E Commerce Trust Belief PDF

IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING ITJ3276
701 E. Journal
Chocolate Avenue,Information
of Global Suite 200, Management,
Hershey PA 17033-1240, October-December 2006 1
14(4), 1-30,USA
Tel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.idea-group.com
This paper appears in the publication, Journal of Global Information Management, Volume 14, Issue 4
edited by Felix B. Tan © 2006, Idea Group Inc.
On the Need to Include National

Culture as a Central Issue in
E-Commerce Trust Beliefs
David Gefen, Drexel University, USA
Tsipi Heart, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
ABSTRACT
Trust and trust beliefs (trustworthiness) are key to e-commerce success but depend, to
a large extent, on culture. With e-commerce being an international phenomenon, un-
derstanding the cross-cultural aspects of trust creation is therefore arguably required
although mostly ignored by current research which deals almost exclusively with the
U.S. This exploratory study examines whether definitions of trust beliefs as conceptu-
alized and verified in the U.S. apply in Israel which differs markedly in individualism,
uncertainty avoidance, and power distance. The data, cross-validating the scale of
trust and its antecedents in both cultures, generally support the proposition that trust
beliefs apply across cultures, and may be a relatively unvarying aspect of e-commerce.
However, as expected, the effects of predictability and familiarity on trust beliefs may
differ across national cultures. Implications about the need to include national culture
in the research on trust, in general, and in e-commerce in particular, are discussed.
Keywords: cross cultural studies; e-commerce; trust
INTRODUCTION national culture.1 With few exceptions

Despite the differences national (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky, 1999),
culture can cause in e-commerce be- trust in e-commerce research has been
havior (Kacen & Lee, 2002; Lynch & conducted almost exclusively in the
Beck, 2001) and despite e-commerce U.S. Yet the U.S is in some regards a
becoming global, research on trust unique national culture because of its
and trust beliefs in e-commerce has patently high degree of individualism
mostly ignored the possible effects of and relatively low degree of uncertainty
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is
prohibited.
2 Journal of Global Information Management, 14(4), 1-30, October-December 2006
avoidance (Hofstede, 1980a), degrees are hypothesized to affect the three trust
so different from other national cultures beliefs, which in turn, are hypothesized
that concerns have been raised in other to affect behavioral intentions. The trust
realms of research as to whether research beliefs are proposed to apply to both
based on the U.S. can be generalized to cultures, although the trust building
other countries (Bagozzi, Wong, Abe, & processes are hypothesized to differ in
Bergami, 2000; Hofstede, 1980b). their effect. The outcomes of these con-
The underlying proposition of this sumer trust beliefs are (1) a willingness
study is that if national culture and to buy online from the vendor (Jarven-
trust are closely related, as proposed paa & Tractinsky, 1999; Reichheld &
in theory (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, Schefter, 2000) and (2) a willingness
1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Hofstede, to window-shop at the online vendor
1980a) but not yet verified, then research (Gefen, 2000; Gefen, 2002b). These
on trust should include national culture trust beliefs are composed of three
as a prime aspect. This proposition is distinct beliefs dealing with integrity,
examined in the context of e-commerce ability, and benevolence (Gefen, 2002b;
because trust and trust beliefs are major McKnight et al., 2002). The effect of
players in e-commerce adoption (Gefen, national culture on trust beliefs is based
2000; Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, on Hofstede (1980a) and Doney et al.
2003a; 2003b; Kim, Xu & Koh, 2004; (1998) and examined by comparing the
McKnight & Chervany, 2002; Pavlou, same model with data collected in the
2003; Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). Trust in U.S. and Israel.
the context of e-commerce has generally
been treated as even more significant THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
than in other settings because of the CONFLICTING CULTURAL
lack of personal contact and the lack PROCESSES OF TRUST
of social cues in e-commerce (Gefen Trust is the willingness to depend
et al., 2003a). upon another party and be vulnerable
Accordingly, the objectives of to the actions of this other party based
this study are twofold. First, to verify on the assumption that the trusted party
that the psychometric properties and will deliver without taking advantage of
nomological validity of trust beliefs as the situation (Mayer, Davis, & Schoor-
created in research about the U.S. ap- man, 1995). This conceptualization of
plies elsewhere. And second, to verify trust, which is also known as “trusting
that the way trust is created and the intentions” (McKnight et al., 2002) and
way it affects e-commerce does vary trustworthiness (Jarvenpaa & Tractin-
by culture.2 sky, 1999), is based on a set of beliefs
The research model is presented that others upon whom one depends will
in Figure 1. Trust building processes, behave in a socially acceptable manner
namely familiarity and predictability, by showing appropriate integrity, be-
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc.
is prohibited.
Journal of Global Information Management, 14(4), 1-30, October-December 2006 3
Figure 1. Research model
nevolence, and ability (Doney & Can- processes: calculative, prediction, inten-
non, 1997; Gefen et al., 2003b; Mayer et tionality, capability, and transference.
al., 1995; McKnight et al., 2002). These In the calculative process a party cal-
three beliefs are labeled by most re- culates the costs or rewards of another
search as “trust beliefs” (Gefen, 2002b; party cheating. The prediction process
McKnight et al., 2002), although Mayer enables one party to forecast behaviors
et al. (1995) label these “trustworthi- of another party based on past conduct.
ness.” Trust, defined by some research The intentionality process deals with
as behavioral intentions, by others as the trustor’s perceptions about the
beliefs, and by yet others as a mixture intentions of the trustee. Trust build-
of both, is crucial in many business ining through the capability process is
teractions (Fukuyama, 1995; Ganesan, based on an assessment of the trustee’s
1994; Kumar, 1996; Williamson, 1985; capability to meet expected obliga-
Zucker, 1986), including e-commerce tions. Transference deals with a trustor
(Gefen et al., 2003b; Jarvenpaa, Trac- transferring trust from a known trusted
tinsky, & Vitale, 2000; McKnight et al., entity to an unknown one. The intensity
2002; Pavlou, 2003; Pavlou & Gefen, and effect of these processes on trust
2004; Reichheld & Schefter, 2000), e- behavior, they hypothesized, depends
government (Gefen, Rose, Warkentin among other things on culture. Doney
& Pavlou, 2004; Warkentin, Gefen, et al. proposed 15 propositions, sum-
Pavlou, & Rose, 2002), and IT adoption marized in Table 1, based on Hofstede’s
in general (Gefen, 2002a). (1980a) cultural dimensions (see next
Trust is created in many ways. section for details), namely individual-
Doney et al. (1998) theorized a model ism-collectivism (IDV), power distance
in which trust is built through five (PDI), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), and
prohibited.
masculinity-femininity (MAS). The 15 it stronger, or by the low UAI, making

propositions are shown in Table 1, where it weaker?
the plus sign designates the “more likely Similar concerns were articulated
to use” and the minus sign indicates by Noorderhaven (1999), who also
the opposite. For instance, according mentioned that some of Doney et al.’s
to Doney et al.’s propositions, trustors basic assessments were not supported
from more individualistic (masculine) by previous research. For example,
cultures are more likely than trustors while Doney et al. (1998) base their
from more collectivist (feminine) propositions on the assumption that col-
cultures to form trust via a calculative lectivist groups tend to trust one another
process, but are less likely to form trust more than individualistic societies,
via the prediction process. Yamagishi and Yamagishi (1994) show
The strength of Doney et al.’s the opposite. In fact, Hofstede himself
(1998) model is in its incorporation of states that in the more individualistic
a vast range of cultural effects on trust- societies, people will tend to develop
building processes. But incorporating so higher initial trust. In other words, in
many propositions also leads to contra- these cultures people will expect others
dictory predictions. What would be the to adhere to the accepted basic rules of
rule for cultures where IDV and MAS conduct (“value standards should apply
do not overlap, such as the U.S. and to all”), based on the assumption that
Japan where the former is the highest people will want to do so because such
on IDV but below average on MAS and conduct is beneficial to the majority
the latter is just the opposite, extreme on (Hofstede, 1980a, p. 235).
MAS but below average on IDV? And,
what should dominate when a country Conflicting Definitions of Trust
possesses cultural attributes that conflict In addition, there is a conceptual
in Doney et al.’s model? For example, lack of clarity in the definitions of trust
the U.S. is extreme on IDV but low on (Gefen et al., 2003b; McKnight et al.,
UAI. Should the calculative process 2002). Most previous research has
be affected by individualism, making bundled the three trust beliefs of integ-
Table 1. Summary of Doney et al. (1998)
High
Trust building processes IDV (MAS) PDI UAI
Calculative + + +
Prediction - + +
Intentionality - - +
Capability + + +
Transference - - +
is prohibited.
rity, benevolence, and ability together havior of other people is fraught with
with the assessment of trustworthiness, uncertainty. This is where trust comes
arguing and empirically validating that in. Trust allows people, rightly or not,
the constructs are so closely related to subjectively rule out the possibility
to each other in many scenarios that of undesirable behavior by those they
they are conceptually and statistically need to rely upon (Luhmann, 1979). De-
so intertwined as to be inseparable in veloping this understanding of trust in
many cases (Doney & Cannon, 1997; the Familiarity and Trust model (Gefen,
Gefen, 2002a; Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). 2000), it has been shown that familiar-
See Gefen et al. (2003b) and McKnight ity with a trustworthy vendor increases
et al. (2002) for detailed discussions. people’s trust in this vendor, although
In the interest of avoiding conflicting the effect of familiarity on trust beliefs
terminology, this article adopts Mayer may be mediated by the nature of the
et al.’s (1995), McKnight et al.’s (2002), process involved (Gefen et al., 2003b).
and Gefen’s (2002b) terminology in It should be emphasized, however, that
which the three distinct trust beliefs toleration of others as free agents, and
deal with integrity, benevolence, and hence a more pronounced need for trust
ability, which in turn affect behavioral in interpersonal activities (Doney et al.,
trusting intentions when vulnerability 1998), is greater in the U.S. because of
to the trusted party is at stake. It should its highly individualistic culture (Hofst-
be emphasized that all these studies on ede, 1980a). Whether the need to trust
the meaning of trust were conducted in is as strong also in less individualistic
the U.S. The applicability of this three cultures is another open question.
dimensional construct formulation of Drawing upon existing models of
trust beliefs as composed of integrity, trust beliefs in e-commerce (Gefen &
ability, and benevolence, to other cul- Straub, 2004; McKnight et al., 2002) and
tures remains an open question. elsewhere online (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, &
Leidner, 1998), the research model in
Trust Beliefs and Overall Trust in Figure 1 assumes, as discussed in detail
E-Commerce by previous research (Gefen, 2002b;
Trust is crucial in many social and Gefen & Straub, 2004; McKnight et
commerce activities because it reduces al., 2002), that the three trust beliefs
social uncertainty (Gefen, 2000). Social combined with familiarity will affect
uncertainty is the result of other people consumers’ trusting behavioral inten-
being free agents whose behavior can- tions. Also included in the research
not be controlled and whose behavior model is the prediction process that
may not necessarily be rational. People is hypothesized to increase these trust
try to reduce social uncertainty through beliefs, mainly by mediating the effect
many social mechanisms, such as laws of familiarity, that is, by increasing the
and institutions, but even then the be- understanding of what to expect (Gefen
prohibited.
et al., 2003b). Familiarity with a ven- zon.com being one of the most known
dor and predictability also contribute online brand names, transference to
independently to behavioral trusting Amazon seems unlikely.
intentions (Gefen, 2000). The hypothesized differences in the
Since culture is hypothesized to trust model in Figure 1 are based mainly
affect trust building processes, the study on extrapolating relevant propositions
assumes that these processes will differ of interpersonal trust across cultures as
across cultures. The logic of how they advanced by Doney et al. (1998), based
will differ is based mainly on Doney on Hofstede (1980a), on McKnight,
et al. (1998). Cummings, and Chervany (1998), and
Gefen (2002b). In the interest of com-
Culture and Trust pleteness, propositions not readily ap-
Trust and culture are intercon- plicable to e-commerce, and hence not
nected. On the one hand, the meaning, part of the hypotheses, are discussed
antecedents, and effects of trust are in endnotes.
determined by culture (Doney et al.,
1998; Fukuyama, 1995; Zucker, 1986). Choice of Cultures
On the other hand, trust is also a central The hypothesized effects of na-
aspect of culture itself, being closely tional culture on trust beliefs in e-com-
correlated with cultural differences merce are examined by comparing the
across nations (Hofstede, et al., 1990). same model with data collected in the
Of specific interest is that, in theory, U.S. and Israel. The choice of these two
the modes of trust creation depend on cultures is especially appropriate con-
national culture (Doney et al., 1998). sidering the research objectives because
This study concentrates on the pre- the two cultures differ in all four cultural
dictive mode of trust creation (Doney dimensions and represent extremes.
et al., 1998), extrapolating from the The U.S. is the most highly ranked on
originally proposed interpersonal rela- Hofstede’s (1980a) individualism-col-
tionships of Doney et al. to e-commerce. lectivism dimension of national culture
The calculative process suggested by and midrange on the Power Distance
Doney et al. (1998) is not included Index (PDI). In contrast, Israel is ranked
in this study since in the context of about midway on IDV and very low in
shopping at Amazon.com it would be PDI. As such, this comparison contrasts
counterproductive for Amazon.com to two well-defined national cultures that
cheat and risk its reputation, one of its represent extremes in what are thought
most important assets. Likewise, trans- to be the major national culture dimen-
ference processes are also excluded. sions contributing to trust beliefs (Shaf-
Transference typically involves trusting fer & O’Hara, 1995; Shane, 1992) and
an unknown entity based on its relation the processes that create it (Doney et
to a well known entity. But with Ama- al., 1998; Hofstede, 1980a).
is prohibited.
Moreover, in both the U.S. and the second objective because if such
Israel there is a very strong sense of cultural differences are shown then
identification with the state combined there is reason to doubt the automatic
with a high degree of national pride, generalization of trust studies based on
which adheres to the recommendations U.S. samples to the rest of the world and
of Straub, Loch, Evaristo, Karahanna, vice versa, as suggested by observers
and Srite (2002) about the need to define (Fukuyama, 1995). It should be noted
culture in terms of identification. The that as an exploratory study, the latter
choice of the U.S. and Israel is also objective is not to generalize the results
intended to replicate previous cross cul- but to show their plausibility.
tural research in e-commerce, namely
Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky (1999), who Cultural Differences and Trust
focused on Australia and Israel, exam- National culture is a set of beliefs
ining primarily online book purchasing and behaviors common to a group of
by undergraduate students. Australia people, or “the collective program-
has almost identical Hofstede (1980a) ming of the mind which distinguishes
cultural indexes as the U.S. Jarvenpaa the members of one human group from
and Tractinsky (1999) found mostly another” (Hofstede, 1980a, p. 25). Re-
insignificant differences between Aus- search has shown that national culture
tralia and Israel with regard to both the is a major determinant of consumption
measurement and the structural models. behavior (see Clark, 1990, for a detailed
However, Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky review). National culture also affects IT
(1999) examined these beliefs clustered management (Tan, Smith, Keil, & Mon-
into one construct, which they named tealegre, 2003), specifically, Hofstede’s
trust.3 This study, in contrast, examines dimensions affect IT management,
these beliefs as three distinct constructs. development, and use (Ford, Connelly,
Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky concluded & Meister, 2003).
that despite their results of insignifi- Hofstede identified four national
cant differences, there probably are culture dimensions: individualism-col-
cross-cultural differences and that more lectivism, power distance, uncertainty
in-depth research is needed to discover avoidance, and masculinity. Individu-
them. Examining the U.S. and Israel alism-collectivism deals with whether
allows such a reexamination. society is centered on the collective, it
Showing that these scales also being the family and the clan, or on the
apply to an equivalent Israeli sample individual. This dimension deals with
would support, albeit on an exploratory the way society prefers to deal with
basis, the first objective of this article, complexity and its related value sys-
that the scales apply also outside the tem of willingness to rely on strangers.
U.S. Showing cultural effects would When national culture is centered on the
support, again on an exploratory basis, collective, it is said to exhibit low in-
prohibited.
dividualism or collectivism (Hofstede, Israelis generally think that inequality

1980a). In these cases people generally in society should be minimized, that
tend not to rely on strangers or trust them hierarchy in organizations means an
(Fukuyama, 1995). When it is centered inequality of roles, and that hierarchy is
on the individual, it exhibits high indi- established for convenience. They also
vidualism. In these cases people gener- think of the ideal boss as a resourceful
ally are more willing to rely on strangers democrat. Generally, Israelis prefer
and trust them (Fukuyama, 1995). The superiors to behave in a consultative
U.S. has the highest individuality index and participative manner, where abil-
on this continuum with an index of 91. ity and performance are the prominent
Americans demonstrate individualistic characteristic of the ideal boss (Hofst-
characteristics such as valuing personal ede, 1984).
freedom over equality, preferring chal- Empirical research on national cul-
lenging jobs from which one can achieve ture and trust (Shaffer & O’Hara, 1995;
a sense of accomplishment, allowing Shane, 1992) has shown that customers
low-context communication, and giv- from high PDI countries hold higher
ing preference to individual interests expectations that a service provider
over collective ones (Hofstede, 1994). will engage in unethical behavior, as
Israel, on the other hand, scores about compared with customers from low PDI
half way on individualism (54 in a 6 to countries. In other words, customers
91 scale), located somewhere between from high PDI countries will express
collectivist and individualist societies less trust towards a service provider than
(Hofstede, 1980a).4 will customers from low PDI countries
The picture with PDI in the two (Shaffer & O’Hara, 1995). Furthermore,
nations is the exact opposite. PDI en- foreign international investments are
compasses the attitude toward inequal- negatively correlated with PDI (Shane,
ity in society. A higher PDI indicates 1992).
acceptance of inequality as inherent in The third dimension of national
society. High PDI shows the tendency culture Hofstede (1984) discusses is
of subordinates to depend on “bosses,” UAI, defined as tolerance for uncer-
to respect the more powerful, to ac- tainty. The U.S. is low on UAI (46 in
cept norms of wide gaps in income, to an 8 to 112 scale). The combination of
show preference for a paternalistic and individualism and low UAI implies a
autocratic superior, and to regard be- readiness to adopt innovations when it
nevolence as the primary characteristic is believed they will contribute to an
of the ideal boss (Hofstede, 1984). The individual’s performance. Israel scored
U.S. scores about midrange on Power nearly twice as high as the U.S. in UAI
Distance (40 in a 11 to 104 scale). Israel (81), implying that Israelis in general are
scores nearly the lowest on PDI (with a more intolerant to uncertain situations
score of 13).5 The low PDI indicates that than Americans. Indeed, e-commerce
is prohibited.
adoption in Israel was slower than in behaviors, but also the trust beliefs.
the U.S., and Israelis in general are less Familiarity is hypothesized to have a
enthusiastic about buying online than primary effect on predictability, since
Americans (ClickZ, 2004). In Israel being familiar with a trustee enhances
e-commerce became significant only the ability of the trustor to predict the
in 1999. E-commerce volume in Israel trustee’s behavior (Gefen, 2000).
grew from $20 million in 1999 to $60 The hypothesized effect of cultural
million in 2000, with 8% of the online differences on the way predictability
population conducting financial trans- as a trust building process builds trust
actions in 2002, up from 6% in 2001 beliefs and the effect these have on the
(Ebusinessforum, 2002). trust-related behavior of Americans and
The fourth of Hofstede’s dimen- Israelis is described next.
sions is masculinity: the degree to The predictive mode of trust cre-
which masculine behaviors, such as ation deals with understanding based on
competitiveness and assertiveness, are experience of what to expect. This is a
considered desirable and acceptable. knowledge-based assessment (Shapiro,
Both countries score medium in this Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992) and is
index, with the U.S. slightly more mas- at the heart of the familiarity concept
culine at 62 and Israel at 47. Masculinity advanced by Gefen (2000) based on
is not hypothesized to be a reason why Luhmann (1979) in which familiarity
trust building processes should differ increased trust by letting the trusting
between these two countries because party gain a better picture of what to
the two national indexes differ only expect. As demonstrated by previous
slightly in this regard. research (Gefen, 2000; Gefen et al.,
2003a) familiarity also directly affects
Modes of Trust Creation and National behavioral trusting intentions. Although
Culture generally individuals prefer to transact
Previous research (Gefen, 2002b; with familiar people and organizations
Gefen & Straub, 2004; Mayer et al., rather than to transact with unfamiliar
1995; McKnight et al., 2002; McKnight ones, this effect should be more pro-
et al., 1998) suggested that trust is built nounced for Israelis since this tendency
through three main beliefs: ability, in- is stronger in collectivist societies. The
tegrity, and benevolence. In addition, reason for this is that people in collectiv-
familiarity and predictability have been ist countries make a strong distinction
advocated to influence trust behaviors between “us” that is those who make
(Zucker, 1986). Yet, unlike Doney et up the perceived ingroup, and “them,”
al.’s interpersonal relationships model, that is all the others (Hofstede, 1994).
in the context of a well-known online This effect can be quite pronounced with
vendor, familiarity and predictability people in highly collectivist cultures
are hypothesized to affect not only trust shunning interactions with strangers
prohibited.
and inherently distrusting them (Fuku- familiarity in collectivist cultures. It is

yama, 1995). This ingroup vs. outgroup thus hypothesized that familiarity will
distinction does not necessarily refer influence behavioral trusting intention
only to the group of close family or more in Israel than in the U.S. Accord-
friends, but can also mean “those who ingly, this should apply to both types of
are perceived similar” as opposed to trusting behavioral intentions
“strangers” (Hofstede, 1994). Even in
the highly individualistic U.S. this effect
can be quite strong and can be triggered H1a: Familiarity will contribute more
even by belonging to a different organi- to behavioral trusting intention to
zational department (Gefen & Ridings, inquire online in Israel than it will
2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Typically, in the U.S.
individuals and organizations belonging H1b: Familiarity will contribute more
to the ingroup are more trusted, while to behavioral trusting intention to
those belonging to the outgroups are purchase online in Israel than it will
automatically treated with a higher in the U.S.
dose of suspicion (Berscheid, 1966;
Brown, 1996; Tajfel, 1970, 1978). This Familiarity builds trust because
avoidance of the outgroup can be so people think they know what to expect,
strong in collectivist cultures that it is that is because it creates predictability
not an accepted practice to do business (Gefen, 2000; Luhmann, 1979). But
with strangers before getting to know reliance on predictability as a trust
them (Hofstede, 1984). Moreover, creation mode should differ across cul-
when group boundaries are salient, as tures (Doney et al., 1998).6 Doney et al.
they typically are in collectivist cul- (1998) proposed that low PDI cultures
tures, ingroup members are generally rely less on the predictability process
regarded with much higher esteem because in these cultures, people expect
(Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000; and accept more personal freedom.
Tajfel, 1970; Turner, 1982). This higher Hence, according to Doney et al., adher-
esteem should additionally contribute ence to accepted social norms should
to making familiarity a stronger predic- be a stronger predictor of trust in high
tor of behavioral trusting intentions in PDI cultures than in low PDI cultures.
collectivist cultures, such as Israel. On In other words, because Israel is very
the other hand, in high individualism low on the PDI scale (13 out of 100)
cultures people are generally more and the U.S. is slightly below midrange
inclined to adopt a worldview that (40), predictability should be of more
everyone should be treated without consequence in the U.S. in determining
preference (Shaffer & O’Hara, 1995), the three trusting beliefs.
reducing the inherent advantage of IDV should also contribute more to
trust beliefs formation through predict-
is prohibited.
ability in the U.S. Generally, people in benevolence in the U.S. than it will
high IDV cultures are more willing to in Israel.
trust others outside the extended family
in part because of the more prevalent Predictability should also con-
institutional trust mechanisms that tribute directly to behavioral inten-
society puts in place to regulate activ- tions because predictability reduces
ity (Fukuyama, 1995). Accordingly, the uncertainty in economic activity.
because it is inherent in the consumer This effect should be stronger in the
culture in the U.S., people should tend to U.S. because in higher IDV cultures
be more aware of and to more frequently people tend to rely more on external
rely on institutional trust mechanisms regulatory powers and on the govern-
such as the Better Business Bureau. This ment (Fukuyama, 1995). Hence, the
increased awareness of the availability predictability created by such external
of institutional trust mechanisms should regulatory agencies, such as the IFCC
result in an increased trust (Gefen, 2004; and its Israeli equivalent and the legal
McKnight et al., 1998; Pavlou & Gefen, system, should have a greater effect in
2004; Zucker, 1986). Specifically, pre- high IDV cultures.
dictability should contribute to beliefs in
ability because these institutions certify H3a: The prediction process will con-
to the quality of the service the vendor tribute more to behavioral trusting
provides. Institutional trust mechanisms intentions to inquire online in the U.S.
also vouch for the vendor’s adherence to than it will in Israel.
acceptable rules of business, combined H3b: The prediction process will con-
with appropriate quality service, that is tribute more to behavioral trusting
honesty and caring. Here too, since the intention to purchase online in the
reliance on such services is greater in U.S. than it will in Israel.
the U.S., so too should their influence.
Hence the prediction process is hypoth- Another way in which trust is cre-
esized to have a stronger effect in the ated, according to Doney et al. (1998),
U.S. on all three trust beliefs. is capability (referred to henceforth as
ability). This mode is akin to what other
H2a: The prediction process will con- research typically identify as ability,
tribute more to trust beliefs in ability which is one of the dimensions of trust
in the U.S. than it will in Israel. beliefs (e.g., Gefen & Straub, 2004; Jar-
H2b: The prediction process will venpaa et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 1995;
contribute more to trust beliefs in McKnight et al., 2002, 1998). Ability
integrity in the U.S. than it will in leads to behavioral trusting intentions
Israel. because it deals with the ability of the
H2c: The prediction process will trusted party to meet its obligations
contribute more to trust beliefs in (Mayer et al., 1995) and in doing so
prohibited.
provides the trusting party with its ex- DATA COLLECTION

pected outcome (Gefen, 2002a; Schurr
& Ozanne, 1985). Doney et al. proposed Level of Data Analysis
that in high UAI cultures, ability should A major consideration in con-
be more critical in building trust because ducting this study was the level of data
evidence of ability reduces risk (Kale analysis. The unit of analysis in this
& McIntyre, 1991) and high UAI cul- study is the national level, as suggested
tures put more emphasis on avoiding by Ford et al. (2003). This is appropri-
the risks involved with uncertainty.7 ate because perceptions and behaviors
Accordingly, in Israel, as a high UAI of individuals in a society are affected
country, performance should contribute by cultural dimensions, thus it can be
more to online activity. assumed that differences between the
two groups of respondents can be attrib-
H4a: Ability will contribute more uted to cultural differences (Hofstede,
to behavioral trusting intention to 1980a). The variables are tied explicitly
inquire online in Israel than it will to expected outcomes, in this case spe-
in the U.S. cific cases of the “Web use” dependent
H4b: Ability will contribute more variable as suggested by Saeed, Hwang,
to behavioral trusting intention to and Yi (2003) and corresponding to the
purchase online in Israel than it will applied measures of e-commerce use
in the U.S. (e.g., Gefen, 2002b; Pavlou, 2003). This
level of data analysis is in accordance
Perceived size and reputation, with other cross cultural studies (Ge-
originally the antecedents of perceived fen & Straub, 1997; Hofstede, 1980a;
store trustworthiness in Jarvenpaa and Rose & Straub, 1998; Straub, Keil &
Tractinsky’s (1999) study, were not Brennan, 1997; Warkentin et al., 2002)
included in this study because only one where national culture is viewed as a
store, Amazon.com, was examined. collective homogeneity. This choice
The model also includes paths from also allowed for a comparison of the
integrity and benevolence to inquiry trust belief scales as they were originally
intentions and to purchase intentions. developed by Gefen (2000). Moreover,
These paths are well established and this level of analysis is appropriate here
have been extensively discussed in the because the study examines the more
literature (e.g., Gefen, 2002b, McKnight general theoretical aspects of trust
et al., 2002). These paths are included in and the implications of the findings to
the model without explicit hypotheses e-commerce vendors when trading in
because integrity and benevolence are different countries, rather than person-
expected to affect behavioral intentions alization issues. This choice of level of
regardless of culture. analysis is also in apparent agreement
is prohibited.
with Hofstede (1994) who comments of these trust beliefs were developed.
that individuals are strongly influenced Gefen’s scale was further validated
by national culture, and even young with minor changes also with regard to
adults are already “imprinted” by the online flight booking (Gefen & Straub,
surrounding culture (p. 5). 2004). Since this study examines online
An alternative level of analysis book buying activity as the context in
could have been the individual level which trust is compared across cultures,
as suggested by McCoy, Galletta, and Gefen’s (2002b) scales, being devel-
King (2005). McCoy et al. question the oped originally for this specific activity
cultural homogeneity assumption of and being cross-validated, were chosen.
previous research based on the apparent Gefen’s original data from the U.S. were
changes in the Hofstede scale values compared with an equivalent Israeli
between recent studies (McCoy et al., sample. Although there is a time inter-
2005) and the original values. The need val between the two samples, it should
to examine cultural differences also on be noted that Amazon’s book selling
an individual level is raised by Straub et interface and service process have not
al. (2002) as well. Straub et al. discuss changed markedly over this period of
the need to define culture in more than time and also that national culture in
one way because people are influenced general is relatively stable and does not
by a variety of social circles as proposed change over such intervals. It should
by social identification theory (Deaux, also be noted that although Gefen’s
1996; Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000; data (2002b) analyzed here is two years
Tajfel, 1970, 1978). Nonetheless, Mc- older, these scales were revalidated in
Coy et al. (2005) agree there is a need to other settings (Gefen & Straub, 2004)
study cross cultural differences among and shown to have the same pattern of
countries, and social identification significant paths.
theory recognizes national culture as one In this study we examine the role of
of the prime sources of an individual’s culture on trust beliefs based on compar-
identification (Hogg, 1996). ing the data collected by Gefen (2002b)
in the U.S. among mid-Atlantic students
Details of Data Collection with a recent equivalent Israeli sample.
Recent research on trust belief The Israeli sample was collected in 2003
scales in the specific context of e- with the same data collection procedure
commerce has developed statistically and using the same previously validated
distinct scales of these three beliefs. In instrument translated into Hebrew.
two unrelated studies by McKnight et The original survey was translated
al. (2002) and by Gefen (2002b) dealing into Hebrew and then back again into
with Web legal services and with buying English, to verify its accuracy. Although
books online, respectively, two sets of both datasets are convenience samples,
comparable three dimensional scales other research (Gefen & Straub, 2004)
prohibited.
has shown the comparable results of free experiments in general (Fromkin

these scales and equivalent ones (Serva, & Streufert, 1976). The objective of
Fuller, & Benamati, 2005) with other this procedure was to refresh the par-
convenience samples to other scenarios ticipants’ memory. The objective was
of e-commerce in the U.S. not to manipulate the participants or
Replicating Gefen (2002b), the create trust. Participation was volun-
instrument was distributed to under- tary. 162 complete instruments from
graduate management students in an 167 Israeli students were collected and
Israeli university. (Israeli undergraduate then compared with the 217 original
students are on average three to four U.S. instruments. In this way, and by
years older than their American coun- sampling university students from the
terparts since they start their studying same discipline (management) in both
after a military service of about three countries, occupation and education
years.) Students were approached in an were held constant, complying with
Internet-connected classroom, where Hofstede’s (1994, p. 29) recommenda-
each student had a PC. All the PCs tions.
had identical configuration, including Among the Israeli respondents,
operating system, Internet browser, 47% (n = 69) were women, and 53%
installed software and bandwidth, fea- (n = 78) men, which is about the same
tures that could not be changed by users. percentage as with the American re-
The students were asked to navigate to spondents where 52% were women (n
Amazon.com, inquire about a course = 65) and 48% were men (n = 60); 13
textbook, and go through the procedure of the original American students did
of purchasing it but without actually not declare their gender. 52% (n = 76)
submitting the transaction. Online book of the Israeli respondents were in the
purchasing is popular also in Israel. Af- 21-25 age group and 48% (n = 66) in
ter about 10 minutes of this procedure, the 26-30 age group, corresponding to
the students were asked to complete an equivalent percentage among the
the experimental instrument. In this American students, where 51% were
questionnaire the students were asked in the 21-25 age group and 43% in
to assess the items in Appendix 1 on a the 26-30 age group. The two samples
7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly did not differ significantly on age (F =
agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), with 4 2.148, p-value = .14), gender (F = 0.398,
as the midpoint. p-value = 0.53), or whether they had or
The purpose of the study was not had not previously bought online (F =
revealed to the participants until after 3.145, p-value = 0.08).
the data had been collected. As with the
original U.S. data collection procedure, DATA ANALYSIS
the objective was to elicit responses The data were analyzed with PLS
in natural settings, as is the case with Graph 3.00 Build 1126. First, the con-
is prohibited.
vergent and discriminant validity was right. Numbers above the arrows are
verified by showing that (1) the square the betas. An asterisk means the beta is
root of the AVE of each construct is significant at the 0.05 level. Two aster-
much larger than its correlations with isks means significant at the 0.01 level,
other constructs, shown in Appendixes n.s. means insignificant. The T-values
3 and 4, and (2) that loadings of each of the path coefficients were estimated
measurement item on its assigned factor with PLS bootstrap.8
in a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) The U.S. sample shows the same
is much higher than on any other fac- pattern of significant paths as it did
tor, shown in Appendixes 5 and 6. The with the original analysis (Gefen,
reliability of the constructs is also high, 2002b), albeit the model in this study
shown in Appendixes 3 and 4. It should has predictability added to it. Ability
be noted that PLS CFA inflate the load- affects inquiry intentions. Integrity
ings and that there are no established affects purchase intentions. Addition-
guidelines about what acceptable CFA ally, familiarity affects both inquiry
loading coefficients should be in PLS. and purchase intentions. As proposed,
Indeed, comparing PLS and principal but not examined by earlier research
components factor analysis (PCA) on (Gefen, 2000), familiarity affects all
the same data show that PLS loadings three trust beliefs through its effect on
in the 0.50 and above level correspond predictability. Predictability also af-
to loadings at the 0.30 level in a PCA fected inquiry and purchase intentions.
(Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). In the Israeli sample ability affects both
All item loadings are significant and all inquiry and purchase intentions, while
the reliability coefficients are above the integrity affects only purchase inten-
.80 threshold. The nomological valid- tions. Familiarity affects both inquiry
ity of the constructs was established and purchase intentions and through its
by verifying that in both samples the effect on predictability affected abil-
constructs that should be significantly ity and integrity but not benevolence.
correlated with each other are signifi- Predictability, however, did not affect
cantly correlated. All the trust belief inquiry and purchase intentions.
constructs are significantly correlated Comparing the two samples, Ap-
with trusting behavioral intentions pendix 2 shows that the differences in
and with familiarity and predictability. trust beliefs were mostly insignificant
Familiarity and predictability are also even though the U.S. sample were more
significantly correlated with trusting familiar with Amazon.com, which
behavioral intentions. would be expected given that Israelis
Figure 2 shows the results of the buy more books in Hebrew than in Eng-
two analyses. The percents above the lish, and was therefore more predictable
boxes are R2 values. U.S. values are to the U.S. sample who also used it more
shown on the left, Israeli ones on the to both inquire and purchase books. The
prohibited.
Figure 2. Research model with path coefficients
differences between the samples in their 1994). Hence, because adherence to

beliefs in integrity and benevolence behavioral norms is one of the expres-
were insignificant and those in ability sions of integrity (Sitkin & Roth, 1993),
were only significant at the 0.05 level, integrity might have had stronger effects
meaning that it was probably not the in the American sample as to purchas-
degree of integrity, benevolence, or ing intentions.
ability that caused the differences be-
tween the countries in their purchase CONCLUSIONS
and inquiry intentions. The hypotheses
were examined by comparing the path Summary of Results
coefficients based on Wynne Chin as The objectives of this study were
described by Keil et al. (2000). The twofold: First, to establish the psycho-
hypotheses were all confirmed. Table metric properties of three dimensional
1 shows these results. scales of trust beliefs and their related
The data analysis also shows sig- familiarity and predictability scales in
nificant differences in the paths from a culture different from the U.S., where
integrity to purchase intentions. This the original scales were developed and
may be the result of the U.S. being a verified. Second, having established
highly individualistic culture. In gen- this, to investigate how the model differs
eral, highly individualistic cultures have when comparing the U.S. and Israel, a
a greater need to install standards and culture which has low PDI, high UAI,
norms in order to prevent opportunis- and medium IDV. The data show that the
tic behavior, and, accordingly, people psychometric properties and nomologi-
in these cultures rely more heavily on cal validity of the scales do carry over to
adherence to these norms (Hofstede, Israel, supporting the notion that these
is prohibited.
Table 1. Comparison of the path coefficients in both samples
T value
comparing
U.S. Israel
the two
countries
Path Path
Path Path
Standard Standard
Coefficient Coefficient
Error Error
Familiarity will have a stronger
effect on trusting behavioral
intentions in Israel
H1a: Familiarity to Inquire 0.1900 0.0746 0.2100 0.0845 2.422*
H1b: Familiarity to Purchase 0.2120 0.0671 0.2970 0.0815 11.041**
The prediction process will
contribute more to trust in the
U.S. than in Israel
H2a: Predictability to Ability 0.573 0.0637 0.385 0.0992 -22.208**
H2b: Predictability to Integrity 0.613 0.0467 0.289 0.0852 -46.841**
H2c: Predictability to
0.544 0.0493 0.205 0.1156 -38.312**
Benevolence
H3a: Predictability to Inquiry
0.227 0.0762 0.153 0.1091 -7.705**
Intentions
H3b: Predictability to Purchase
0.339 0.0795 0.121 0.0923 -24.468**
Intentions
Ability will contribute more to
trust in Israel than in the U.S.
H4a: Ability to Inquiry 0.211 0.1017 0.241 0.0953 2.902**
H4b: Ability to Purchase 0.158 0.0941 0.184 0.073 38.254**
Other Significant Differences
Integrity to Inquiry 0.047 0.0897 0.105 0.0804 16.961** 9
Integrity to Purchase 0.238 0.09 0.159 0.0792 -8.847**
** means significant at the .01 level * means significant at the .05 level
trust belief scales apply at least across social aspects are also captured by the
these two cultures, but, as hypothesized, IDV, PDI, and UAI dimensions of cul-
the data also highlight the need to rec- ture as explained by Hofstede (1980a)
ognize that trust works differently at and hence should affect trust (Doney
least in these two cultures. et al., 1998).
This cultural distinction is neces- The data also support the theoreti-
sary in studying trust in general because cal propositions on trust (Mayer et al.,
trust is about reducing social uncertainty 1995; McKnight et al., 1998) that trust
(Gefen, 2000; Luhmann, 1979) and beliefs, specifically integrity and abil-
about the willingness to depend on ity, affect behavioral trusting intentions
others (Mayer et al., 1995). These two involving vulnerability to the trusted
prohibited.
party. These trust beliefs are in turn concentrated on one of the established
the product of familiarity and predic- trust creation modes, namely familiar-
tion processes. Supporting the study’s ity. Extending the research to other
underlying proposition and its hypoth- trust creation modes, such as calcula-
eses, there are significant differences tive, intentionality, transference, size,
in the strength of these processes be- and reputation could add additional
tween the two national cultures. While aspects of how national culture affects
the data support this proposition, it is trust beliefs. At this stage, additional
reassuring that the three dimensional research is also needed to examine the
structure of trust beliefs does carry research propositions in other cultures.
over across cultures. Benevolence was While doing so, examining alternative
an insignificant predictor of both types cultural measures such as Dorfman
of trusting behavioral intentions. This and Howell (1988) and other levels of
result in the Israeli sample replicates identification (Straub et al., 2002) could
the results reported by Gefen (2002b) add insights.
in the U.S. Apparently, while customers
in both countries value integrity and Implications
ability, in both countries they value The central implication of this
less online vendors’ benevolence. This study is its support of the need to in-
is not surprising. Benevolence is a sig- clude national culture in e-commerce
nificant predictor of trusting behavioral trust studies. Considering that almost
intentions among friends (Larzelere & all e-commerce trust is based on stud-
Huston, 1980). ies in the U.S., this should be a wakeup
call. If conclusions drawn based on the
Limitations U.S. cannot be automatically applied
The underlying objective of this to other cultures, researchers should
study was to highlight the need to in- be aware of it.
clude national culture in trust research. Another implication is that fa-
Showing the generalization of the path miliarity and its related predictability
coefficients was not. Thus, although the process applies differently depending
study examined convenience samples of on the culture. While the importance of
students, which coincidently were also both familiarity and predictability has
those used by Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky been previously demonstrated (Gefen,
(1999), and hence the generality of the 2000; Shapiro et al., 1992; Zucker,
results cannot be assessed, this objec- 1986), showing how this effect changes
tive of the study was addressed and across cultures is new.
supported. Additional research could A summary of the differences high-
examine larger and random samples. lights some of the cultural implications
Another vein worth studying is of applying a U.S. model to another
other modes of trust creation. This study culture. The U.S. is a very individualistic
is prohibited.
and low uncertainty avoidance culture. operate differently in different countries

In such a culture people typically accept (Doney et al., 1998; Fukuyama, 1995;
others as free agents and hence knowing Noorderhaven, 1999). Thus the study
what to expect of others is a significant clarifies that although these beliefs may
antecedent of trusting behavioral inten- operate differently, their nature seems
tions. In contrast, Israel is a much more to be the same. This is an important
collectivist and uncertainty-avoiding contribution because previous research
culture. In such a culture, people expect that had clustered these three beliefs into
familiar others to behave in accordance one construct (Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky,
with community norms (Singh, 1990), 1999) did not conclude so, although it
and hence predictability, while still did raise the need for additional research
creating trust, is not a significant ante- to explain these results. Reexamining
cedent of trusting behavioral intentions. Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky’s conclusion
Moreover, familiarity is more highly in the same book buying context with
valued in these cultures than in an in- the same type of student population, but
dividualist culture. These observations this time within the currently broader
are supported by the data. conceptualization of trust as a three
Of the three trust beliefs, integrity dimensional construct of beliefs built
was a significant predictor of trusting through predictability, the study clari-
behavioral intentions in both cultures, fies those counter intuitive conclusions
while ability was a significant predictor and supports the need to include culture
only among Israelis. This difference in in trust research. This reexamination
the impact of ability may be explained supports the extension of Doney et al.’s
by the difference in PDI between the propositions. In doing so, the study
two cultures. In low PDI cultures, people opts to contribute to the “deficiencies
associate power with ability (Hofstede, in developing theoretical structures
1980a). This tendency of Israelis is also to better understand the relationship
reflected by Intel’s instructions, based between culture and IS” (Ford et al.,
on cultural differences mapped by its 2003, p. 19).
research center, to its U.S. employees The study also expands existing re-
who are sent to Israel: “When present- search on trust formation in e-commerce
ing to Israelis be brief, get quickly to by including the prediction process as a
the point” (Hermoni, 2004). mediating construct between familiarity
The study shows that although trust and trust beliefs. In doing so the study
beliefs as found in the U.S. may be supports the conclusion that familiarity
generalized to other cultures, the rela- increases trust indirectly through a bet-
tive weight of each of these beliefs does ter understanding of what is happening
differ. This is important because the lit- (Gefen et al., 2003b), albeit differently
erature suggests, but has not empirically between the two cultures.
shown, that trust and trust beliefs should
prohibited.
Afterthought Heinemann.
While additional research is needed Clark, T. (1990) International marketing
before conclusions can be drawn, the and national character: A review
data imply that in highly individualist and proposal for an integrative
and low uncertainty avoidance cultures theory. Journal of Marketing,
vendors might be advised to emphasize 54(4), 66-79.
predictability, for example through con- ClickZ. (2004). Population explo-
tracts, guarantees and association with sion! Retrieved May 17, 2006,
trust-elevating institutional institutions. from http://www.clickz.com/stats/
On the other hand, in the more collectiv- big_picture/geographics/article.
ist countries, vendors might be better php/5911_151151
advised to invest in creating familiar- Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification.
ity and a perception of ability. Adding In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Krug-
national culture to models of trust in lanski (Eds.), Social psychology
e-commerce, especially trust creation handbook of basic principles (pp.
processes, could enhance e-commerce 777-798). New York, London: The
success and allow Web sites to cater to Guilford Press.
specific national cultural aspects. There Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An
is a big wide world out there. It is not examination of the nature of trust in
all the same. buyer-seller relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 61(1), 35-51.
REFERENCES Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mul-
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & len, M. R. (1998). Understanding
Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and the influence of national culture
situational contingencies and the on the development of trust. The
theory of reasoned action: Appli- Academy of Management Review,
cation to fast food restaurant con- 23(3), 601-620.
sumption. Journal of Consumer Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988).
Psychology, 9(2), 97-106. Dimensions of national culture
Berscheid, E. (1966). Opinion change and effective leadership patterns:
and communicator-communica- Hofstede revisited. Advances in
tee similarity and dissimilarity. International Comparative Man-
Journal of Personality and Social agement, 3, 127-150.
Psychology, 4(6), 670-680. Ebusinessforum. (2002). The Econo-
Brown, R. (1996). Tajfel’s contribu- mist Intelligence Unit e-readiness
tion to the reduction of intergroup rankings. Retrieved May 17, 2006,
conflict. In W.P. Robinson (Ed.), from http://www.ebusinessfo-
Social groups and identities: De- rum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_
veloping the legacy of Henri Tajfel story&doc_id=5768
(pp. 69-190). UK: Butterworth- EMarketer. (2004). Net users making
is prohibited.
their mark online. Retrieved May implementation relationships

17, 2006, from http://www.emar- worthwhile: Linking trust mecha-
keter.com/news/article nisms and ERP usefulness. Jour-
Ford, D. P., Connelly, C. E., & Meister, nal of Management Information
D. B. (2003). Information systems Systems, 21(1).
research and Hofstede’s culture’s Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub,
consequences: An uneasy and D. W. (2003a). Inexperience and
incomplete partnership. IEEE experience with online stores:
Transactions On Engineering The importance of TAM and trust.
Management, 50(1), 8-25. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Fromkin, H. L., & Streufert, S. (1976). Management, 50(3), 307-321.
Laboratory experimentation. In Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub,
B. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of D. W. (2003b). Trust and TAM
industrial and organizational psy- in online shopping: An integrated
chology (pp. 415-465). Chicago: model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1),
Rand McNally College Publishing 51-90.
Company. Gefen, D., & Ridings, C. (2003). IT ac-
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social ceptance: Managing user-IT group
virtues and the creation of prosper- boundaries. The DATA BASE for
ity. New York: The Free Press. Advances in Information Systems,
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of 34(3), 25-40.
long-term orientation in buyer- Gefen, D., Rose, G. M., Warkentin, M.,
seller relationships. Journal of & Pavlou, P. A. (2004). Cultural
Marketing, 58(1), 1-19. diversity and trust in IT adop-
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role tion: A comparison of U.S.A. and
of familiarity and trust. Omega, South African e-voters. Journal
28(5), 725-737. of Global Information Systems,
Gefen, D. (2002a). Nurturing clients’ 13(1), 54-78.
trust to encourage engagement Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gen-
success during the customization der differences in perception and
of ERP systems. Omega: The Inter- adoption of e-mail: An extension to
national Journal of Management the technology acceptance model.
Science, 30(4), 287-299. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389-400.
Gefen, D. (2002b). Reflections on the Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004).
dimensions of trust and trustwor- Consumer trust in B2C e-com-
thiness among online consumers. merce and the importance of social
The DATABASE for Advances presence: Experiments in e-prod-
in Information Systems, 33(3), ucts and e-services. Omega: The
38-53. International Journal of Manage-
Gefen, D. (2004). What makes ERP ment Science, 32(6), 407-424.
prohibited.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-94). UK:
M.-C. (2000). Structural equation Butterworth-Heinemann.
modeling and regression: Guide- Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000).
lines for research practice. Com- Social identity and self-categori-
munications of the Association for zation processes in organizational
Information Systems, 4(7), 1-70. contexts. Academy of Management
Hermoni, O. (2004, July 9). Expect Review, 25(1), 121-140.
interruptions and hot arguments, Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner,
don’t discuss politics: Intel’s tips D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?
to its employees visiting Israel. Antecedents of trust in global
Haaretz Daily Newspaper. virtual teams. Journal of Manage-
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s conse- ment Information Systems, 14(4),
quences: International differences 29-64.
in work related values. London: Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Tractinsky, N.
Sage Publications. (1999). Consumer trust in an
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Motivation, Internet store: A cross-cultural
leadership, and organization: Do validation. Journal of Computer
American theories apply abroad? Mediated Communication, 5(2),
Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 1-35.
42-63. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., &
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s conse- Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust
quences: International differences in an Internet store. Information
in work-related values. Beverly Technology and Management,
Hills: Sage Publications. 1(12), 45-71.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The
organizations, intercultural co- influence of culture on consumer
operation and its importance for impulsive buying behavior. Jour-
survival, software of the mind. nal of Consumer Psychology,
Glasgow, UK: HarperCollins 12(2), 163-176.
Publishers. Kale, S. H., & McIntyre, R. P. (1991).
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., Distinctive channel relationships
& Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring in diverse cultures. International
organizational cultures: A qualita- Marketing Review, 8(3), 31-45.
tive and quantitative study across Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., &
twenty cases. Adminstrative Sci- Saarinen, T. (2000). Cross-cultural
ence Quarterly, 35(2), 286-316. study on escalation of commitment
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group structure behavior in software projects. MIS
and social identity. In W. P. Rob- Quarterly, 24(2), 299-325.
inson (Ed.), Social groups and Kim, H.-W., Xu, Y., & Koh, J. (2004). A
identities: Developing the legacy comparison of online trust building
is prohibited.
factors between potential custom- An interdisciplinary conceptual

ers and repeat customers. Journal typology. International Journal
of the Association for Information of Electronic Commerce, 6(2),
Systems, 5(10), 392-420. 35-53.
Kollock, P. (1999). The production of McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., &
trust in online markets. Advances Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing
in Group Processes, 16(1), 99- and validating trust measures
123. for e-commerce: An integrative
Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust typology. Information Systems
in manufacturer-retailer relation- Research, 13(3), 334-359.
ships. Harvard Business Review, McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., &
74(6), 92-106. Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). formation in new organizational
The dyadic trust scale: Toward relationships. Academy of Man-
understanding interpersonal trust agement Review, 23(3), 473-490.
in close relationships. Journal of Noorderhaven, N. G. (1999). National
Marriage and the Family, 42(3), culture and development of trust:
595-604. The need for more data and less
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. theory. Academy of Management
London: John Wiley & Sons. Review, 24(1), 9-10.
Lynch, P. D., & Beck, J. C. (2001). Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer ac-
Profiles of Internet buyers in 20 ceptance of electronic commerce:
countries: Evidence of region- Integrating trust and risk with the
specific strategies. Journal of technology acceptance model. In-
International Business Studies, ternational Journal of Electronic
32(4), 725-748. Commerce, 7(3), 69-103.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoor- Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004).
man, F. D. (1995). An integrative Building effective online market-
model of organizational trust. places with institution-based trust.
Academy of Management Review, Information Systems Research,
20(3), 709-734. 15(1).
McCoy, S., Galletta, D., & King, W. Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000).
(2005). Integrating national cul- E-loyalty: Your secret weapon
ture into IS research: The need for on the Web. Harvard Business
current individual-level measures. Review, 78(4), 105-113.
Communications of the AIS, 15, Rose, G., & Straub, D. W. (1998). Pre-
211-224. dicting general IT use: Applying
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. TAM to the Arabic world. Journal
(2002). What trust means in e- of Global Information Manage-
commerce customer relationships: ment, 6(3), 39-46.
prohibited.
Saeed, K., Hwang, Y., & Yi, M. (2003). ness of legalistic “Remedies” for
Toward an integrative framework trust/distrust. Organizational Sci-
for online consumer behavior re- ence, 4(3), 367-392.
search: A meta-analysis approach. Straub, D. W., Keil, M., & Brennan,
Journal of End User Computing, W. (1997). Testing the technology
15(4), 1-26. acceptance model across cultures:
Schurr, P. H., & Ozanne, J. L. (1985, A three country study. Information
March). Influences on exchange & Management, 33, 1-11.
processes: Buyers’ preconceptions Straub, D. W., Loch, K. D., Evaristo,
of a seller’s trustworthiness and R., Karahanna, E., & Srite, M.
bargaining toughness. Journal (2002). Toward a theory-based
of Consumer Research, 11, 939- measurement of culture. Journal of
953. Global Information Management,
Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Bena- 10(1), 13-23.
mati, J. (2005). Trustworthiness Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in in-
in B2c e-commerce: empirical test tergroup discrimination. Scientific
of alternative models. The DATA- American, 223(5), 96-102.
BASE for Advances in Information Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization,
Systems. social identity and social compari-
Shaffer, T. R., & O’Hara, B. S. (1995). son. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentia-
The effects of country of origin on tion between social groups (pp.
trust and ethical perceptions of le- 61-76). UK: Academic Press.
gal services. The Service Industries Tan, B. C. Y., Smith, H. J., Keil, M., &
Journal, 15(2), 162-185. Montealegre, R. (2003). Reporting
Shane, S. A. (1992). The effect of cul- bad news about software projects:
tural differences in perceptions Impact of organizational climate
of transaction costs on national and information asymmetry in an
differences in the preference for individualistic and a collectivistic
licensing. Management Interna- culture. IEEE Transactions on
tional Review, 32(4), 295-311. Engineering Management, 50(1),
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., & Ch- 64-77.
eraskin, L. (1992). Business on a Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive
handshake. Negotiation Journal, redefinition of the social group.
8, 365-377. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity
Singh, J. (1990). Managerial culture and intergroup relations (pp. 1-
and work-related values in India. 40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Organizational Studies, 11(1), University Press.
75-101. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A.,
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). & Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging
Explaining the limited effective- citizen adoption of eGovernment
is prohibited.
by building trust. Electronic Mar- immigrants. It is composed mostly

kets: The International Journal of of Jews from Eastern Europe,
Electronic Commerce & Business where collectivism was especially
Media, 12(3), 157-162. strong as a means to reduce threats
Williamson, O. (1985). The economic and maintain self-identity, and
institutions of capitalism. New from the Arab countries, such as
York: The Free Press. Morocco and Iraq, where society
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). as a whole is collectivistic. Only
Trust and commitment in the a relative small percentage of Is-
United States and Japan. Motiva- raeli society can trace its roots to
tion and Emotion, 18, 129-166. the more individualistic West, but
Zucker, L. (1986) Production of trust: even there the Jewish population
Institutional sources of economic was relatively more collectivistic.
structure, 1840-1920. Research The kibbutz, a collective form of
in Organization Behavior, 8(1), settlement, formed in Israel at
53-111. the beginning of the 20th century
by Jewish settlers, is an extreme
ENDNOTES manifestation of collectivism that
1
As of March 2004 there were characterized the early days of
nearly 186 million online con- Israeli society.
sumers in the U.S. as compared 5
The only other country with such
with 945 million users worldwide an extreme PDI is Austria. As
(EMarketer, 2004). Hofstede explains, the low PDI
2
The latter also take an initial step in Austria is probably the result of
in addressing the need raised by the very large proportion of Jews
Noorderhaven’s (1999) comment in the “Inteligentsia” between the
about Doney et al.’s (1998) propo- two world wars and their enormous
sitions on how culture affects trust effect on the culture. In fact, it is
outcomes: “That means we should mostly because of the indexes of
start with trying to get good and these two countries that statisti-
rich data and not more theory” (p. cally the PDI and IDV factors are
9). distinct (Hofstede, 1984).
3
There is actually quite a mix up 6
Doney et al. (1998) advance
in the literature as to what trust is conflicting propositions on how
and what trustworthiness is. Some predictability should relate to a
label trust beliefs as trustworthi- comparison of national cultures in
ness (e.g., Mayer et al., 1995) while interpersonal relationships based
others named these as trust (e.g., on PDI, UAI, and IDV. On the
Doney & Cannon, 1997). one hand, their analysis of PDI,
4
Like the U.S., Israel is a country of discussed above, suggests that pre-
prohibited.
dictability should have a stronger carry more weight in building trust

effect on trust beliefs in the U.S. in high IDV cultures was not part
On the other hand, their analysis of of the logic here because the reason
IDV suggests that predictability in Ability is less important in low
social settings should be of more IDV cultures, according to Doney
consequence in Israel because col- et al. (1998), is that in collectivist
lectivist cultures put greater value cultures the whole group pitches
on conformity to social behavior. in to help while in individualistic
However, recognizing that buying cultures the outcome depends more
online is a private activity where on the individual. This is not the
conformity plays hardly any role, case with an online vendor. Doney
this proposition was not applied. et al. also propose that in high PDI
Along the same lines, Doney cultures ability should carry more
et al. also propose that predict- weight in building trust because
ability-based trust should be less in these cultures people expect
influential in social settings in low large variance in others people’s
UAI cultures because predictabil- capabilities based on their social
ity cannot logically establish trust position. Arguably, this too is not
in cultures where behavior itself the case with online shopping at
is not predictable and society ac- Amazon.com.
cepts it as such. But this scenario 8
An alternative saturated model
is also not the case with one of the was also examined. The saturated
largest and most reputable online model contained the same paths as
vendors. The behavior of Amazon in the research model and also three
is very predictable and any varia- paths from Familiarity to the three
tions from what the FTC allows trust beliefs. In the saturated model
are categorically unaccepted in the same paths as shown in the
both countries. research model were significant.
7
The hypothesis is based on Doney The three additional paths were
et al.’s (1998) proposition con- not.
cerning UAI. Their contradicting 9
The paths in both samples are
propositions that Ability should insignificant.
is prohibited.
APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Familiarity with Amanzon.com
I am familiar with buying books on the Internet Fam1
I am familiar with Amazon.com Fam2
I am familiar with the processes of purchasing books on the Internet Fam3
I am familiar with inquiring about book ratings at Amazon.com Fam4
Integrity
Promises made by Amazon.com are likely to be reliable In1
I do not doubt the honesty of Amazon.com In2
I expect that Amazon.com will keep promises they make In3
Benevolence
I expect that Amazon.com have good intentions toward me Ben1
I expect that Amazon.com intentions are benevolent Ben2
I expect that Amazon.com are well meaning Ben3
Ability
Amazon.com understand the market they work in AB1
Amazon.com know about books AB2
Amazon.com know how to provide excellent service AB3
Intention to Buy
I would use my credit card to purchase from Amazon.com Use2
I am very likely to buy books from Amazon.com Use1
Prediction Process
Amazon.com are predictable Prd1
I am quite certain what Amazon.com will do Prd2
I am quite certain what to expect from Amazon.com Prd3
Intentions to Inquire
I would use Amazon.com to retrieve information Inq1
I would use Amazon.com to inquire what readers think of a book Inq2
I would use Amazon.com to find out about the author of a book Inq3
I would use Amazon.com to inquire about book ratings Inq4
APPENDIX B. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Mean Statistics
Mean
t-value comparing the U.S.A. with Israel
COUNTRY 1=agree Std. Deviation
(p-value)
7=disagree
Familiarity U.S.A. 3.3412 1.60231 -8.001 (<.001)
ISREAL 4.8912 1.66374
Integrity U.S.A. 3.0438 .93918 .352 (.725)
ISREAL 3.0023 1.04357
Benevolence U.S.A. 3.2251 .92611 .349 (.728)
ISREAL 3.1814 1.16142
Ability U.S.A. 2.6277 1.01385 -2.095 (.037)
ISREAL 2.8957 1.13261
Prediction
U.S.A. 3.2080 .94924 -5.806 (<.001)
Process
ISREAL 3.9365 1.14765
Inquiry
U.S.A. 2.5501 1.16334 -9.543 (<.001)
Intentions
ISREAL 3.9321 1.63980
Purchase
U.S.A. 3.0790 1.51159 -6.929 (<.001)
Intentions
ISREAL 4.4048 1.69238
prohibited.
APPENDIX C. CORRELATIONS OF LATENT VARIABLES AND

SQUARE ROOT OF THE AVE, ISRAELI SAMPLE
PLS Pur. Inq.

Ability Integrity Ben. Fam. Pred.
reliability Inten. Inten.
Purchase Intentions .93 0.930
Ability .84 0.354 0.801
Integrity .85 0.337 0.484 0.805
Benevolence .91 0.187 0.325 0.459 0.878
Familiarity .90 0.378 0.131 0.143 0.034 0.830
Predictability .93 0.328 0.392 0.307 0.199 0.276 0.901
Inquiry Intentions .94 0.593 0.398 0.325 0.222 0.301 0.349 0.890
APPENDIX D. CORRELATIONS OF LATENT VARIABLES AND

SQUARE ROOT OF THE AVE, U.S. SAMPLE
PLS Pur. Inq.

reliability Inten. Inten.
Purchase
.91 0.917
Intentions
Ability .92 0.222 0.900
Integrity .92 0.416 0.578 0.895
Benevolence .87 0.274 0.679 0.654 0.834
Familiarity .91 0.339 0.233 0.274 0.218 0.842
Predictability .89 0.455 0.592 0.641 0.561 0.296 0.849
Inquiry
.94 0.485 0.424 0.331 0.372 0.313 0.429 0.888
Intentions
APPENDIX E. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, ISRAELI

SAMPLE
Pur. Inq.
Inten. Inten.
USE2 0.92 0.30 0.32 0.19 0.33 0.30 0.56
USE1 0.94 0.35 0.31 0.16 0.37 0.31 0.55
AB1 0.27 0.82 0.48 0.25 0.08 0.27 0.28
AB2 0.14 0.68 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.17 0.26
AB3 0.38 0.88 0.46 0.31 0.18 0.43 0.39
IN1 0.32 0.42 0.89 0.36 0.11 0.26 0.32
IN2 0.27 0.34 0.78 0.26 0.21 0.25 0.24
IN3 0.22 0.41 0.73 0.53 0.02 0.23 0.22
BEN1 0.12 0.24 0.42 0.91 0.02 0.26 0.25
BEN2 0.20 0.30 0.38 0.90 0.01 0.10 0.16
BEN3 0.19 0.35 0.40 0.83 0.07 0.13 0.14
FAM1 0.31 0.09 0.07 -0.01 0.84 0.22 0.22
FAM2 0.22 0.12 0.14 -0.06 0.74 0.16 0.20
FAM3 0.36 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.89 0.25 0.27
is prohibited.
APPENDIX E. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, ISRAELI

SAMPLE (CONT.)
FAM4 0.34 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.84 0.27 0.29

PRD1 0.28 0.43 0.28 0.27 0.21 0.89 0.31
PRD2 0.25 0.26 0.23 0.11 0.20 0.89 0.28
PRD3 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.15 0.32 0.93 0.34
INQ1 0.56 0.32 0.23 0.12 0.26 0.32 0.83
INQ2 0.51 0.34 0.30 0.21 0.32 0.33 0.93
INQ3 0.54 0.38 0.36 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.92
INQ4 0.53 0.38 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.33 0.92
APPENDIX F. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, U.S.

SAMPLE
Pur. Inq.
Inten. Inten.
USE2 0.93 0.18 0.39 0.25 0.33 0.43 0.42
USE1 0.91 0.23 0.37 0.26 0.29 0.41 0.47
AB1 0.20 0.89 0.49 0.51 0.24 0.51 0.40
AB2 0.17 0.90 0.50 0.62 0.15 0.49 0.37
AB3 0.22 0.90 0.56 0.69 0.23 0.59 0.37
IN1 0.35 0.55 0.90 0.59 0.29 0.57 0.33
IN2 0.42 0.52 0.92 0.60 0.23 0.63 0.30
IN3 0.35 0.48 0.86 0.57 0.21 0.51 0.25
BEN1 0.27 0.63 0.60 0.88 0.19 0.51 0.38
BEN2 0.20 0.53 0.53 0.83 0.16 0.44 0.30
BEN3 0.21 0.53 0.49 0.79 0.19 0.46 0.23
FAM1 0.36 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.84 0.25 0.21
FAM2 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.81 0.18 0.24
FAM3 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.86 0.26 0.33
FAM4 0.31 0.21 0.27 0.23 0.85 0.31 0.27
PRD1 0.40 0.62 0.62 0.57 0.28 0.86 0.44
PRD2 0.38 0.37 0.49 0.38 0.21 0.84 0.26
PRD3 0.37 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.26 0.84 0.37
INQ1 0.44 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.85
INQ2 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.37 0.91
INQ3 0.44 0.42 0.32 0.38 0.27 0.43 0.89
INQ4 0.42 0.38 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.35 0.90
prohibited.
David Gefen is associate professor of MIS at Drexel, where he teaches strategic man-
agement of IT, database analysis and design, and VB.NET. He received his PhD from
GSU and a Masters from Tel-Aviv University. His research focuses on psychological and
rational processes in ERP, CMC, and e-commerce implementation. David’s interests stem
from 12 years developing and managing large IT projects. His research findings have
been published in MISQ,ISR, IEEE TEM, JMIS, JSIS, DATABASE, Omega, JAIS, CAIS,
among others. David is a senior editor at DATABASE and the author of a textbook on
VB.NET. Currently, David is a visiting professor at Tel Aviv University.
Tsipi Heart is a lecturer at University College Cork, Ireland, where she teaches IT
management related courses. She has received her PhD dissertation at the Department
of Industrial Engineering and Management of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in
Israel, after serving as CIO and a consultant in Israeli organizations. Tsipi’s research
focuses on IT implementation in small and medium size enterprises, IT strategy and
management, IT innovation and adoption, cultural differences in IT usage, and appli-
cation service providers. Her work has been published in such journals as Information
Technology and Tourism, International Journal of Hospitality Information Technology,
Communications of the AIS, INFOR and Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Application (JITTA).
is prohibited.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

E Commerce Trust Belief PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

E Commerce Trust Belief PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING ITJ3276

On the Need to Include National

Keywords: cross cultural studies; e-commerce; trust

INTRODUCTION national culture.1 With few exceptions

Figure 1. Research model

masculinity-femininity (MAS). The 15 it stronger, or by the low UAI, making

Table 1. Summary of Doney et al. (1998)

dividualism or collectivism (Hofstede, Israelis generally think that inequality

and inherently distrusting them (Fuku- familiarity in collectivist cultures. It is

provides the trusting party with its ex- DATA COLLECTION

has shown the comparable results of free experiments in general (Fromkin

Figure 2. Research model with path coefﬁcients

differences between the samples in their 1994). Hence, because adherence to

Table 1. Comparison of the path coefﬁcients in both samples

and low uncertainty avoidance culture. operate differently in different countries

their mark online. Retrieved May implementation relationships

factors between potential custom- An interdisciplinary conceptual

by building trust. Electronic Mar- immigrants. It is composed mostly

dictability should have a stronger carry more weight in building trust

APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

APPENDIX B. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

APPENDIX C. CORRELATIONS OF LATENT VARIABLES AND

PLS Pur. Inq.

APPENDIX D. CORRELATIONS OF LATENT VARIABLES AND

PLS Pur. Inq.

APPENDIX E. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, ISRAELI

APPENDIX E. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, ISRAELI

FAM4 0.34 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.84 0.27 0.29

APPENDIX F. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, U.S.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai