Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, Spring 2005 (2005) DOI: 10.

1007/s10869-004-2229-8

ANTECEDENTS OF TRUST: ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY CONDITION FOR THE RELATION BETWEEN PROPENSITY TO TRUST AND INTENTION TO TRUST Harjinder Gill
The University of Western Ontario

Kathleen Boies
Concordia University

Joan E. Finegan Jeffrey McNally

The University of Western Ontario

ABSTRACT: Two studies were conducted to examine the antecedents of intention to trust proposed by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman [1995, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709734]. In their model, intention to trust is inuenced by the perceived characteristics of the trustee and the predisposition of the trustor. We found that perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee predicted an individuals intention to trust. Propensity to trust, that is, an individuals disposition to trust, correlated with intention to trust when information about trustworthiness was ambiguous, but did not correlate with intention to trust when information about trustworthiness was clear. The notion of strong and weak situations is used to argue that situational strength is a boundary condition of the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. KEY WORDS: trust; propensity to trust; intention to trust; personality; strong versus weak situations.

Trust has been linked to a variety of positive work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as well as important work behaviors such as job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Watson & Papamarcos, 2002). Trust has also been found to be a critical factor in establishing cooperative
Address correspondence to Harjinder Gill, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2. E-mail: hgill@uwo.ca. 287
0889-3268/05/0300-0287/0 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

288

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

relationships among organizational members (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Kwang & Burgers, 1997; Wells & Kipnis, 2001). Given the relation between trust and important organizational outcomes and the fact that it is an essential lubricant of successful working relationships, it is not surprising that there has been a resurgence of interest in this topic by organizational researchers (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Despite its importance in organizational research, the study of trust has not been without problems. There have been some inconsistencies in the conceptualization and measurement of trust in previous research (Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). The most serious criticism is the lack of agreement about the structure of trust, and in particular the inability of researchers to distinguish between the antecedents and the construct of trust itself (Bhattacharya, Devinney, & Pillutla, 1998; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). For example, Costa, Roe, and Taillieu (2001) conceptualized trust as a multi-component variable with three distinct but interrelated dimensions. These dimensions consist of propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness, and cooperative and monitoring behaviors. This denition includes a dispositional variable, propensity to trust, as well as cognitive and behavioral dimensions. In order for the eld to move forward, it is imperative that researchers maintain a clear conceptual distinction between propensity to trust, dened as an individuals general willingness to trust others, and actual trust or trusting behaviors (Mayer et al., 1995). Propensity to trust may be more accurately conceptualized as an antecedent rather than as a dimension of trust. Mayer et al. (1995) proposed the Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, a theoretical framework examining trust in an organizational setting involving two individuals: a trustor (the individual trusting) and a trustee (the individual being trusted). In their model, trust is dened as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party (Mayer et al., p. 712). Mayer et al.s denition of trust has become widely accepted in the organizational literature (e.g., Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Unlike past conceptualizations of trust, this denition separates trust from its antecedents. In Mayer et al.s (1995) model, both the disposition of the trustor and the perceived characteristics of the trustee inuence trust. According to this model, trust does not involve risk per se, but rather a willingness to engage in risk-taking with the trustee (e.g., sharing sensitive information). Thus, trust represents an intention to take a risk in a relationship. The Integrative Model of Organizational Trust is a promising theoretical framework that can aid researchers in addressing some of the concerns in the organizational trust literature. As noted by Ferrin and

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

289

Dirks (2003), empirical research on the antecedents of trust has lagged behind the theory. The purpose of the current research was to address this gap in the research. Specically, we conducted two experiments in order to explore and clarify the relations between antecedents of trust, as proposed by Mayer et al. (1995), and intention to trust. STUDY 1 The Mayer et al. (1995) model incorporates both perceived characteristics of the trustee and disposition of the trustor. Mayer et al. proposed that individuals determine the trustworthiness of others based on their beliefs in the trustees ability (knowledge, skills, and competencies), benevolence (the extent to which a trustor believes that a trustee will act in the best interest of the trustor), and integrity (the extent to which the trustor perceives the trustee as acting in accord with a set of principles that the trustor nds acceptable). A trusting relationship is more likely to develop if a particular trustee is perceived as having high ability, benevolence, and integrity. Intention to trust is also determined by the personal disposition of the trustor. In the model, intention to trust is inuenced by a trustors propensity to trust, which refers to an individuals general willingness to trust others. This construct represents a stable individual difference. Consideration of both the characteristics of the trustee and the trustor helps clarify the relationship between two specic individuals and the reasons why an individual might choose to trust another. The purpose of the rst study was to examine the relations between the perceived characteristics of the trustee, trustors propensity to trust, and trustors intention to trust. The following hypotheses were proposed, based on Mayer et al.s (1995) theoretical framework: Hypothesis 1: Participants given high ability, benevolence, and integrity information about a trustee will have a higher intention to trust than participants given low ability, benevolence, and integrity information. Hypothesis 2: Propensity to trust will be positively related to intention to trust. Method Participants. One hundred and seventeen undergraduate students participated in this research as part of a course requirement for an introductory psychology class at a large Canadian university. The ages of the participants ranged from 17 to 35 (M 19.58, SD 2.31). Most of the

290

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

participants had part-time work experience (62%) and some had full-time work experience (38%). Data from three respondents were discarded because they left more than 10% of the items blank. The nal sample size for this study was 114 (33 men and 81 women). Manipulations and Procedure. In a between-subjects design, each participant was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) high ability, benevolence, and integrity (high trust condition) or (2) low ability, benevolence, and integrity (low trust condition). All participants rst completed a survey that assessed their propensity to trust. Participants were then asked to imagine that they worked for a large marketing rm and that their primary responsibility was to acquire new clients for their rm. They read that they would be assigned to work with a coworker on a project. The coworker was characterized as having either high or low levels of ability, benevolence, and integrity. More specically, participants in the high trust condition read that the coworker had high ability (e.g., has an MBA), high benevolence (e.g., organized a mentorship program to help new employees adjust to the organization), and high integrity (e.g., is always honest). In contrast, participants in the low trust condition read that their coworker had low ability (e.g., has a high school diploma), low benevolence (e.g., refused to participate in a mentorship program), and low integrity (e.g., displayed dishonest behavior). After reading the scenario, all participants were asked to rate their perceptions of the hypothetical coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity, and their intention to trust this coworker. Measures. In addition to providing basic demographic information, participants responded to the following scales: Propensity to trust. The propensity to trust scale used in the present study was the eight-item measure used by Mayer and Davis (1999) and derived from Rotters (1967) original trust scale. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree). A sample item is Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do. Cronbachs alpha for this scale, although moderate (.64), was consistent with past studies (cf. Mayer & Davis, 1999). Ability, benevolence, and integrity. To determine whether the manipulation of the ability, benevolence, and integrity information was successful, participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a 7-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) with two statements for each characteristic. A sample item for ability was My coworker performs her job duties quite competently. A sample item for benevolence was I could rely on my coworker in most situations. A sample item for integrity was My coworker would not lie. The correlation between the two items was .86 for the ability items, .88 for the

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

291

benevolence items, and .87 for the integrity items. The Cronbachs alpha for each scale was .93 for ability, .93 for benevolence, and .93 for integrity. Intention to trust. Participants rated the degree to which they trusted the coworker, as measured by the Mayer and Davis (1999) trust scale. This four-item scale assesses individuals intention to trust a specic other. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree). A sample item was I would be comfortable letting my coworker work on a task or problem which is critical to me. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .70. Results and Discussion Manipulation Checks. To assess whether participants accurately perceived the differences between the two conditions (high trust and low trust), a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed. Signicant differences in the perceived characteristics of the trustee were found between the two conditions, Wilks K :17, F(3, 110) 175.14, p < .01. The effect size (multivariate g2, based on Wilks K) was strong at .83. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Results showed that, as expected, participants in the high trust condition rated the hypothetical coworker higher on perceived ability (M 6.04, SD .97) than participants in the low trust condition (M 2.87, SD 1.17), F(1, 112) 250.71, p < .01. Similarly, participants in the high trust condition rated the hypothetical coworker higher on perceived benevolence (M 5.85, SD 1.11) than participants in the low trust condition (M 2.12, SD .86), F(1, 112) 403.05, p < .01. Lastly, participants in the high trust condition also rated the hypothetical coworker higher on perceived integrity (M 5.74, SD 1.11) than participants in the low trust condition (M 2.08, SD .84), F(1, 112) 385.32, p < .01. Intention to Trust as a Dependent Measure. In order to test Hypothesis 1, an independent sample t-test was conducted comparing intention to trust in the two conditions (high trust versus low trust). Participants who read about a coworker who was high in ability, benevolence, and integrity trusted the coworker more (M 4.23, SD 1.00) than participants who read about a coworker who was low (M 2.45, SD .93), t(112) 9.79, p < .01. The strength of the relationship, as assessed by g2, was strong, with the experimental manipulation accounting for 46% of the variance in trust. Hypothesis 2 predicted that propensity to trust would be positively correlated with intention to trust. This hypothesis was not supported. The overall correlation between propensity to trust and trusting inten-

292

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

tions was not statistically signicant (r(112) .04, p .70). As further test of this hypothesis, propensity to trust and trusting intentions were correlated in both conditions (that is, correlations between propensity to trust and trusting intentions were computed separately for the high trust and low trust condition). When the coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity were high, the correlation was not statistically signicant (r(57) .18, p .17). Similarly, when the coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity were low, the correlation between propensity to trust and trusting intentions was not statistically signicant (r(53) .01, p .93). Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 2, propensity to trust and trusting intentions were not correlated. Consistent with our rst hypothesis, the results of this study suggest that the characteristics of the trustee (i.e., information about their ability, integrity, and benevolence) inuence a trustors intention to trust. Contrary to expectations, there was no evidence that a trustors propensity to trust related to a trustors intention to trust. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. STUDY 2 A second study was undertaken to gain a better understanding of the relation between propensity to trust and trusting intentions. According to Holmes (1991), the relation between propensity to trust and trust has been assumed, but has not been supported empirically. Some studies have found positive relations between propensity to trust and a variety of outcomes (Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000; Mayer & Davis, 1999), whereas others have found no relation between these variables (Mintu-Wimsatt & Lozada, 1999). The failure to nd a consistent relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust may be due to the methodology adopted in previous studies. Laboratory studies typically involve experimental manipulations that create strong situations (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In Study 1, there were two conditions: one where trustworthiness was clearly warranted and one where trustworthiness was clearly unwarranted. In both conditions, the situation overwhelmingly indicated the trustworthiness of the coworker, and as such could be described as a strong situation. Thus, the role of propensity to trust may have been limited by the situational strength of the experimental manipulation. However, in weak situations, propensity to trust may predict trusting intentions. That is, propensity to trust may predict intention to trust when information about the trustees ability, benevolence, and integrity is ambiguous. It has been suggested that the relation between personality characteristics and behavior is moderated by the strength of the situation (Hough & Schneider, 1996; Weiss & Adler, 1984). This factor has long

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

293

been recognized in social psychological research as an important issue for understanding and predicting behavior (Bem & Allen, 1974; Mischel, 1977). According to Mischel (1977), situations can be characterized along a continuum from strong to weak. Strong situations have salient behavioral cues that lead everyone to interpret the circumstances similarly, and induce uniform expectations regarding the appropriate response. For example, one would expect that most people would be serious and somber while attending a funeral. Thus, strong situations are said to suppress the expression of individual differences. Weak situations, on the other hand, have highly ambiguous behavioral cues that provide few constraints on behavior, and do not induce uniform expectations. For example, at a social gathering, some individuals will be circulating and meeting new people, whereas others will remain seated and socialize only with acquaintances. In weak situations, the person has considerable discretion in how to respond to the circumstances. Thus, weak situations provide the opportunity for individual differences such as personality to play a greater role in determining behavior. Research in the organizational literature provides support for the contention that situational strength may moderate the relation between personality and behavior. Mullins and Cummings (1999) argue that situational strength may interact with the personality traits of key decision-makers to inuence the likelihood of strategic changes at the rm level. Barrick and Mount (1993) found that autonomy (a proxy for situational strength) moderated the relation between personality and job performance. That is, the correlation between personality and job performance was higher in highly autonomous work situations than in less autonomous work situations. Similarly, Beaty, Cleveland, and Murphy (2001) found that situational strength moderated the relation between personality and contextual performance. Although situational strength has been suggested as a potentially important factor in the context of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001), this question has yet to be examined empirically. Rotter (1971) has argued that disposition to trust would predict intention to trust only in ambiguous situations. Similarly, Mayer et al. (1995) speculated that propensity to trust would be important in situations where information about a trustees ability, benevolence, and integrity was unavailable. Extending Mischels (1977) conceptualization of strong and weak situations, we hypothesized that propensity to trust would be related to intention to trust when trustworthiness of the coworker was ambiguous, and would be unrelated when trustworthiness was unambiguous or clear. Regardless of peoples propensity to trust, in clearly high trust situations, everyone is expected to trust, and conversely, in clearly low trust situations, no one is expected to trust.

294

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

In sum, the purpose of the second study was twofold. First, it attempted to replicate the nding of Study 1 that ability, benevolence, and integrity predict trusting intentions. Second, it attempted to identify a boundary condition under which propensity to trust would predict intention to trust. The following hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1: Participants given high ability, benevolence, and integrity information will have a higher intention to trust than participants given ambiguous information about ability, benevolence, and integrity, and these participants, in turn, will have higher intention to trust than participants given low ability, benevolence, and integrity information. Hypothesis 2: Propensity to trust will be positively related to intention to trust when the information about the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee is ambiguous, whereas propensity to trust will be unrelated to intention to trust when the information about the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee is high or low.

Method Participants. One hundred and eighty-three undergraduate students (48 men and 135 women) participated in this research as part of a course requirement for an introductory psychology class at a large Canadian university. Participants ages ranged from 17 to 39 (M 19.8, SD 2.5).

Manipulations and Procedure. The scenarios from Study 1 were used in Study 2. In addition, a third scenario was added that depicted the coworkers trustworthiness as ambiguous. Specically, in the ambiguous trust condition, the information about the coworkers ability (e.g., undergraduate degree with some related experience), benevolence (e.g., participated in the mentorship program and although she was initially helpful, she later neglected her duties), and integrity (e.g., when confronted, she easily compromises her opinions in order to please others) did not clearly suggest that the coworker was trustworthy or untrustworthy. The same procedure used in Study 1 was followed in Study 2. Participants rated their propensity to trust, read their assigned scenario, responded to the manipulation check items (i.e., perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity), and rated their intention to trust this coworker.

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

295

Measures. The Propensity to Trust scale and the Intention to Trust scale used in Study 2 were the same as in Study 1. However, to assess more accurately participants perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity of the coworker, the full scales developed and used by Mayer and Davis (1999) were included. Participants responded to 6 items about their perception of the trustees ability and integrity, and 5 items about the trustees benevolence. Responses were given on a 7-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree). The scale reliabilities and intercorrelations among the variables are reported in Table 1. Results and Discussion Manipulation Checks. To assess whether participants accurately perceived the differences between the high trust, ambiguous trust, and low trust conditions, a one-way MANOVA was performed. Signicant differences in the trustees characteristics were found among the three conditions, Wilks K .19, F(6, 356) 76.07, p < .01. The effect size (multivariate g2, based on Wilks K) was strong at .56. Table 2 contains the means and the standard deviations of ability, benevolence, and integrity for the three conditions.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Coefcient Alphas for Study 2 Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Propensity to Trust Ability Benevolence Integrity Intention to Trust M 3.43 4.73 3.68 3.86 3.14 SD .69 1.68 1.57 1.59 1.07 1 .64 .06 .12 .07 .10 2 .96 .80** .85** .60** 3 4 5

.95 .90** .71**

.94 .68**

.61

Note.Reliability estimates are presented along the diagonal in bold. **p < .01 (2-tailed).

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity in the Three Experimental Conditions in Study 2 Ability Condition High Trust Ambiguous Trust Low Trust Total M 6.33 5.13 2.79 4.73 SD .57 .91 .91 1.68 N 60 61 62 183 M 5.19 3.82 2.09 3.68 Benevolence SD .89 1.11 .76 1.57 N 60 61 62 183 M 5.35 4.14 2.15 3.86 Integrity SD .79 .99 .88 1.59 N 60 61 62 183

296

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

ANOVAs on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. The ANOVAs on ability, benevolence, and integrity were all signicant (F(2, 180) 297.34, p < .01; F(2, 180) 169.67, p < .01; F(2, 180) 199.80, p < .01, respectively). A Tukey post hoc comparison of means revealed that all means differed from each other, in the expected direction (see Table 2). Intention to Trust as a Dependent Measure. In order to test Hypothesis 1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted comparing the effects of the three conditions (high trust, ambiguous trust, and low trust) on intentions to trust the coworker. The main effect for this dependent variable was signicant, F(2, 180) 49.86, p < .01. The effect size, as assessed by g2, was strong, with coworker information accounting for 36% of the variance in trust. A Tukey post hoc test of means revealed that participants given high ability, benevolence, and integrity information trusted the coworker more (M 3.86, SD .85) than participants given ambiguous information about ability, benevolence, and integrity (M 3.29, SD .85). These participants, in turn, had a higher intention to trust than participants given low ability, benevolence, and integrity information (M 2.31, SD .89). Consistent with Study 1, the overall correlation between propensity to trust and intention to trust was not statistically signicant (r(178) .10, p .19). Hypothesis 2 was tested by correlating propensity to trust and intention to trust separately in each of the three conditions. We expected that propensity to trust and intention to trust would correlate only in the condition where information about the coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity was ambiguous. This hypothesis was supported. Specically, propensity to trust and intention to trust were not signicantly correlated in the high trust or low trust conditions (r(57) .09, p .50; r(59) .04, p .74, respectively), but were positively and signicantly correlated in the ambiguous trust condition (r(58) .29, p <.05). The relations between propensity to trust and intention to trust in the three experimental conditions are depicted in Figure 1. As a further test of Hypothesis 2, we examined whether the correlation between propensity to trust and intention to trust in the ambiguous trust condition was signicantly stronger than the correlation between propensity to trust and intention to trust in the high trust and low trust conditions using the z-test for independent correlations (Gardner, 2001). First, we tested whether the high trust and low trust conditions were signicantly different. As expected, the correlation between propensity to trust and intention to trust in the high trust condition (r(57) .09) was not signicantly different from the correlation in the low trust condition (r(59) .04), z .70, p .51. Thus, we combined the low trust and high trust conditions (r(118) .03, p .72).

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

297

Figure 1 Regression lines for propensity to trust for the three experimental conditions in Study 2
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Propensity to Trust 5 6 7 Low Trust Ambiguous Trust High Trust

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the correlation between propensity to trust and trusting intention in the ambiguous trust condition (r(58) .29) was signicantly higher (stronger) than the correlation in the high trust and low trust conditions combined (r(118) .03), z 1.66, p < .05, one-tailed test. In summary, ndings from the second study provide further support for the rst hypothesis that the characteristics of the trustee (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity) inuence a trustors intention to trust. In addition, consistent with Mischels (1977) observation, we found that the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust was moderated by situational strength. Specically, propensity to trust correlated positively with intention to trust when information about the trustworthiness of the coworker was ambiguous, and did not correlate with intention to trust when information about the trustworthiness was clear. GENERAL DISCUSSION In support of the Mayer et al. (1995) model, we found that the perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity of the coworker inuenced the participants intention to trust this individual. In both studies, participants trusted the coworker more when the coworker was perceived as having high ability, benevolence, and integrity than when these characteristics were low. However, in the rst study, we found no support for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust proposed in the Mayer et al. model. In that study, the coworker was described as having either high or low ability, benevolence, and integrity. We suspected that the strong situation dictated the appropriate response and did not allow for the expression of individual differences. Thus, we

Intention to Trust

298

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

hypothesized that the strength of the experimental manipulation may have masked the relation. In the second study, we included an additional experimental condition in which the information about the coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity was ambiguous. In the second study, propensity to trust predicted intention to trust when the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the coworker was ambiguous, but not when the coworker was perceived as clearly trustworthy or clearly untrustworthy. These ndings support the contention that the strength of the situation functions as a boundary condition for the relation between propensity and intention to trust. Although these results clarify the relation between propensity to trust and trust by identifying situational strength as a moderator, future research needs to examine the mechanisms underlying this relation in ambiguous situations. One potential explanation for this relation may be that propensity to trust may act through belief-conrming cognitive structures or schemas. According to Fiske and Taylor (1991), these cognitive mechanisms could lead individuals to discount information not congruent with their pre-existing beliefs. Furthermore, evidence indicates that individuals tend to interpret new or ambiguous information in a way that is congruent with these pre-existing beliefs (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). According to this argument, when individuals have a high faith in humanity (high propensity to trust), they would both attend selectively to information congruent with their level of trust in humanity, and interpret new information according to their natural tendency (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Ferrin and Dirks (2003) offer a similar explanation, and suggest that perhaps people with a low propensity to trust are more likely to have a suspicion bias when processing information about ones trustworthiness. Future research is needed to determine the specic mechanisms underlying the relation between an individuals disposition to trust and intention to trust. In addition, although the current study found that the coworkers ability, benevolence, and integrity inuenced the participants intention to trust, these characteristics were manipulated simultaneously. Given that the purpose of our study was to investigate the role of propensity to trust at different levels of trustworthiness, this concurrent manipulation was appropriate. However, it is possible that ability, benevolence, and integrity contribute differently to the establishment of trust. In other words, the context may determine which antecedent is most important in the formation of trust. In order to present a full test of Mayer et al.s (1995) model, future research should examine the separate roles of these three antecedents of trusting intentions by varying their levels independently.

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

299

A closer examination of the construct validity of propensity to trust may be an avenue for future research. As noted by many scholars, the creation of redundant constructs can quickly fragment the literature and hinder theoretical development (Schwab, 1980). Evidence of construct validity is needed to assess the potential for propensity to trust to make a unique contribution to the eld of trust. Research could establish the construct validity, in part, by assessing whether the nomological network is consistent with the conceptualization of propensity to trust. In addition, future research could draw from the large body of knowledge regarding personality and individual differences. In particular, research could examine whether other established measures of personality have signicant overlap with the construct of propensity to trust. To do so, propensity to trust should be explored within the broader framework of existing personality taxonomies such as the Big Five model (e.g., Goldberg, 1990), and compared and contrasted with narrow traits dening the different personality dimensions (e.g., Jackson, 1984; 1994). Two factors may potentially reduce the external validity of our study. First, the study used hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were used because this method allowed for the control and manipulation of the characteristics of the trustee, thus allowing us to draw causal inferences. This method, therefore, was appropriate for the purposes of the study (Dobbins, Lane, & Steiner, 1988). Moreover, past research has successfully studied trust in the laboratory setting (e.g., Dirks, 1999; Elsbach & Elofson, 2000; OReilly & Roberts, 1974). Intention has generally been found to be a good predictor of actual behavior in a variety of contexts (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Tett & Meyer, 1993), and it is quite likely that this relation would extend to intentions to trust and actual behavior. Second, the external validity may be reduced because respondents were all undergraduate students. Given that most undergraduate students have some work experience, we would not expect our results to change if a sample of working people had been studied. More importantly, this should only be an issue if there is a reason to expect that work experience would inuence perceptions of trust in the situation (Campbell, 1986; Sackett & Larson, 1990). There is little reason to expect that working people or undergraduates would have responded to the scenarios differently. Nevertheless, future research should address the generalizability of these ndings in the eld. Such research should take into account the temporal nature of trust. The processes by which trust forms initially may be different from the processes involved in maintaining it (Mayer et al., 1995; McKnight et al., 1998). McKnight et al. (1998) asserted that initial trust between people is based on an individuals disposition to trust, particularly during a rst encounter when individuals have had little opportunity to observe each others behavior. Indeed, it is possible that the nature of the relation

300

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

between propensity to trust and intention to trust changes over time. Initially, judgments about the trustworthiness of another individual are probably based on limited information. In this situation, the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust may be strong, but this relation might diminish as information about a trustees ability, benevolence, and integrity becomes available. Unlike Jones and George (1998), who assert that individuals have a strong incentive to begin relationships with trust, our results suggest that individuals vary in their disposition to trust others, and that this inuences their intention to trust. Although challenging, longitudinal research is needed to resolve this issue. CONCLUSION Our research contributes to the understanding of trust in two important ways. First, the results provide further empirical support for the model of trust proposed by Mayer et al. (1995). Second, this research identies situational strength as an important boundary condition of the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. The ndings of the current study have implications for organizations. Some recent changes in the workplace, such as an increase in the use of project-based and virtual teams, require employees to form new cooperative relationships quickly, often based on limited information about the coworkers. Given this new reality, it is important for researchers and practitioners alike to explore how trust forms initially, and how it can be maintained over time. The interplay between perceptual and dispositional factors, the focus of the current research, represents one avenue for research that could be fruitful in gaining a better understanding of trust.

REFERENCES
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Organizational justice, trust foci, and work outcomes: Test of a mediated social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267285. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relations between the big ve personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111118. Beaty, J., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in strong versus weak situations. Human Performance, 14(2), 125148. Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506520. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459472. Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 405421.

H. GILL, K. BOIES, J. E. FINEGAN, AND J. MCNALLY

301

Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transaction costs in organizations with trust. In R. J. Bies, B. Sheppard, & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 219247). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Campbell, J. P. (1986). Labs, Fields, and Straw Issues. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to eld settings: research ndings from industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management (pp. 269279). Toronto: Lexington Books. Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2001). Trust implications for performance and effectiveness. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225 244. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445455. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450467. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic ndings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611 628. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: Dont throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 281286. Dyne, L. V., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust, and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 323. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Elsbach, K., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 8089. Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: Mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 1831. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Psychological statistics using SPSS for windows. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229. Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relations. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relations (Vol. 2). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Manual for the personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson personality inventoryrevised. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologist Press. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531546. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237251. Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.), (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage. Kwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. (1997). Properties of trust: An analytical view. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 6773. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A eld quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123 136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709734.

302

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relations. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473490. Mintu-Wimsatt, A., & Lozada, H. R. (1999). Personality and negotiation revisited. Psychological Reports, 82, 11591170. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mullins, J. W. & Cummings, L. L. (1999). Situational strength: A framework for understanding the role of individuals in bringing about proactive strategic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 462479. OReilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1974). Information ltration in organizations: Three experiments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 253265. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651665. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443452. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393404. Sackett, P. R. & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1.) (2nd ed., pp. 419489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 343). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic ndings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259293. Watson, G. W., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2002). Social capital and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(4), 537552. Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. W. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 150). London: JAI. Wells, C. V. & Kipnis, D. (2001). Trust, dependency, and control in the contemporary organization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(4), 593603.