Handbook of Management Scales/Trust
Trust (alpha = 0.89)
The author theoretically conceptualizes and empirically validates a scale to measure individual trust in online firms. The items represent three key aspects of trust: trustee's ability, benevolence, and integrity. Two surveys were conducted (online retailing company Amazon and online banking division [OBD]), to ensure adequate levels of reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and nomological validity.
Trust is defined as "the willingness of a party [trustor] to be vulnerable to the actions of another party [trustee] based on the expectation that the other [trustee] will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party [trustee]" (Mayer et al.).
- Amazon [OBD] has the skills and expertise to perform transactions in an expected manner.
- Amazon [OBD] has access to the information needed to handle transactions appropriately.
- Amazon [OBD] is fair in its conduct of customer transactions.
- Amazon [OBD] is fair in its customer service policies following a transaction.
- Amazon [OBD] is open and receptive to customer needs.
- Amazon [OBD] makes good-faith efforts to address most customer concerns.
- Overall, Amazon [OBD] is trustworthy.
- Bhattacherjee (2002): Individual Trust in Online Firms: Scale Development and Initial Test. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 211–241
The trust scales was initially conceptualized as a second-order construct consisting of the dimensions of ability, integrity, and benevolence. However, it turned out that a first-order model demonstrated a better fit compared to the second-order model.
Trust (alpha = 0.82/0.84)
Trust was measured with a measure developed by Mayer and Gavin (2005) which, in turn, is an update of Mayer and Davis’s (1999) measure. The Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Trust refers to the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of a trustee on the basis of the expectation that the trustee will perform a particular action, irrespective of any monitoring or control mechanisms.
- I would be comfortable giving my supervisor a task or problem that was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her actions.
- If someone questioned my supervisor’s motives, I would give my supervisor the benefit of the doubt.
- I would be willing to let my supervisor have complete control over my future in this company.
- I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my supervisor.
- If I had my way, I wouldn’t let my supervisor have any influence over issues that are important to me.
- Colquitt/Rodell (2011): Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 1183–1206
The appendix of the Colquitt/Rodell article includes several other trust scales used in past research on trust and justice.
Trust (alpha = 0.85)
Trust was measured using a Likert-type scale (1 - strongly disagree; 5 - strongly agree) adapted from Aulakh et al. (1996) and Sako/Helper (1998) that captures fairness, reliability, and goodwill among alliance partners.
Interorganizational trust is defined as the expectation held by one firm that another will not exploit its vulnerabilities when faced with the opportunity to do so. The definition bases interorganizational trust on three related components: reliability, fairness, and goodwill.
- Sometimes our foreign partner changes facts slightly in order to get what they want. (reverse-coded)
- Our foreign partner has promised to do things without actually doing them later. (reverse-coded)
- Our foreign partner has given us truthful and valuable information even when it did not form part of the contract.
- Our firm is generally doubtful of the information provided to us by our foreign partner. (reverse-coded)
- Our foreign partner firm is generally doubtful of the information we provide them. (reverse-coded)
- Krishnan et al. (2006): When Does Trust Matter To Alliance Performance? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 894–917.