WHILE TRUST IS COOL AND COLLECTED, DISTRUST IS FIERY AND FRENZIED: A MODEL OF DISTRUST CONCEPTS

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in face-to-face and virtual teams (2020, background): “There is an ongoing debate as to whether distrust is the opposite end of the trust dimension or whether trust and distrust are two related, but distinct constructs (see Guo et al., 2017; McKnight and Chervany, 2001; Schoorman et al., 2007, 2015, for reviews).”
What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology (2001, background): “Other distrust constructs could be defined [48], but are not included here.”
Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers (2002, background): “Previous research however regarded trust as a single conceptual construct, albeit possibly containing several statistical dimensions (Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky, 1999; Gefen & Straub, 2002; McKnight et al., 2000; McKnight & Chervany, 2001; Gefen & DeVine, 2001).”
What Does the Brain Tell Us About Trust and Distrust? Evidence from a Functional Neuroimaging Study (2010, background): “Distrust can also be broken down into more dimensions (McKnight and Chervany 2000).”
Dispositional Trust And Distrust Distinctions in Predicting High- and Low-Risk Internet Expert Advice Site Perceptions (2005, background): “McKnight and Chervany (2001) compare trust and distrust to two elephants.”