Towards an Interdisciplinary Conceptualization of Trust: A Typological Approach

By Peter Ping Li. Management and Organization Review, 2007

125 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.

Consensus on conceptualizations and definitions of trust: Are we there yet? (2015, background): “…2010 ; McKnight & Chervany, 2001a ) and risk management (e.g., Earle, 2010 ); as well as from explicitly interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g., Cao, 2015 ; Earle, Siegrist, & Gutscher, 2007 ; Gambetta, 1988b ; Li, 2007 ; Consensus on Conceptualizations and Defi nitions of Trust: Are We There Yet?”
Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other? (2011, background): “There must be a behavioural manifestation for trust to be made ‘real’ (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007): what Li (2007, 2008) calls ‘trust-as-choice’.”
Getting to Know You (2017, unknown): “While research interest in the trust area has increased in recent years, many basic trust processes remain unclear (Li, 2007), and the trust literature has been criticized for being “long on theory and short on empirical research” (Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004: 166).”
Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness (2008, background): “Recently, interdisciplinary literature on trust has highlighted the differentiation between trustfulness and trustworthiness (Hardin, 2002; Kiyonari et al., 2006; Li, 2007; Schoorman et al., 2007; Snijders & Keren, 2001).”