Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations

By Bill McEvily, Marco Tortoriello. 2011

412 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/408ef5d906e1682df0745d1fc84a99a068536a4c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Information Systems

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

Trust as a predictor of innovation network ties in project teams (2015, methodology): “Psychometrically-valid measures of trust and its antecedents have rarely been utilised in network research (McEvily and Tortoriello, 2011), with researchers instead using global proxy indicators (e.g. Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2008; van de Bunt et al., 2005, for recent exception see Yakovleva et…”
Consensus on conceptualizations and definitions of trust: Are we there yet? (2015, background): “In addition, such defi nitional analyses could facilitate a third manner of clarifying trust-as-process constructs—that is, the development and use of correspondingly clear operationalizations of trust concepts (Lyon, Möllering, & Saunders, 2012 , 2015 ; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011 ).”
Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale (2013, background): “First, from a conceptual standpoint, the trust literature has developed greatly since Rotter’s (1967) work, with an added emphasis on being specific about the various components of trust (McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).”
Getting to Know You (2017, positive): “The conceptualization of trust as reliance and disclosure intentions has received considerable support in the literature (e.g., Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011) and offers a means of determining what an individual might trust another party to do and to what extent.”
Examining the effects of feeling trusted by supervisors in the workplace: A self-evaluative perspective (2014, background): “Several studies have indicated the good psychometric properties of this trust scale (Gillespie, 2003, 2012; Lam, Loi, & Leong, 2013; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).”
Interpersonal trust within negotiations: : Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. (2014, background): “…trust as a belief, an expectation, a disposition, an intention, and even a behavior—researchers have recently made progress toward developing consensus on what trust is and how it should be operationalized (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Ferrin et al., 2008; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).”
Trust and Trustworthiness (2018, neutral): “Considering only the organizational and management literatures, trust attitudes have been studied via surveys in 129 different ways over the past 48 years (McEvily and Tortoriello 2011).”
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”