Res 15(3):250–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Acad Sci Q 40(2):256–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA, Mannix EA (1999) The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad Manag J 42(4):389–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA, Greer L, Levine S, Szulanski G (2008) The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decis Negot 17(6):465–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2002) Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):187–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanawattanachal P, Yoo Y (2007) The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Q 31(4):783–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 19(2):195–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski RJ, Karol BL (1976) The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups. J Appl Psychol 61(5):630–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komiak S, Benbasat I (2008) A two-process view of trust and distrust building in recommendation agents: a process-tracing study. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(12):727–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organization: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu Rev Psychol 50(1):569–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred C (2004) Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Acad Manag J 47(3):385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ (1998) Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):438–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Hess TJ, Valacich JS (2008) Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. J Strateg Inf Syst 17(1):39–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF Jr (2003) Using Internet-based, distributed collaborative writing tools to improve coordination and group awareness in writing teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 46(4):277–297

  • Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF Jr, Curtis A, Lowry MR (2005) The impact of process structure on novice, virtual collaborative writing teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48(4):341–364

  • Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Romano NC Jr, Cheney P, Hightower RT (2006) The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Res 37(6):631–661

  • Lowry PB, Vance A, Moody G, Beckman B, Read A (2008) Explaining and predicting the impact of branding alliances and Web site quality on initial consumer trust of e-commerce Web sites. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):201–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Dean D, Marakas GM (2009) Toward building self-sustaining groups in PCR-based tasks through implicit coordination: the case of heuristic evaluation. J Assoc Inf Syst 10(3):170–195

  • Lowry PB, Wilson DW, Haig WL (2014) A picture is worth a thousand words: source credibility theory applied to logo and website design for heightened credibility and consumer trust. Int J Hum ComputInteract 30(1):63–93

  • Lowry PB, Zhang D, Zhou L, Fu X (2010) Effects of culture, social presence, and group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups. Inf Syst J 20(3):297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1979) Trust power. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch JG Jr (1999) Theory and external validity. J Acad Market Sci 27(3):367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejovsky B, Budescu D (2007) Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. J Person Soc Psychol 92(5):854–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Malhotra A, John R (2005) Perceived individual collaboration know-how development through information technology-enabled contextualization: evidence from distributed teams. Inf Syst Res 16(1):9–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks MA, Panzer FJ (2004) The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Hum Perform 17(1):25–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins LL, Gilson LL, Maynard MT (2004) Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here? J Manag 30(6):805–835

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer R, Davis J, Schoorman F (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2002) What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int J Electron Commer 6(2):35–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V (2006 August 13–16). Distrust and trust in B2C e-commerce: do they differ? Paper presented at the proceedings of the eighth international conference on electronic commerce (ICEC’06), Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

  • McKnight DH, Cummings L, Chervany N (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):473–490

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002a) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002b) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a Web site: a trust building model. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Kacmar C, Choudhury V (2004) Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk Internet expert advice site perceptions. E-Serv J 3(2):35–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

  • Moody GD, Galletta DF, Lowry PB (2014) When trust and distrust collide: the engendering and role of ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electron Commer Res Appl (forthcoming)

  • Morgan P, Tindale R (2002) Group vs. individual performance in mixed-motive situations: exploring an inconsistency. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87(1):44–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker JF Jr, Dennis A, Valacich JS, Vogel D, George JF (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7):40–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panteli N, Duncan E (2004) Trust and temporary virtual teams: alternative explanations and dramaturgical relationships. Inf Technol People 17(4):423–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou P, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf Syst Res 15(1):37–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, Straub DW, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Q 31(4):623–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips KW, Liljenquist KA, Neale MA (2009) Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Person Soc Psychol Bull 35(3):336–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccoli G, Ives B (2003) Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Q 27(3):365–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell A, Piccoli G, Ives B (2004) Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. DATABASE Adv Inf Syst 35(1):6–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proust J (2001) A plea for mental acts. Synthese 129(1):105–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle CM, Wende S, Will S (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de

  • Robert LP, Dennis AR, Hung Y-TC (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. J Manag Inf Syst 26(2):241–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts TL, Lowry PB, Sweeney PD (2006) An evaluation of the impact of social presence through group size and the use of collaborative software on group member “voice” in face-to-face and computer-mediated task groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 49(1):28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson SL (1996) Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm Sci Q 41(4):574–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romano NC, Lowry PB, Roberts TL (2007) Technology-supported small group interaction: extending a tradition of leading research for virtual teams and global organizations. Small Group Res 38(1):3–11

  • Rotter J (1971) Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Am Psychol 26(5):443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter J (1980) Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am Psychol 35(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S, Ahuja M, Sarker S, Kirkeby S (2011) The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 28(1):273–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders CS, Ahuja MK (2006) Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Res 37(6):662–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schul Y, Mayo R, Burnstein E (2004) Encoding under trust and distrust: the spontaneous activation of incongruent cognitions. J Person Soc Psychol 86(5):668–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schul Y, Mayo R, Burnstein E (2008) The value of distrust. J Exp Soc Psychol 44(5):1293–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Person Soc Psychol 91(6):1080–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger DM, Sandberg WR, Ragan JW (1986) Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Acad Manag J 29(1):51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons TL, Peterson RS (2000) Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. J Appl Psychol 85(1):102–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack LC (1988) Trust. In: London H, Exner JE Jr (eds) Dimensionality of personality. Wiley, New York, pp 561–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner ID (1966) Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behav Sci 11(1966):273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner ID (1972) Group process and productivity. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tardy CH (1988) Interpersonal evaluations: measuring attraction and trust. In: Tardy CH (ed) A handbook for the study of human communication. Ablex, Norwood, pp 269–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale RS, Kameda T, Hinsz VB (2003) Group decision making. In: Hogg MA, Cooper J (eds) Sage handbook of social psychology. Sage, London, pp 381–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Torkzadeh G, Dhillon G (2002) Measuring factors that influence the success of Internet commerce. Inf Syst Res 13(2):187–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczuch R, Lundgren H (2004) Psychological antecedents of institution-based consumer trust in e-retailing. Inf Manag 42(1):159–177

  • Warkentin ME, Sayeed L, Hightower R (1997) Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a Web-based conference system. Decis Sci 28(4):975–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Meader DK (1993) Sensemaking and group support systems. In: Jessup L, Valacich JS (eds) Group support systems: new perspectives. Macmillan, New York, pp 230–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Zand DE (1972) Trust and managerial problem solving. Adm Sci Q 17(2):229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Lowry PB, Zhou L, Fu X (2007) The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. J Manag Inf Syst 23(4):53–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I (2003) Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Organ Dyn 31(4):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and appreciate previous work, edits, and reviews from several academics who have made this article possible: John Romney, Bonnie Anderson, Linn Van Dyne, Anil Aggarwal, Jeffrey L. Jenkins, David Wilson, Laura Rawlins, and Whitney Lindsley.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, P7718, Academic Building 1, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China

    Paul Benjamin Lowry

  2. Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, 1130 E. Helen Street, P.O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0108, USA

    Ryan M. Schuetzler

  3. School of Business, University at Albany, State University of New York, Business Building 325, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Justin Scott Giboney

  4. Center for Process Innovation, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5029, Atlanta, GA, 30302-5029, USA

    Thomas A. Gregory

Authors
  1. Paul Benjamin Lowry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan M. Schuetzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin Scott Giboney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas A. Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Benjamin Lowry.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1 (DOC 252 kb)

Appendix 1. Measurement Items Detail

Appendix 1. Measurement Items Detail

Construct

Subconstruct

Code

Items

Sources

Disposition to trust

DT-Benevolence

DTB1

In general, people really do care about the well-being of others.

(McKnight et al. 2002a)

  

DTB2

The typical person is sincerely concerned about the problems of others.

 
  

DTB3

Most of the time, people care enough to try to be helpful, rather than just looking out for themselves.

 
 

DT-Integrity

DTI1

In general, most folks keep their promises.

 
  

DTI2

I think people generally try to back up their words with their actions.

 
  

DTI3

Most people are honest in their dealings with others.

 
 

DT-Competence

DTC1

I believe that most professional people do a very good job at their work.

 
  

DTC2

Most professionals are very knowledgeable in their chosen field.

 
  

DTC3

A large majority of professional people are competent in their area of expertise.

 
 

DT-Trusting stance (DTTS)

DTTS1

I usually trust people until they give me a reason to doubt when I first meet them.

 
  

DTTS2

I generally give people the benefit of the doubt when I first meet them.

 
  

DTTS3

My typical approach is to trust new acquaintances until they prove I should not trust them.

 

Disposition to distrust

Suspicion of Humanity-Benevolence

DDSOHB1

I worry that people are usually out for their own good.

Adapted from McKnight et al. (2004) for this study

  

DDSOHB2

It concerns me a lot that people pretend to care more about one another than they really do.

 
  

DDSOHB3

I fear that most people inwardly dislike putting themselves out to help other people.

 
 

Suspicion of Humanity-Integrity

DDSOHI1

Unfortunately, most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it.

 
  

DDSOHI2

It’s a troubling fact that people don’t always hold to the standard of honesty they claim.

 
  

DDSOHI3

Sadly, most people would cheat on their income tax if they thought they could get away with it.

 
 

Suspicion of Humanity-Competence

DDSOHC1

I get uncomfortable because many professionals are not as knowledgeable in their field as you would expect.

 
  

DDSOHC2

I am nervous that most professionals do a haphazard job at what they do.

 
  

DDSOHC3

Concern is justified, since many professionals are not really competent in their area of expertise.

 
 

Distrusting Stance

DDDSTA1

I’m usually cautious about relying on people when I first work with them.

 
  

DDDSTA2

When I first meet people, I tend to watch their actions closely.

 
  

DDDSTA3

I typically have suspicious feelings toward new acquaintances until they prove to me that I can trust them.

 
  

DDDSTA4

I am hesitant to trust people until after I have proven them.

 

Trusting beliefs

Benevolence

TBB1

I believe that my group would act in my best interest.

Adapted from McKnight et al. (2002a) for this study

  

TBB2

If I required help, my group would do its best to help me.

 
  

TBB3

My group is interested in my well-being, not just their own.

 
 

Integrity

TBI1

My group is truthful in its dealings with me.

 
  

TBI2

I would characterize my group as honest.

 
  

TBI3

My group would keep its commitments.

 
  

TBI4

My group is sincere and genuine.

 
 

Competence

TBC1

My group is competent and effective in solving Excel problems.

 
  

TBC2

My group performs its role of assisting in problem solving very well.

 
  

TBC3

Overall, my group is capable and proficient in Excel problem solving

 
  

TBC4

In general, my group is very knowledgeable about Excel.

 

Distrusting beliefs

Benevolence

DBB1

I am not sure that my group would act in my best interest.

Adapted from McKnight and Choudhury (2006) for this study

  

DBB2

If I required help, I feel apprehensive about whether my group would do its best to help me.

 
  

DBB3

I suspect that the members in my group are interested in just their own well-being, not in my well-being.

 
 

Integrity

DBI1

I am worried about whether my group would be truthful in its dealings with me.

 
  

DBI2

I would feel cautious about characterizing my group as honest.

 
  

DBI3

It is uncertain whether my group would keep its commitments.

 
  

DBI4

I am uneasy about whether my group is sincere and genuine.

 
 

Competence

DBC1

I am skeptical about whether my group is competent and effective in solving the problems.

 
  

DBC2

I feel uncertain about whether my group performs its role of solving spreadsheet problems.

 
  

DBC3

Overall, I worry about whether my group members are capable and proficient users of spreadsheet software.

 
  

DBC4

I feel nervous about how knowledgeable my group is about spreadsheet software.

 

Note: Except where noted, all items were anchored as 7-point Likert-like scales \((1{-}strongly\,disagree \ldots 7{-}strongly\,agree)\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowry, P.B., Schuetzler, R.M., Giboney, J.S. et al. Is Trust Always Better than Distrust? The Potential Value of Distrust in Newer Virtual Teams Engaged in Short-Term Decision-Making. Group Decis Negot 24, 723–752 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9410-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9410-x

Keywords

  • Trust
  • Distrust
  • Virtual teams
  • Team performance
  • Decision making
  • Decision quality