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

Abstract

The trust literature distinguishes trustworthiness (the ability, benevolence, and integrity of a trustee) and trust propensity (a dispositional willingness to rely on others) from trust (the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his or her actions). Although this distinction has clarified some confusion in the literature, it remains unclear (a) which trust antecedents have the strongest relationships with trust and (b) whether trust fully mediates the effects of trustworthiness and trust propensity on behavioral outcomes. Our meta-analysis of 132 independent samples summarized the relationships between the trust variables and both risk taking and job performance (task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling supported a partial mediation model wherein trustworthiness and trust propensity explained incremental variance in the behavioral outcomes when trust was controlled. Further analyses revealed that the trustworthiness dimensions also predicted affective commitment, which had unique relationships with the outcomes when controlling for trust. These results generalized across different types of trust measures (i.e., positive expectations measures, willingness-to-be-vulnerable measures, and direct measures) and different trust referents (i.e., leaders, coworkers).

Perceptions of facial dominance, trustworthiness and attractiveness predict managerial pay awards in experimental tasks

“…Colquitt et al, 2007;House & Howell, 1992;Judge et al, 2009). Our findings were consistent with this proposal, as all three judgements derived from facial cues were positively associated with awarded pay in our payment task.…”

“…Trait-ratings of proxies for trustworthiness, such as perceived ability, benevolence and integrity, are positively associated with important workplace outcomes such as team performance, extra-role behaviour (i.e. going beyond ones' prescribed job duties), and organizational commitment (see Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007 for a meta-analytic review). Indeed, a leader's ability to generate trust in their subordinates mediates the impact of leader behaviour on follower performance (e.g.…”

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses

“…Virtually all theories of trust include a distinction between the trustor's propensity or disposition to trust across targets, and attitudes toward or evaluations and expectations of a specific target (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007;Mayer et al, 1995;Rousseau et al, 1998). See Table 1, model 2F, for a visual depiction of this distinction as it applies to constructs used in our studies.…”

The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams

“…Although perspectives on trust vary between disciplines (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and between scholars (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007), its definition 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, 1995: 712) is broadly adopted. According to (Mayer et al, 1995), trust relationships involve two specific parties: a trusting party (trustor) and a party to be trusted (trustee).…”