Multiple Meanings of Trust in Negotiation Theory and Research: A Literature Review and Integrative Model

Abstract

The present paper reviews the research literature on trust in bargaining and mediation. Several models of trust within the bargaining process are also described. It is concluded that trust means different things, depending upon the relationship under investigation. Trust among negotiators can refer to a personality trail (how trusting a negotiator is of others) or to a temporary state. Within the state perspective, trust often refers to one of three orientations: (1) cooperative motivational orientation (MO), (2) patterns of predictable behavior, (3) a problem‐solving orientation. Trust between a negotiator and constituents usually refers to a cooperative MO (i.e., shared loyalty) between these two groups. The addition of a mediator can impact both the opposing negotiators' relationship and each negotiator‐constituent relationship; the mediator also has direct and indirect relationships with the parties and their constituents. Future directions for research on trust are identified.

Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.

“…As noted earlier, Mayer et al's (1995) model casts trust as the most proximal predictor of risk taking and related outcomes (see also Kee & Knox, 1970;Ross & LaCroix, 1996). Other models view trust as a proximal antecedent of a variety of job performance behaviors, including task performance, citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;G.…”

“…Williams, 2001). Many of those models also predict that trust completely mediates the effects of trustworthiness and trust propensity on those outcomes (Kee & Knox, 1970;Mayer et al, 1995;Ross & LaCroix, 1996;M. Williams, 2001).…”

“…First and foremost, Mayer et al's model separated trust from trustworthiness, with three characteristics of the trustee (ability, benevolence, and integrity) appearing as antecedents of trust. This structure, which has been adopted in subsequent models (McKnight et al, 1998;Ross & LaCroix, 1996;M. Williams, 2001) echoes Gabarro's (1978) suggestion that trustworthiness is a multifaceted construct that captures the competence and character of the trustee (see also Butler, 1991;Butler & Cantrell, 1984;Kee & Knox, 1970).…”

“…Variables were coded as risk taking if they referred to a specific choice that created a behavioral manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al, 1995;Ross & LaCroix, 1996). Specific variables that were grouped into this coding category included the decision to delegate an important task, the choice to share information openly, the decision to avoid monitoring, the rejection of safeguards, and the choice to defer to a trustee.…”

“…In Mayer et al's (1995) formulation, the distinction between trust and risk taking reflects the distinction between a willingness to be vulnerable and actually becoming vulnerable. Risk taking therefore stands as the most proximal behavioral outcome or expression of trust (Mayer et al, 1995;Ross & LaCroix, 1996). With respect to job performance, trust is believed to affect the manner in which a trustor allocates resources when interacting with the trustee (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Mayer & Gavin, 2005).…”