Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions

By R. Lewicki, Edward C. Tomlinson, Nicole M. Gillespie. 2006

1,268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/287186acc2ae7cd3fd9ff93410d82d1b80e5d177

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Support, trust, satisfaction, intent to leave and citizenship at organizational level (2010, positive): “Based on the crucial review of McEvily and Tortoriello (2008) and Lewicki et al. (2006) felt that the measure of trust was debatable because after having drawn up an inventory of 119 trust measures, McEvily and Tortoriello concluded that the vast majority of the scale had been used only once.”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, neutral): “The fields of industrial psychology (Lewicki, Tomlinson, and Gillespie 2006), social psychology (Thielmann and Hilbig 2015) and the vast literature on human–human teamwork (Salas and Cannon-Bowers 2001; Salas, Cooke, and Rosen 2008) provide many human–human team models and research on trust.”
Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust (2016, methodology): “Trust Finally, we employed the 10-item Behavioural Trust Inventory (BTI) to measure trust (Gillespie, 2012; Lewicki et al., 2006).”
Trustworthiness: A Critical Ingredient for Entrepreneurs Seeking Investors (2014, methodology): “Specifically, if the trustee’s behavior confirms untrustworthiness, then trust is violated while distrust develops (Lewicki et al., 2006).”
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust (2012, background): “Without reiterating the issues already discussed at length, we refer readers to these other reviews for a good summary of topics that have been raised in the definition of trust, including the distinction among bases of trust and between attitudinal versus behavioral trust (Kramer, 1999), the dimens”
The dark side of trust: When trust becomes a ‘poisoned chalice’ (2014, background): “If viewed as a process, it is apparent that trust is subject to the outcomes of social interactions between the parties concerned (Lewicki et al., 2006; Zand, 1972).”
Explaining Change: Theorizing and Testing Dynamic Mediated Longitudinal Relationships (2010, background): “Lewicki et al. (2006) attributed this shortcoming mainly to methodological issues and called for more longitudinal and qualitative studies of trust.”
Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in face-to-face and virtual teams (2020, background): “Most other existing definitions include one or both of these two key defining elements: the positive expectation of favorable treatment by another party and the willingness to be vulnerable (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2007; Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012; Lewicki et al., 2006; McEvily and Tortoriello, 2011; Ro”
Creating a High-Trust Organization: An Exploration into Organizational Policies that Stimulate Interpersonal Trust Building (2008, background): “As argued in the second section, the presence of affect-based trust rather than cognition-based trust only (McAllister, 1995; see also Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006; Lewicki et al., 2006; Mesquita, 2007) can be used as an indicator of the presence of positive relational signals and of stronger trust.”
The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review (2012, result): “Third, the different sources of trust noted above have striking parallels with the three different types of trust presented by Lewicki et al.(2006) in their review of inter-personal trust models.”