Qualitative meta-analysis of propensity to trust measurement

被引:26
作者
Patent, Volker [1 ]
Searle, Rosalind H. [2 ]
机构
[1] Open Univ, Fac Arts & Social Sci, Sch Psychol, Milton Keynes, Bucks, England
[2] Univ Glasgow, Adam Smith Business Sch, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
关键词
Trust; disposition; review; qualitative meta-analysis; trust dimensions; INTERPERSONAL-TRUST; ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST; TRUSTWORTHINESS; PERSONALITY; DISTRUST; SCALE; AMBIGUITY; ONLINE; MODEL;
D O I
10.1080/21515581.2019.1675074
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
In a rapidly changing and dynamic world, individuals' propensity to trust is likely to become an increasingly important facet for understanding human behaviour, yet its measurement has mostly been unexplored. We undertake the first systematic qualitative survey of propensity to trust scales using qualitative meta-analysis methodology to review the literature (1966-2018) and identify 26 measures and their applications in 179 studies. Using content analysis, we thematically organise these scales into six thematic areas and discuss the emerging implications. We find that while most of these scales reflect propensity to trust in terms of a positive belief in human nature, other themes include general trust, role expectations, institutional trust, cautiousness and other personality attributes. We reveal significant methodological concerns regarding several scales and argue for more considered selection of scales for use in research. We examine the case for multidimensionality in measures of propensity to trust used within organisational research. Rather than treating a lack of generalisability of findings in existing organisational studies as purely a problem of measurement design, we instead outline an agenda for further conceptual and empirical study.
引用
收藏
页码:136 / 163
页数:28
相关论文
共 114 条
[1]  
Ale B., 2009, Risk: An Introduction The Concepts of Risk, Danger and Chance
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Journal of Trust Research, DOI DOI 10.1080/21515581.2011.552424
[3]   A new propensity to trust scale and its relationship with individual well-being: implications for HRM policies and practices [J].
Ashleigh, Melanie J. ;
Higgs, Malcolm ;
Dulewicz, Vic .
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2012, 22 (04) :360-376
[4]  
Blau P.M., 1964, SOCIOL INQ, V34, P193, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1475-682X.1964.TB00583.X, 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x]
[5]  
Boon S., 1991, Cooperation and prosocial behavior, P190
[6]   What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope With It? A Panel Discussion [J].
Brannick, Michael T. ;
Chan, David ;
Conway, James M. ;
Lance, Charles E. ;
Spector, Paul E. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2010, 13 (03) :407-420
[7]   AMBIGUITY AND DISCRIMINATING POWER IN PERSONALITY INVENTORIES [J].
BROEN, WE .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY, 1960, 24 (02) :174-179
[8]  
Cattell R., 2012, The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences
[9]   Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors [J].
Chan, AW ;
Altman, DG .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7494) :753-756
[10]   What's in a frame? Goal framing, trust and reciprocity [J].
Chaudhuri, Ananish ;
Li, Yaxiong ;
Paichayontvijit, Tirnud .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 57 :117-135