25. Foundations of interpersonal trust
By Jeffry A. Simpson. 2007
96 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d4b74fa003c63bfcca6449ff5d159405283499a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Shelly L. Gable
- H. T. Reis
- Eli J. Finkel
- Daniel C. Molden
- K. Herbst
- Jeffry A. Simpson
- Gráinne M. Fitzsimons
- Allison K. Farrell
Citations in the corpus
- Motivations for promotion and prevention and the role of trust and commitment in interpersonal forgiveness (2010, background): “…at the outset that, in the wake of an interpersonal transgression, feelings of trust motivate forgiveness by highlighting considerations of whether the benefits that might still be attained in a relationship merit accepting the risk of further betrayal (Rousseau et al., 1998; Simpson, 2007).”
- Psychological Foundations of Trust (2007, background): “Based on a recent review of the interpersonal trust literature (Simpson, 2007), four core principles of interpersonal trust stand out.”
- Power and social influence in relationships. (2015, background): “In fledgling relationships, the degree which an individual can trust his or her partner should be inferred from clear conflicts of interest in which the partner forgos what is best for him or her and instead does what is best for his or her partner or the relationship (Simpson, 2007).”
- On the dangers of pulling a fast one: Advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and purchase intention (2012, background): “We draw on theorizing on interpersonal trust (Holmes and Rempel 1989; Simpson 2007) to examine how exposure to heuristically processed trust-relevant information (disclaimer speed, in this case) differentially impacts consumers’ purchase intention toward untrusted (either trust-unknown or…”
- Good News! Capitalizing on Positive Events in an Interpersonal Context (2010, background): “, 2004), and relationship-specific expectancies about a particular partner’s likely responsiveness (Collins & Read, 1994; Simpson, 2007).”