Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0028

References

  • Aiken L. S., West S. G.Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (1996) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
  • Anderson T. W., Sclove S. L.An Introduction to the Statistical Analysis of Data (1978) (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Aubert B. A., Kelsey B. L. Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Res. (2003) 34(5):575–618CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y. On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 26:271–284CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y., Singh S. On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (1991) 8:125–140CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Barclay D., Higgins C., Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Tech. Stud. (1995) 2(2):285–309Google Scholar
  • Barrett M., Sahay S., Walsham G. Information technology and social transformation: GIS for forestry management in India. Inform. Soc. (2001) 17(1):5–21CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Becerra M., Gupta A. K. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(1):32–44LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Blau P. M. Inequality and Heterogeneity (1977) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Boden D., Molotch H. L., Friedland R., Boden D. The compulsion of proximity. Nowhere: Space, Time, and Modernity (1994) (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) Google Scholar
  • Butler J. K. Towards understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. J. Management (1991) 17(3):643–663CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chidambaram L. Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quart. (1996) 20(2):143–165CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chin W. W, Marcoulides G. A. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research (1998) (Erlbaum, NJ)295–336Google Scholar
  • Chin W. W., Marcolin B. L., Newsted P. R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. J. I. DeGross, S. Jarvenpaa, A. Srinivasan, eds. Proc. 17th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1996) 21–41Google Scholar
  • Cramton C. D. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(3):346–371LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J., Armstrong P. K. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(1):104–126LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dirks K. T., Ferrin D. L. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ. Sci. (2001) 12(4):450–467LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ferrin D. L., Dirks K. T. The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: Mediating processes and differential effects. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(1):18–31LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fornell C., Larcker D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18(3):382–388CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gersick C. J. G. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Acad. Management J. (1988) 31(1):9–41CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gersick C. J. G. Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Acad. Management J. (1989) 32(2):274–309CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gersick C. J. G., Hackman J. R. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Process (1990) 47:65–97CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Grabowski M., Roberts K. H. Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(6):704–721LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hackman J. R. Groups that Work (and Those that Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork (1989) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA) Google Scholar
  • Hart P. J., Saunders C. S. Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ. Sci. (1997) 8(1):23–42LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hinds P. J., Bailey D. E. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(6):615–632LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences (1980) (Sage, Beverly Hills CA) Google Scholar
  • Hulland J. S. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management J. (1999) 20(2):195–204CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Iacono C. S., Weisband S. Developing trust in virtual teams. 30th Proc. Hawaii Internat. Conf. Systems Sci. (1997) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jarvenpaa S. L., Leidner D. E. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(6):791–815LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Jarvenpaa S. L., Tractinsky N. Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross-cultural validation. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. (1999) 5(2CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jarvenpaa S. L., Knoll K., Leidner D. Is anybody out there?: The antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Management Inform. Systems (1998) 14(4):29–64CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jones E. E., Nisbett R. E.The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior (1971) (General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Joreskog K. G., Sorbom D.Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood and Least Squares Methods (1989) (University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden) Google Scholar
  • Kanawattanachai P., Yoo Y. Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J. Strategic Inform. Systems (2002) 11(3–4):187–213CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kelley N. H, Levine D. Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Sympos. Motivation (1967) 15(University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE) 192–240Google Scholar
  • Kelley N. H. The processes of causal attribution. Amer. Psych. (1973) 28(2):107–128CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Knoll K., Jarvenpaa S. L. Learning virtual team collaboration. 28th Proc. Hawaii Internat. Conf. Systems Sci. (1995) 92–101Google Scholar
  • Kramer R. M. The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation Emotion (1994) 18:199–230CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kramer R. M. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Rev. Psych. (1999) 50:569–598CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kramer R. M., Brewer M. B., Hanna B. A., Kramer R. M., Tyler T. R. Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (1996) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 357–389CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kristof A. L., Brown K. G., Sims Jr H. P., Smith K. A., Beyerlein M. M., Johnson D. A., Beyerlein S. T. The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Work in Teams (1995) 2(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 229–253Google Scholar
  • Lewicki R. J., Bunker B. B., Bunker B. B., Rubin J. Z. Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice (1995) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
  • Li Y. Is trust the whole story? Rethinking online auction via network exchange theory. Proc. 9th Amer. Conf. Inform. Systems (2003) 2919–2924Tampa, FLGoogle Scholar
  • Maurer T. J., Tarulli B. A. Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. J. Appl. Psych. (1994) 79(1):3–14CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., Schoorman F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20(3):709–734CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Maznevski M., Chudoba K. M. Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(5):473–492LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McKnight D. H., Cummings L. L., Chervany N. L. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. The Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):473–490CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Meyerson D., Weick K. E., Kramer R. M., Kramer R. M., Tyler T. R. Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (1996) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) 166–195CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pavlou P. A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2003) 7(3):101–134CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pearce J. L., Sommer S. M., Morris A., Frideger M. A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence. (1992) . Graduate School of Management Working Paper OB92015, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar
  • Piccoli G., Ives B. Trust and the unintended effects of behavioral control in virtual teams. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(3):365–395CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-disciplinary view of trust. The Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):393–404CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schoorman F. D., Mayer R. C., Davis J. H. Empowerment in veterinary clinics: The role of trust in delegation. 11th Annual Meeting Soc. Indust. Organ. Psych. (1996) . San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  • Scott J. E. Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology. J. Management Inform. Systems (2000) 17(2):81–124CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seashore S. E. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group (1954) (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI) Google Scholar
  • Shaw M. E. Group Dynamics (1980) (McGraw Hill, New York) Google Scholar
  • Tyler T. R., Kramer R. M., Kramer R. M., Tyler T. R. Whither trust. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (1996) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Valacich J. S., Dennis A. R., Nunamaker J. F. Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Res. (1992) 23:49–73CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zand D. E. Trust and managerial problem solving. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1972) 17:229–239CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.