This book’s 31 chapters reflect trust as an important and vibrant field of study, both in terms of what has already been done, but more significantly in the fruitful future research agendas our contributing authors have outlined. The chapters that comprise the book’s six parts highlight some of the foundational approaches and building blocks in this field. In this last chapter, we do not merely repeat what our contributors have identified, but instead offer a meta-level perspective that identifies eight challenges and future directions for study.
A consistent theme that many of our authors raise is the importance of rebalancing current conceptual and empirical attention in this field to incorporate more affective elements. Many of our contributors outline the necessity and value of trust research shifting away from the dominance of cognitive considerations, to include the relatively neglected topic of affect as a fundamental feature of trust. Many chapters have identified the value and importance of incorporating the role of emotions into the study of trust (see Chapter 1 by van Knippenberg, but also Chapter 9 by Baer & Colquitt) and ensuring emotion in studies of distrust (see Chapter 4 by Sitkin & Bijlsma-Frankema). Indeed, affect is maybe one of the defining elements that not only distinguishes trust from distrust, but that is also central in detecting transitions of trust into distrust (Nienaber, et al., 2016).
Insight into the triggers, patterns and effects of trust and distrust (see Chapter 2 by Korsgaard) can benefit from more systematic exploration of the dynamics of trust and distrust (see Chapter 4 by Sitkin & Bijlsma-Frankema; Chapter 15 by Kim; Chapter 16 by Gillespie & Siebert; Chapter 28 by Searle). In promoting more dynamic perspectives, attention would be given to how processes may be interrelated, such as prior experiences being seminal to shaping future tra jectories as Robinson’s (1996) work has identified. This directs attention to emergent and ongoing processes of trusting (Möllering, 2013). These are matters likely to require far more sophisticated thought if trust researchers are to meet the challenges that accompany greater use of dynamic and longitudinal study and so devise far more rigourous designs.
Another broad area of concern raised by many of our authors is the impact of the ability to analyse the neurological foundations of trust in today’s society. Trust studies are at a crossroads, with technological advances offering the possibility of significant shifts in the field through permitting far greater illumination of previously hidden biological dimensions of human experiences. Critically, important contributions have highlighted the biological bases of trust and distrust, including Zak and colleagues (2005) on trustworthiness and oxytocin, and Dimoka’s (2010) identification of the biological differences between trust and distrust. This research has heralded new directions for further empirical study. Such work is, however, likely to produce interesting debates regarding the objective assessment of levels of trust and distrust and individuals’ subsequent subjective decisions and actions which Bies and colleagues explore (see Chapter 17, this volume). Thus, while biological measures might register distrust, if there are few options but to remain in a situation, observable behaviours might signal trust due to situational constraints that mask underlying psychological preferences.
Developments in technology have revolutionized both the convenience and the level of intrusion of data gathering. New applications, such as apps on a mobile phone, but also miniaturization of technology, are likely to ease dynamic biographical and attitudinal measurement, and so enable significant inroads into the study of dynamics. As well as affecting our ability to observe and measure indicators of trust, changes in technology have implications for what is the object of trust. For example, trust in technical systems and trust in the privacy measures put in place by technology organizations will continue to grow in prominence. The ability of governments and corporations to monitor and record the actions of individuals and groups has grown faster than our ability as individuals or as scientists to keep up with its implications. Undoubtedly, this will continue to grow as a significant focus of future research on trust (see Bernstein, 2012, for an illustration). Further, alongside these fresh insights for the field, new developments will create opportunities to revisit and compare results using more cross-sectional recall-based methods.
Related to our use of more dynamic models, noted above, is scholars’ ability to extend conceptual and methodological attention regarding time. While advances in statistical techniques have kept pace with developments in dynamics, there has certainly not been the same level of sophistication applied to our conceptualization of whether and how temporality might impact trust. Little attention has been paid to growing insight into time and its impact on organizational life (Roe, Waller, & Clegg, 2008; Shipp & Fried, 2014a, 2014b). Further, the question of time and both its subjective and objective impact are all too often afterthoughts to the development of trust study designs. Yet, temporality is a pressing concern that demands far more rigourous thinking, especially if our longitudinal and dynamic studies are really to capture phenomena. For example, earlier studies of teams (Gersick, 1988, 1991, 1994) have much to offer in terms of showing how time, pace and temporal aspects shape behaviours. Such work reveals how beginnings, middles and ends of work processes exhibit predictable patterns in terms of the pace and types of decisions and behaviours. Scholars who gather multiple assessment points, could extend their insights by examining differences across starting, middle and end phases of events. For example, in the study of trust repair, temporal considerations might include questions about whether the object of interest concerns the onset or closure of a phenomenon (such as capturing the tipping points that occur in the transitions of trust to distrust), or include the types and frequency of measurement necessary to ensure adequate capture of the flows and waves of activity and change. Studies might seek to focus on temporal location (e.g. what day in the week or what time of the day data are collected) (see Shipp & Cole, 2015; Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert, 2009; Shipp & Fried, 2014a, 2014b), duration (e.g., length of distinct stages) or intensities (e.g., extremes of highs and lows in different stages or processes for repair) of phenomena (Roe, 2008). Further, we need more attention paid to when assessments are collected – for example, might it matter whether they are gathered on the same day, as we know experiences at the start of the week (Monday blues or manic Mondays) are different from those captured at the end (start of the weekend Friday).
Historically, most trust research focused on an individual trustor and an individual trustee. Over recent years, trust research has broadened to conceptualize trust beyond dyads of individuals (Chapter 5 by Lyu & Ferrin) to include multi-level models (see Chapter 8 by Fulmer) that include the group (Chapter 6 by Nienaber et al.) and organization (Chapter 7 by Brattström & Bachmann). These broader perspectives facilitate novel insights into a variety of interrelationships and spillovers that affect trust. Adopting more multi-level perspectives might necessitate revisiting less sophisticated use of simple aggregation by researchers, and demand more attention on the value of focusing on asymmetries and outliers, or trust reciprocations (De Jong & Dirks, 2012; Korsgaard, Brower, & Lester, 2015). Attention and assessment to identify the distinct curvilinear patterns of trust and distrust will be a potentially important future opportunity.
This book includes a whole part that reflects how trust may function differently in diverse contexts and how different situations may raise various determinants and effects, making context central to enhancing our understanding of trust. While scholars have long attested to the centrality of context to enhancing the study of organizational phenomena (Griffin, 2007; Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001), there remains greater insight required regarding the specific ways that context may be critical to studies of trust. Through the increased scrutiny of trust matters in different locations, there has been greater illumination of the distinct types and severity of risks, and in revealing the asymmetries of information and power. It clearly remains important that further studies also pay attention to the influence and impact of context to allow more fine-grained distinctions to be made of important trust antecedents or to shape distinctive processes and major outputs (Griffin, 2007). Context may also be significant in attending to the subtleties required to adequately capture the dynamics of interpersonal and organizational relations (Shipp & Cole, 2015). In this book, scholarly attention has explored trust in the safety-critical domain in Chapter 24 by Gunia and colleagues and indicated some key omissions to our knowledge. Dichotomising trust further into the dual concerns of vulnerability and confidence could allow focus on the tones and shades in other high-stakes contexts, such as those involving the military, police, and oil and gas. Likewise, perspectives of different stakeholders may offer important dimensionality to future impactful study.
A further important domain that is captured in at least two chapters is the cyber world (see Chapter 3 by Blomqvist and Cook and Chapter 22 by van der Werff and colleagues. The speed of current developments makes this remain an ongoing domain for further research. The scale and scope of its influence is high for individuals, teams, organizations and more globally. It is one in which to explore institutional trustworthiness (see Chapter 12 by Bachmann), such as found in the encroachments and tensions between the state and private corporations regarding individuals’ privacy, in the fidelity and robustness of systems, or in understanding better the motives involved in the protection of individual citizens or users. It offers an important fresh domain to explore perceptions and triggers for vulnerability and trust breach as both individuals and organizations seek to mitigate against system breaches from either their own distrusting employees, such as demonstrated by Snowdon, or external nefarious sources, such as unsympathetic states or movements (e.g. ISIS/DAESH), competitors, criminals or loose configurations of hackers. Trust is, therefore, inherently susceptible to breach, courtesy both of its novelty and lack of knowledge by users, and of system weaknesses. It is important to consider whether the potential for malignance from criminals and overarching institutions makes this simply a new domain in which to study old trust questions; or might it offer something to advance exploration of the dynamics of trust and distrust. Does context matter more in cyber domains than in others, or is it merely a different backdrop for the same concerns?
A concern raised in many of the chapters, concurrently with the wider field is the adequacy and application of measures (McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011) and the degree to which those measures are grounded in clear and consensual conceptualizations of trust. For example, questions of what generalized trust means in both a conceptual and methodological sense have broad implications (Freitag & Traunmüller, 2009; Kong, 2016). Debates are ongoing about whether the willingness to trust is something stable within individuals, derived from early experiences, or something that might change related to key experiences, or by virtue of aging processes (Kong, 2016). Might measures be robust and able to transcend contexts, or distinct to a particular context or culture (Ferrin & Gillespie, 2010)? Or is trust something more specific, and so varying with the referent and thus a particular relationship? In contrast, might measurement be better focused on conceptualizing processes of trusting (Möllering, 2013) and identifying particular thresholds or optimal levels for trust? Can we gain consensus on what constitutes excessive levels of trust or distrust? What are the differences between such levels or the dynamics between trust and distrust, or can these two coexist (Buckwalter, 2008; Cho, 2006; Dimoka, 2010; Gill & Butler, 2003; Kramer & Cook, 2004; Kramer & Isen, 1994; Saunders, Dietz, & Thornhill, 2014; Searle & Ball, 2004)? Should greater attention be given to feeling trusted, rather than to trusting others (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009) or to feeling distrusted? Finally, many of our authors identify the need for greater attention to the relationships between trust and other phenomena, either to develop greater insight into the nominological network of trust and dimensions such as commitment and identification (Ng, 2015), justice (see Chapter 10 by Lind), or to understanding better trust’s antecedents (see Chapter 9 by Baer & Colquitt) and consequences (see Chapter 5 by Lyu & Ferrin).
In conclusion, this volume has included chapters that address a wide range of issues in how we theorize about trust, measure it, test our models and apply it to a wide range of social phenomena. Trust has been one of the most rapidly growing areas of social science research because it is first so broadly relevant and second our understanding of the phenomenon has increased so substantially. Yet, our authors have also identified many unresolved issues that require further study and application. Trust remains a vibrant field of study and one which has wideranging applications. The eight issues we have identified in this chapter show clearly there remain many perplexing and emergent topics that require further study. Thus, we expect trust to remain a vibrant and compelling area of study for the foreseeable future, and one that invites scholars to continue to vigourously pursue these important and engaging issues.
Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The Transparency Paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216.
Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2), 327–347.
Buckwalter, R. L. (2008). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(2), 166–168.
Cho, J. (2006). The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 25–35.
De Jong, B. A., & Dirks, K. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406.
Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 373–396.
Ferrin, D. L., & Gillespie, N. (2010). Trust differences across national-societal cultures much to do or much ado about nothing. In M. N. Saunders, D. Skinner, G. Dietz, N. Gillespie & R. J. Lewicki (eds), Organisational trust: A cultural perspective (pp. 42–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freitag, M., & Traunmüller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 782–803.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.
Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36.
Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 9–45.
Gill, J., & Butler, R. (2003). Cycles of trust and distrust in joint-ventures. European Management Journal, 14(4), 81–89.
Griffin, M. A. (2007). Specifying organizational contexts: systematic links between contexts and processes in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 859–863.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Kong, D. T. (2016). Exploring democracy and ethnic diversity as sociopolitical moderators for the relationship between age and generalized trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 28–30.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. (2015). It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management 41(1), 47–70.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: dilemmas and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kramer, R. M., & Isen, A. M. (1994). Trust and distrust – Its psychological and social dimensions. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 105–107.
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 23–63.
Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (eds), Handbook of Advances in Trust Research (pp. 285–305). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ng, T. W. H. (2015). The incremental validity of organizational commitment, organizational trust, and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 154–163.
Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599
Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology. European Psychologist, 13(1), 37–52.
Roe, R. A., Waller, M. J., & Clegg, S. R. (2008). Time in organizational research. New York: Routledge.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1–13.
Saunders, M. N. K., Dietz, G., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or independent but co-existing? Human Relations, 67, 639–665.
Searle, R. H., & Ball, K. S. (2004). The development of trust and distrust in a merger. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(7), 708–721.
Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn’t it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 237–260.
Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (2014a). How time impacts groups, organizations and methological choices. Vol. 2. London: Psychology Press.
Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (2014b). How Time Impacts Individuals. Vol. 1. London: Psychology Press.
Zak, P., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48(5), 522–527.