Advertisement

An Empirical Test of How Events Turn the Cognitive Gears of Trust

  • D. Harrison McKnight
  • Peng Liu
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 401)

Abstract

This study empirically tests a social psychology-based Information Processing Model (IPM) that explains how events may change trust over time based on three cognitive mechanisms or “gears”: attention, attribution, and judgment. We briefly describe the IPM, and then empirically validate its assumptions and extensions. The IPM is contrasted with the incremental growth model (IGM) of trust change. We find more support for the IPM than the IGM.

Keywords

Trust attention attribution threshold risk illusion change 

References

  1. 1.
    Blau, P.M.: Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kramer, R.M.: Divergent Realities and Convergent Disappointments in the Hierarchic Relation: Trust and the Intuitive Auditor at Work. In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 216–245. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, Control Strategies and Allocation of Function in Human-Machine Systems. Ergonomics 35, 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Information Systems Research 13, 334–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKnight, D.H., Liu, P., Pentland, B.T.: How Events Affect Trust: A Baseline Information Processing Model with Three Extensions. In: Dimitrakos, T., Moona, R., Patel, D., McKnight, D.H. (eds.) IFIPTM 2012. IFIP AICT, vol. 374, pp. 217–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohr, L.B.: Approaches to Explanation: Variance theory and Process Theory. Explaining Organizational Behavior, ch. 2, pp. 35–70. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G.: A Leap of Faith? Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 586–604 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sitkin, S.B., Weingart, L.R.: Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity. Academy of Management Journal 38, 1573–1592 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Harrison McKnight
    • 1
  • Peng Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.Accounting and Information Systems DepartmentMichigan State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems & Decision ScienceCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations