Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority pp 37–53Cite as

Trust as a Leap of Hope for Transaction Value: A Two-Way Street Above and Beyond Trust Propensity and Expected Trustworthiness

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation ((NSM,volume 62))

Abstract

There are two divergent views concerning the status of trust research, one being optimistic and the other being pessimistic. I partially agree with both views, but asymmetrically more toward the pessimistic view. The primary purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, I explore the underlying reasons for the current problems in trust research. Second, I explore the potential solutions to the current problems. The central theme of my argument is that trust should be defined as trustor’s deliberate decision to voluntarily increase trustor’s specific vulnerability toward trustee above and beyond trustor’s propensity to trust as well as above and beyond trustor confident expectation of trustee’s trustworthiness (either due to trustee’s trait-like characters or due to institutional assurance). In this sense, trust should be reframed as a leap of hope to enhance transaction value by taking advantage of vulnerability. This is because the most laudable potential contribution from trust research to other domains of social research may lie in the reframing of high vulnerability from a risk to be avoided to an opportunity to be created and captured. The critical implications of this reframing to advance future trust research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: The philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 557–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, R. (2011). At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, T. H., Tuggle, C. S., McMullen, J. S., Bierman, L., & Greening, D. W. (2010). Dynamic creation: Extending the radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 31, 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. L. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch-Salamon, S., & Robinson, S. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 593–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, G. (2011). Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other? Journal of Trust Research, 1, 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35, 557–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fei, X. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. (2013). On the institutionalization of trust research and practice: Heaven awaits! Journal of Trust Research, 3, 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., & Fainshmidt, S. (2013). Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 76–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, D. E. (2004). Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 238–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 811–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A., & Raffaelli, R. (2010). Uncovering mechanisms of theory development in an academic field: Lessons from leadership research. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 359–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanauer, N., & Beinhocker, E. (2014). Capitalism redefined. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 31, 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keim, G. D. (1978). Corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the enlightened self-interest model. Academy of Management Review, 3, 32–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1235–1255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C., Liu, J., & Fu, P. P. (2007). Feeling trusted by business leaders in China: Antecedents and the mediating role of value congruence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24, 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (1998). Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19, 829–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2007). Toward an interdisciplinary conceptualization of trust: A typological approach. Management and Organization Review, 3, 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2008). Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4, 413–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2010). Toward a learning-based view of internationalization: The accelerated trajectories of cross-border learning. Journal of International Management, 16, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2012). Exploring the unique roles of trust and play in private creativity: From the complexity-ambiguity-metaphor link to the trust-play-creativity link. Journal of Trust Research, 2, 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a new context for trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2014). Toward the geocentric framework of intuition: The Yin-Yang Balancing between the Eastern and Western perspectives on intuition. In M. Sinclair (Ed.), Handbook of research methods on intuition (pp. 28–41). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumineau, F. (in press). How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206314556656.

  • Malhotra, D. (2004). Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 94, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1982). The technology of foolishness. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations (pp. 69–81). Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K. A., Rigdon, M. L., & Smith, V. L. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B. (2011). Reorganizing the boundaries of trust: From discrete alternatives to hybrid forms. Organization Science, 22, 1266–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organizational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 23–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. J. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce customer: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13, 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2013). Trust without knowledge? Comment on Hardin, “Government without trust.”. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2014). Trust, calculativeness, and relationships: A special issue 20 years after Williamson’s warning. Journal of Trust Research, 4, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23, 698–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnighan, J. K., Malhotra, D., & Weber, J. M. (2004). Paradoxes of trust: Empirical and theoretical departures from a traditional model. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions (pp. 293–326). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, V. (2013). Sympathy for the devil? Reflections on the perils of institutionalizing trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillutla, M. M., Malhotra, D., & Murninghan, J. K. (2003). Attributions of trust and calculus of reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., & Ryu, S. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization Science, 19, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, and collective self. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1964). The sociology of Georg Simmel [K. H. Wolff, trans.]. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development trust. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whipple, J. M., Griffins, S. E., & Daugherty, P. J. (2013). Conceptualizations of trust: Can we trust them? Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 117–130. doi:10.1111/jbl.12014.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. The Journal of Law and Economics, 36, 453–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Ping Li

Authors
  1. Peter Ping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Ping Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

  2. Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Alan J. Tomkins

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Li, P.P. (2015). Trust as a Leap of Hope for Transaction Value: A Two-Way Street Above and Beyond Trust Propensity and Expected Trustworthiness. In: Bornstein, B., Tomkins, A. (eds) Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol 62. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation