Public Trust in Business and Its Determinants

Abstract

Public trust in business, defined as the degree to which the public—meaning society at large—trusts business in general, is largely understudied. This article suggests four domains of existing trust research from which scholars of public trust in business can draw. The authors then propose four main hypotheses, which aim to predict the determinants of public trust, and test these hypotheses using a factorial vignette methodology. These results will provide scholars with more direction as this article is, to the authors’ knowledge, one of the first empirical studies of public trust. Furthermore, the study will enable those companies interested in increasing public trust to understand better respective determinants of public trust.

Keywords

political strategy public opinion theory social sustainability stakeholders values

There is no one agreed-upon definition of trust.¹ Economic, sociological, and psychological perspectives on trust differ. In organization science, trust is commonly understood as the willingness of parties to be vulnerable to one another. Seen this way, trust has been called the lubricant of society (Luhmann, 1979). Public trust as the willingness by the public or society at large to be vulnerable toward institutions such as business legitimizes these institutions. Businesses need to earn and deserve public trust; and this need becomes a key managerial task. The term business institutions broadly includes for-profit firms, associations of such firms, and certain non-profit corporations such as universities and hospitals operating as if they are firms in markets. Without trust, many institutions, including business and government, would not be productive (Fukuyama, 1995). Trust in the business context has been widely recognized as a key factor of organizational performance (Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, 2000), as it accelerates business transactions (Noteboom, 1996; Williamson, 1988, 1993), supports customer satisfaction (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), and enhances employee motivation and commitment (Ganesan, 1994; J. D. Lewis, 1999; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Sprenger, 2002). More generally, trust arguably promotes cooperative behavior within organizations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Gulati & Westphal, 1999; Williams, 2001) and among organizational stakeholder groups (Gulati, 1995; Jensen, 2003; Uzzi, 1997), as it facilitates commitment (Ganesan, 1994; Mayer & Gavin, 2005) and innovation (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002; Holste & Fields, 2005; McAllister, 1995; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Politis, 2003; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Consequently, by strengthening relationships between a business and its various stakeholders, including the public, trust can serve as a foundation for sustained organizational success (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Jensen, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011).

Public trust in business, defined as the degree to which the public or society at large (Poppo & Schepker, 2010) trusts business, is popular in the press yet understudied in scholarship. Many observers argue that reported levels of public trust in business have reached disturbingly low levels (Edelman, 2011). Scholars argue that on one hand, political, economic, societal, and technical developments are requiring an increased need for public trust in business (Jackson & Nelson, 2004; Paine, 2003; Pirson, 2007), because traditional control mechanisms (such as regulation) fail in Internet-based environments and globalized contexts. On the other hand, organizations, and especially corporations, are arguably further eroding public trust (Edelman, 2011), as the variety of scandals in the past decades have highlighted. Hence, a trust “gap” is emerging because the need for trust outpaces the actual level of trust in business impairing successful business development. This trust gap has arguably resulted in an increased search by managers of business organization to justify their “license to operate” and establish legitimacy via corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs (Paine, 2003). Overall, business executives and scholars have become increasingly interested in how organizations can reestablish and maintain public trust in business to retain legitimacy and thereby secure long-term survival. We think business requires more trust, and we think there is decreasing trust empirically. This condition causes a legitimacy crisis for business that involves lower levels of both public and stakeholder trust.

Public trust in business as usually polled and reported represents a general attitude of the public toward business in general, which can be captured in general attitude measures toward the institution of business. Polling is presently one of the few ways available for getting at this information. Yet managers and firms are concerned about and benefit from public trust in their firm. Public trust in business and particular trust within an actual relationship (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011) have been examined, yet the factors that influence how the public trusts a firm without relying on a relationship have not been examined. This initial trust formation phase—when the public must take a leap-of-faith with minimal knowledge about the firm—is conceptualized and examined here.

The authors argue that the oft-cited “public trust in business” should be complemented with a better understanding of public trust in a firm. By the public, we mean society at large; we use theory developed for external stakeholders as one basis for theorizing about public trust. The research reported here aims to both (a) provide a better understanding of “public trust in business” and what individuals in the public mean when they assert that they do or do not trust “a business” and (b) explore the potential determinants of said public trust in a firm through a tailored factorial vignette survey. To (a) conceptualize public trust in business more clearly, this article suggests four domains of existing trust research that scholars of public trust in a firm can draw from. Drawing on that insight then, (b) the authors propose several hypotheses, which aim to predict the determinants of public trust in a firm, and test these hypotheses using a factorial vignette methodology. This study uses factorial vignette methodology to capture the degree 332 email respondents trust a hypothetical firm described in the vignette. The hypothetical firms vary systematically across vignettes to later identify which factors affect the degree respondents trust a firm.

We use factorial vignette methodology rather than typical survey methods in our research as we intend to complement and extend traditional work in the area of public trust in institutions of all kinds. Traditionally, such research has relied on surveys to aggregate individual responses to create a proxy for public trust. Individuals answering surveys may be thinking of their own prototypical firms, but across several participants, surveys can help scholars get a sense of how the public thinks about business in general. The factorial vignette methodology examines a large number of individual judgments about specific firms to identify the factors and their relative importance to judgments about public trust in a firm.

Whereas factorial vignette methodology is less utilized in the management literature, it has been used increasingly in the sociology and political science literature. We argue that this method is a valid complement to existing research methods in general and in particular for trust research as this design mitigates several concerns in trust research. First, trust research is fraught with respondent bias where respondents inflate their concern for certain antecedents, which may not reflect their true attitude. The factorial vignette survey methodology is specifically designed within sociology to avoid respondent bias by indirectly measuring the determinants and their relative importance of respondents informing normative judgments. Second, respondents may have a more complicated conception of the drivers of trust that is not captured in standard surveys. The factorial vignette survey methodology was designed to simulate realistic decisions and judgments based on contextual scenarios. The number of factors included is an attempt for each individual to have an opportunity to consider the many factors that would be available in a “real” decision—some individuals will consider only a few of the factors and pay attention to a subset (Jasso, 2006). Third, respondents may not agree with a theoretical definition of trust proposed by scholars while still retaining ideas of trust. Trust is a complicated phenomenon requiring sophisticated techniques to examine individual responses to trust violations within specific contexts. In particular, public trust involves a distant vulnerability or the intention to trust in a yet-to-be-realized relationship. Therefore, the components of public trust draw on multiple theories of trust. Public trust in business is, therefore, more complicated and less well defined than interpersonal trust.

This study focuses on the differences in trust judgments across hypothetical firms to understand what determines public trust in business in general, and not whether or not the respondents agree with a theoretical definition of trust. Although we emphasize the notion of the public as society at large for our conceptual and empirical dimensions, we also explore how unrelated members of the public change their perception of trust in a particular firm when put in an arbitrary stakeholder role as a quasi-control in our vignette study. In the subsequent sections, we will overview the literature on public trust in business before building hypotheses about the factors that will influence the level of trust a member of the public has in a firm. We generate a set of hypotheses, which we test based on factorial vignette methodology. That methodology allows us to study trust formation mechanisms at the stakeholder–organization level.

In “The Notion of Public Trust in Business” section of this article, we first review the relevant literature on trust to create a definition of public trust in business to work toward a suitable definition of public trust. The most common definition in the organization sciences is a willingness to be vulnerable, and we proceed from this sense of the term.

In the “Determinants of Public Trust in Business” section, we hypothesize about the determinants of public trust in business; then in the “Method” section, we explain our factorial vignette methodology, analysis, and results. Finally, we conclude with theoretical and practical contributions.

The Notion of Public Trust in Business

Blois (1999) states that trust suffers in large part from being “superficially obvious”: It is so often used in everyday discourse that everyone assumes they know what it means and how it should be used contextually (Barber, 1983). Similarly, the notion of public trust in business only receives more scrutiny when it has been violated by unethical corporate conduct (Swift, 2001). Trust and public trust in business are complex phenomena that can take on various forms. To conceptualize public trust in business, we argue that there are (at least) four theoretical streams of trust research that public trust in business draws from. Our view is that the study of public trust in business requires elements from each of these four streams of research and cannot be reduced to any one of them. We turn to these four sources of trust research as they allow us to construct a research design to assess the relevance of various organizational-level determinants of general trust in business. Although there could definitely be other streams of trust research (including calculative, identification-based trust, etc.), we have decided to stay with the four research streams presented below for the sake of parsimony.

Based on these four streams of existing trust research, we argue that public trust in business encompasses elements of generalized, institutional, reputation-based, and stakeholder trust. Members of the public will express trust in a business largely along the lines of generalized and institutional trust—as a largely unreflective, mostly positive attitude toward business and its norms. However, we argue that the public’s attitude, the willingness to become vulnerable to a business, is informed by reputational information about a larger subset of businesses as well as their direct experiences with business in their respective roles as stakeholders of a smaller subset of businesses.

Generalized Trust as Basis for Conceptualizing Public Trust in Business

A first perspective can be developed through the notion of generalized trust. Simmel (1908) was the first to distinguish between personalized and generalized trust—where generalized trust is trust in some general category not tied to a specific individual. Rotter, Chance, and Phares (1972) argued that “a generalized expectancy of trust” (p. 40) toward businesses determines the behavior of market actors and influences the success of the enterprises (see Fukuyama, 1995). Coleman (1984) claimed that the functioning of economic institutions such as business assumed a foundation of generalized and taken-for-granted trust on behalf of the public. Parsons (1961) suggested that once the public starts reflecting on this form of generalized trust in business, trust is already reduced and mechanisms such as money or credit will work less effectively. Parson’s view closely resembles what Luhmann (1979) later referred to as “system trust” and Giddens (1990) called “trust in expert systems.” Public trust in business accordingly is based on collective attributes based on relationships between people in a social system (D. J. Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Zucker (1986) explicitly stated that these collective attributes encompass social expectations shared by everyone involved in an economic or any other exchange. Public trust in business in this theoretical conception represents a general, non-reflective attitude of the public toward business, which can be captured in general attitude measures toward the institution of business. Work of sociologists and political scientists over time established the relevance of generalized trust in forms of social capital for all kinds of well-being related outcomes on the societal level (Fukuyama, 1995; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, 2000). Public trust in business according to this conceptual lens, however, is also exposed to the adverse consequences of the observer effect and hardly allows any conclusions as to specific determinants. Yet, it can still serve as a theoretical basis to establish the outcome variable of public trust in business.

Institutional Trust as Basis for Conceptualizing Public Trust in Business

A second and related theoretical perspective is presented by the notion of institutional trust. Institutional trust concerns trust in the guiding principles, routines, and controlling mechanisms of an institution such as business (Sztompka, 1999), including external regulations. In contrast to the prevailing conceptions of trust, institutional trust represents a form of impersonal trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and, similar to generalized trust, is less reflective. Following McKnight and Chervany (2002), institutional trust is defined as the subjective belief with which organizational members collectively assess favorable conditions in place for successful transactions (Saparito, Chen, & Sapienza, 2004). Public trust in business according to this perspective refers to the trust by the public in the norms and procedures of business, for example, the public may gain or lose trust based on how a firm practices executive compensation. Giddens (1990) argued that in modern times, personal trust has been increasingly replaced by institutional trust. Cook, Hardin, and Levi (2005) similarly argued that “Societies are essentially moving away from trust relationships toward externally regulated behavior” (p. 196). Cook and Schilke (2010) further suggested that the public may increasingly be unable to judge trustworthiness of certain institutions because of lack of knowledge. As such, low levels of public trust in business result from insufficient knowledge and may not be harmful at all if external regulation can act as substitute. Understanding public trust in business within this perspective highlights the importance of the context. In contrast to generalized trust, institutional trust is more context-specific, and as such, the importance of the regulatory environment of the industry or the size of the business becomes relevant. When we explore the determinants of public trust in business, we can draw on the understanding of institutional trust to distill contextual factors that affect public trust in business. Understood through this lens, public trust in business acquires more specificity in terms of its potential determinants, yet still lacks the appropriate specificity needed to derive organizational-level estimates.

Reputation-Based Trust as Basis for Conceptualizing Public Trust in Business

A third theoretical perspective informing the study of public trust in business is reputation-based trust. Because members of the public are increasingly unlikely to form firsthand knowledge of all businesses, they will need to rely on third-party accounts. As Rousseau et al. (1998) posited, third-party relations affect trust, “where existing social structures shape a person’s reputation based upon a third party’s ability to tell stories that corroborate one’s trustworthiness (or lack of it; Burt & Knez, 1996).” In addition, trust judgments will be fed by what Freeman et al. (2010) labeled “background narratives.” These background narratives will likely be influenced by stories forming the historical trustworthiness of parties, the social context (e.g., networks) that makes reputational effects possible, and the social norms that shape beliefs regarding the intentions of others (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Thus, public trust in business can be influenced by micro-level arrangements—in particular, how individuals representing a business relate to members of the public (Fichman & Goodman, 1996). This perspective highlights how the role of CEOs and their portrayal in the media can influence perceptions of public trust in business through reputation. The reputation-based lens provides for more direct and reflected evidence regarding determinants of public trust in business such as information pertaining to the industry, size, mission statement, profitability, and alleged behavior. This perspective thus allows identifying more organization-level specific influences on behalf of members of the public.

Stakeholder Trust as Basis for Conceptualizing Public Trust in Business

A fourth theoretical perspective informing the discussion of public trust in business is the perspective of stakeholder trust (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). Stakeholder trust in organizations entails a willingness on the part of individuals (such as customers, employees, or members of the public) to accept vulnerability to the actions of an organization. Based on this perspective, the public, as stakeholder, and each member of the public individually forms a trust judgment based on attributions of business in general. This process is considered to be reflective, rational, informed, and organization specific. The attributions made by stakeholders toward a specific business are informed by trustworthiness dimensions of ability, benevolence, integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), transparency, and value congruence (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). The stakeholder lens provides the most direct assessment of public trust in business determinants; however, by itself, it would be missing important information captured by the prior conceptualizations.

Public Trust in Business as Conceptual Basis

In our further inquiry, we therefore define public trust as the willingness of the public as an external stakeholder in each firm to become vulnerable to the actions of business as a general institution. That trust, in turn, is based on generalized non-reflective attitudes that relate to the norms, rules, and regulations within business, which can be informed by third-party accounts (including background narratives) and more direct attributions along the trustworthiness dimensions of relevant actors.

Determinants of Public Trust in Business

Having outlined the concept of public trust in business and the different conceptions that feed into it, our goal in this research is to understand determinants of public trust in business to provide the basis for a more informed discussion on how business could manage public trust. As Noteboom (1996) and others criticize, the notion of public trust as a mere unreflective attitude becomes almost meaningless to examine as it is unclear what determines certain survey outcomes. In this article, we explore the determinants of public trust in business by embedding the generalized notion of public trust in business. We argue that public trust as defined above will be influenced by a wide variety of factors. In the following, we wish to highlight our theoretical reasoning to test a critical subset of these factors. In the relationship between the public and business, the public can be referred to as the trustor—the actor who entertains a willingness to become vulnerable to another party. Business can be understood as the trustee—the actor who influences the trustor’s willingness to become vulnerable by the perception of his or her trustworthiness. In the next sub-sections, we move from the conceptual idea of public trust in business to understand the factors of how a member of the public trusts specific firms. We use the insights and concepts from the discussion of public trust in business to hypothesize the factors that will shape the level of trust a member of the public has toward a specific business. Our goal is to understand which factors are important to forming trust judgments in the early stages of the relationship between a firm and a member of the public.

Trustor-Related Determinants of Public Trust in a Firm

In this sub-section, we describe the determinants of public trust in a firm, which are related to the trustor—or individual member of the public who chooses to become vulnerable to business. We posit that a member of the public will decide the level of willingness to be vulnerable to a business using all the information accessible at a given point in time (Hardin, 2002), but not necessarily weigh or utilize that information equally. Although public trust in a firm refers to a generalized institution with which no actor can have a comprehensive interaction, trust-related information will be less complete than in individual–trust relationships. However, we argue that the amount of interactions experienced by a specific member of the public will increase the knowledge on which to base a trust judgment (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). As such, we suggest that any member of the public will be influenced in his or her trust decision by the experience with the business world (e.g., working in a business). Furthermore, we argue that the amount of knowledge about business will grow with age of a person as with increased age, the probability for interactions with business will raise. Although age and experience will both increase information and therefore trust, trust scholars suggest that increased knowledge about opportunistic behaviors will most likely lead to lower trust levels (Williamson, 1993). As a consequence, we argue that public trust in a firm will decrease with age and amount of experience with business.

Hypothesis 1a: Public trust in a firm will decrease with a member of the public’s increased level of experience with business.

Hypothesis 1b: Public trust in a firm will decrease as the age of the member of the public increases.

A variety of studies have suggested that trusting behavior is often influenced by general trust dispositions (Rotter, 1971), including attitudes and expectations. Gilligan (1982) argues that gender shapes such dispositions and attitudes. She further suggests that gender influences moral judgments and finds that women in their judgment rely more on contextual information, whereas men tend to judge more instrumentally. Based on such arguments, it could be construed that men trust profit-maximizing business organizations much more because to produce profit seems to serve the instrumental purpose of a business. Women, conversely, would take more of the contextual information and the consequences of profit-maximizing behavior into account and trust those organizations that pursue not only the instrumental purpose. Empirical evidence for the role of gender in trusting decisions is mixed, however (Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004; Eckel & Wilson, 2003). Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman, and Soutter (2000) report that on an individual level, female undergraduates are less likely than others to trust in the context of trust games (not vignettes). Similarly, Buchan, Croson, and Solnick (2008) find in a large-scale experiment concerning behavior and beliefs in investment games that female students are less likely to trust than male students. Whereas empirical results of gender differences in mainly interpersonal trust contexts yield mixed evidence, the authors argue that in terms of generalized expectations related to business and firms, gender differences can be more pronounced. We would posit that within the context of public trust in a firm, gender will influence trusting behavior according to Gilligan’s general proscriptions, namely, that men will trust business more highly as it is mainly construed as an instrumental endeavor.

Hypothesis 1c: Men will trust a firm more so than women do.

Gender, age, and experience with business will influence a general attitude toward business in the sense of generalized trust. Furthermore, public trust judgments are likely to be influenced by generalized attitudes and expectations based on personal value sets. Schwartz (1994) proposes a set of seven to 10 metavalues that are universal in content and useful for explaining systematic relations between value priorities and a variety of attitudes and behaviors. Schwartz’s theory adopts a definition of human values as desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Rokeach, 1973). The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values is the type of motivational goal they express. With regard to public trust in a firm, members of the public, who find their values represented by a business organization, would theoretically behave differently in their trusting behavior than those members of the public who do not find their values represented. Pirson and Malhotra (2011) indeed find that stakeholders who perceive high value congruence with a business organization report significantly higher trust values than those with low perceived value congruence. Businesses that are viewed as “good” usually benefit in terms of financial performance as well (Collins & Porras, 2002; Fombrun & van Riel, 2003). We argue that a generalized attitude toward business that is most likely to be values-based will influence trust in specific businesses as well. The more favorable such a general attitude toward business, the more likely trust in specific businesses will be higher.

Hypothesis 1d: The more positive the general attitude toward business by a member of the public, the higher the level of public trust in a firm.

Trustee-Related Determinants of Public Trust in a Firm

Public trust in a firm, as the willingness of members of the public to become vulnerable to a business, also depends on attributes of a business as the trustee. Whereas the attributes of the trustor influence generalized trust in a firm, the attributes of the trustee will be shaped along the conceptualizations of institutional trust, reputation-based trust, and stakeholder trust. We suggest that the size, industry, objective function, and dimensions of trustworthiness, including ability, benevolence, integrity, transparency, and value congruence, are critical influences of public trust.

Size of the firm

Institutional norms differ according to organizational size. In larger entities, norms of behavior are more likely to be rule-based or command- and control-oriented, whereas in smaller organizations, behavior can be based on interpersonal trust. As Luhmann (1979) suggests, the size of an organization determines the amount of risk and contingencies regarding organizational behavior. The larger an organization, the higher the number of actors involved, which results in higher levels of information asymmetry. As Cook & Schilke (2010) state, increased anonymity in larger organizations will cause large businesses to be less trusted. According to public trust surveys, small firms are indeed consistently more trusted than big national firms, whereas the multinational firms receive the lowest levels of public trust. Cook suggests, however, that that lack of trust of larger organizations could be compensated by regulatory safeguards, such as those instated for the banking industry. Despite the regulatory substitute, we suggest that public trust in a business can be influenced by the size of a business, with smaller businesses deemed less threatening and therefore more trustworthy.

Hypothesis 2a: The smaller the size of a business, the more public trust it will engender.

Industry

Institutional norms are determined in part by the context in which a business is operating (Dacin, 1997). The industry a business operates in influences the rules and norms of behavior, especially when external regulations are in place. Banking or consulting businesses operate differently from mining businesses or the defense industry. The way business is conducted in oil industry differs from the emerging alternate energy sector that is less established. As various reputation-based surveys indicate, public trust in a firm seems to be influenced by the industry a business operates in (Edelman, 2011; Fombrun & van Riel, 2003). The technology industry usually commands much higher levels of public trust than, for example, the oil industry. In that sense, the contextuality of trust in a firm is critical in influencing public trust (Edelman, 2011). Such industry-specific trust differences may be rooted in the public perception of overall societal value created. We argue thus that those industries that benefit from a perception as socially beneficial engender higher trust levels as a consequence.

Hypothesis 2b: Firms that belong to industries that are viewed as socially beneficial will have increased levels of public trust.

Objective function

Institutional norms are influenced by the objective an organization pursues. Trustworthiness, in turn, is judged in part by perceived intention of the trustee. Mayer et al. (1995) suggest that the level of perceived benevolence determines the willingness to become vulnerable across individual and organizational levels. At the organizational level, the objective function presents a basis for attributions about intention and level of benevolence. Common objective functions in business range from profit maximization to job creation, stakeholder value creation, or societal well-being. Edelman (2011) finds that a large majority of the public globally rejects the notion of profit maximization as the fundamental objective function of business. He also suggests that to increase trust, companies should pursue a purpose beyond profit maximization. Porter and Kramer (2011) similarly propose that business focus on the creation of shared value to maintain its legitimacy. We thus argue that firms that aim to create more direct societal value will engender higher levels of public trust.

Hypothesis 2c: Firms that aim to create more direct societal value will engender higher levels of public trust.

Trustworthiness dimensions

As members of the public have increasingly less direct information about all businesses, third-party accounts become increasingly relevant. Such third-party accounts culminate in the reputation of business, which is judged along several dimensions. Fombrun and colleagues (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & van Riel, 2003) suggest measuring reputation along perceptions of trust, admiration, high esteem, and good feeling and evaluating companies with regard to their citizenship, governance, workplace, leadership, financial performance, and innovation. Focusing on public trust in a firm, we build on the notion of reputation, yet extend it with insights coming from stakeholder trust research (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011). Such research suggests several direct trustworthiness dimensions including ability, benevolence, and integrity as put forth by Mayer et al. (1995) as well as the notion of transparency and value congruence (or identification).

Stakeholder trust is based in large part on the perceived ability of the organization to provide goods and services that benefit the stakeholder (Mayer & Davis, 1999; McAllister, 1995). In addition, stakeholder trust is also based on the perceived motivation as captured by integrity and benevolence (Mayer & Davis, 1999; McAllister, 1995). Integrity refers to an organization’s general tendency (or propensity) to act fairly and ethically; benevolence refers to the organization’s concern for its stakeholders’ well-being (see also Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Transparency is also likely to be of relevance to public stakeholders (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). According to Hardin (2002) and McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998), when there is little previous interaction and information asymmetry is high, all trust-relevant information is sought and scrutinized. Therefore, new relationships should accentuate the importance of transparency. For example, corporate communication initiatives and newly developed reporting standards (such as the Global Reporting Initiative) are aimed at building trust with stakeholders (such as investors) who might otherwise not have access to information regarding organizational behaviors and motives. Transparency may also be a more important element of trust in shallow relationships due to recent corporate scandals (Dervitsiotis, 2003; DiPiazza, 2002; Turnbull, 2002). Finally, in line with Rousseau et al. (1998) and Pirson and Malhotra (2011), we argue that the relationship between the public and business in general will be based in part on perceptions of value congruence (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996), and more generally, on the ability to identify with business as an institution (Enz, 1988; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Yaniv & Farkas, 2005).

Hypothesis 2d: The higher the ascribed trustworthiness of a business along the dimensions of ability, benevolence, integrity, transparency, and value congruence, the more public trust a firm engenders.

Method

The goal of this research is to identify the determinants of public trust in a firm. This research aims to better understand the factors that shape the level of trust an individual member of the public has in a firm by varying firm-related trust factors and capturing trustor-related measures based on the trust literature outlined above and in Table 1. Toward this end, the factorial vignette survey methodology, developed to investigate human judgments (Jasso, 2006; Rossi & Nock, 1982; Wallander, 2009), was used.

Table 1.

Public Trust in Business Categories: The Degree to Which the Public Trusts Business in General.

Trust literature	Summary	Contributions to public trust in business construct	Implication to study of public trust	Implications to this study
Generalized	● Referred to as “system trust” (Luhmann, 1979) and “trust in expert systems” (Giddens, 1990) ● Non-reflective ● As distinct from personalized trust (Giddens, 1990)	Public trust accordingly is based on collective attributes based on relationships between people in a social system (D. J. Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 968)	Public trust in this theoretical conception represents a general, non-reflective attitude of the public toward business, which can be captured in general attitude measures toward the institution of business	● General Trust in Business Rating as possible factor of trust in a firm. ● Non-specified firm (no name) in vignettes. ● General trust in a firm as the 1st rating task
Institutional	● Impersonal, less reflective ● Concerns trust in the guiding principles, routines, and controlling mechanisms of an institution (Sztompka, 1999) ● The subjective belief with which organizational members collectively assess favorable conditions in place for successful transactions (Saparito, Chen, & Sapienza, 2004).	Public trust in business refers to the trust by the public in the norms and procedures of business: executive compensation, codes of conduct, and performance assessment, etc.	Institutional trust is more context-specific, and as such, the importance of industry or size of the business becomes relevant	● Inclusion of objective or mission statements ● Industry, size as contextual factors
Reputational	● In case of no personal interaction, third-party accounts become relevant for trust formation. ● Where existing social structures shape a organization’s reputation based on a third party’s ability to tell stories that corroborate trustworthiness or lack of it (Burt & Knez, 1996)	Public trust can be influenced by micro-level arrangements—in particular, how individuals representing a business behave toward members of the public (Fichman & Goodman, 1996).	Public trust in a firm is influenced by “background narratives” (Freeman) Public trust is influenced by general reputations of certain firms. Reputations of firm representatives, such as the CEO can influence perceptions of public trust through reputation.	● Third party reporting in vignette ● Industry, size as contextual factors ● Inclusion of objective or mission statements ● Profitability as common metric offered in third-party accounts
Stakeholder	● Entails a willingness on the part of individuals (e.g., customers, employees, or members of the public) to accept vulnerability to the actions of an organization (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011).	The public, as a stakeholder, and each member of the public individually form a trust judgment based on attributions of business in general.	Public trust is organization specific The attributions made by stakeholders toward a specific business are informed by trustworthiness dimensions of ability, benevolence, integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), transparency, and value congruence (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011).	● Stakeholder focused trust rating task ● Firm-level vignettes. ● Ability, Benevolence, Integrity, Transparency, and Value Congruence as factors in vignette.

In a factorial vignette survey, a set of vignettes is generated for each respondent; in this survey, 40 vignettes were generated for each respondent. The vignette factors or independent variables are controlled by the researcher and randomly selected, and respondents are asked to evaluate these hypothetical situations. In this approach, each respondent rates the level of an outcome (in this case, the degree to which the respondent trusts the specified firm) corresponding to the unit of analysis described in the vignette (Jasso, 2006). The respondent is presented a large set of hypothetical vignettes, and statistical techniques are used to identify the implicit factors and their relative importance driving the outcome variable for the respondents.

The vignettes vary based on relevant factors and are controlled and presented by the investigator to ensure intercorrelations among vignette characteristics are zero. Factorial survey methodology allows for the simultaneous experimental manipulation of a large number of factors through the use of a contextualized vignette (Ganong & Coleman, 2006).² The factorial vignette approach allows the researcher to examine (a) the elements of information used to form judgments, (b) the weight of each of these factors, and (c) how different subgroups of the respondents agree on (a) and (b) (Nock & Gutterbock, 2010). These factors and their associated coefficients are the equations-inside-the-head (Jasso, 2006) of respondents as to judgments of trust.

The vignettes were constructed by varying several factors along dimensions or levels. A deck of 40 vignettes for each respondent was randomly created with replacement as the respondent was taking the survey from a vignette universe. For each rated vignette, the associated rating, factor levels, and the vignette script, as well as the vignette sequence number, were preserved. The vignette format is also provided in the appendix with a sample vignette and the vignette template.

This study is a proof-of-concept examination—a theoretical examination (Lynch, 1982); therefore, the findings will support or not support the hypothesized relationships between trust factors and trust judgments. Such research seeks the generalizability of ideas rather than the generalizability of data patterns within a specific population (Lynch, 1982). In other words, the findings from this experimental study will identify trustor measures and trustee factors important to understanding public trust in a firm (Levitt & List, 2007).

Vignette Factors

Generalizability for theoretical research, as compared with effects application research, investigates relationships among ideas or constructs, and the researcher seeks to understand those constructs that have influence on a variety of behaviors in a variety of situations (Lynch, 1982). As such, naturally occurring stimuli and responses are often ill-suited to testing hypotheses of interest to theoretical researchers leading such researchers into the laboratory “where manipulations and measures can be concocted that have relatively simple mappings onto the constructs of concern” (Lynch, 1982, p. 233). Here, we representatively sampled factors to test the hypotheses based on the trust scholarship explored above and outlined in Table 1.

The number and levels of factors combine to create the universe of possible vignettes (Nock & Gutterbock, 2010) and should be guided by theory, reasoning, and wisdom (Jasso, 2006; Wallander, 2009). The factorial vignette survey methodology simulates realistic decisions and judgments based on highly contextual scenarios; as such, the number of factors included is an attempt for each individual to have an opportunity to consider the many factors that would be available in a “real” decision (Jasso, 2006).

Here, the use of computer programming to design and create the vignettes and web-based tools to administer the survey alleviated many of the logistical limitations on the number of factors and levels to include. Based on the hypotheses developed, the study must include trust factors that may vary in importance. The appendix contains the vignette factors as well as a sample vignette.

Trustee-Related Factors

The vignettes were constructed from two sets of factors. The first set focused on facets of the firm—the size, industry, mission statement, profitability, and stated values—that may affect public trust in a firm. Specifically, firm size included small, regional, national, and global firms. For industry, firms were assigned industries of financial services, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and solar based on recent focus on these industries in the press. The objective function or mission statement of the firm focused on creating value, generating employment, bettering society, or increasing firm profitability based on the reputational trust literature. In addition, profitability was included as a generally communicated firm metric and added realism to the reported attributes of the firm in the vignettes based on reputational trust literature.

The second set of factors focused on known factors for stakeholder trust, where ability, benevolence, integrity, and value congruence are the main drivers of trust within a direct firm–stakeholder relationship. The vignettes also included transparency as a possible factor of trust, as transparency has been widely suggested as a solution to building trust in the public but has not been empirically examined as a factor of public trust. A grade was assigned, from F to A+, of the firm’s ability, benevolence, integrity, and transparency in the vignettes to analyze how much a grade change in these trustee-related factors would move the dial on trust for the respondents. Value congruence was measured by (a) assigning two values from the list in the appendix to the firm in the vignette, (b) capturing the respondent’s ranking of values in business at the end of the survey, and (c) creating a dummy variable indicating whether the vignette included values that matched the respondent’s stated preferred values for business. The vignette factors and dimensions are provided in Table A1 in the appendix and are linked to the trust literature in Table 1.

Trustor-Related Measures

Respondent-level data were captured at the beginning of the survey to support the testing of Hypotheses 1a to 1c. In addition to age, gender, and years of business experience, the respondent was told, “Tell us how much you agree with the statements below. On the sliding scale below, with a rating to the left being ‘strongly disagree’ to the right being ‘strongly agree.’” The rating task stated, “I trust this business.” In addition, at the end of the vignettes, the respondents selected five values they look for in business from a list. The list was generated by sampling from the 10 categories of values from the Schwartz (1992) taxonomy of universal values using only those values that would be most applicable and realistic to organizations (see the appendix for a complete list). Each firm in the vignette was randomly assigned two values with the other randomly assigned factors; the respondent and the firm could have 0, 1, or 2 values in common. We measured the number of common values as our value congruence measure with two values matching being a strong agreement.

Control Variables

At the respondent level, we controlled for age, gender, and years of business experience. In addition, we controlled for the general trust in business level, by asking respondents to rate “I trust business” on a sliding scale from −100 indicating strongly disagree to 100 indicating strongly agree.

Rating Task

For each vignette, respondents were given two rating tasks and asked, “Tell us how much you agree with the statements below: on a scale of −100 to +100, −100 being strongly disagree to 100 being strongly agree.” The first rating task stated, “I trust this company,” and captured the respondent’s general trust in the described firm based on generalized trust theory.

Sample

The respondents were contacted via email through distribution lists provided by the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics in addition to postings on the institute’s website and emails to students at two universities in the mid-Atlantic. Out of 436 respondents who answered any vignettes, 332 (76.15%) answered all 40 vignettes and 49 (11.24%) stopped within the first three vignettes. These 332 respondents answered 11,800 vignettes out of 13,929 total vignettes answered. The sample was 44.6% male and 76.8% above 23 years old (non-undergraduates) with an average of 12.26 years of business of experience. Given the technique used in soliciting the respondents, we can only characterize the sample in very general terms. Average age and work experience suggest a largely non-undergraduate sample. We rely entirely on each respondent’s self-description, as the survey was provided via a link and not in person. The advantage of the approach was that we were able to garner many non-undergraduates. With respect to validity and reliability, this study faces the same hurdles as other surveys in needing to rely on the respondents. We used multi-level modeling in our analysis (see Equation 1) to account for the fact that one person answers multiple vignettes in this methodology.

Analysis

The data collected in this study were in two levels: the vignette-level factors including firm-level trust factors, and the respondent-level control variables. For this survey, 332 respondents rated 40 vignettes resulting in 11,800 rated vignettes or observations. If N is the number of the respondents with Level-2 demographic variables and K is the number of vignettes answered with Level-1 factor variables, the general equation is,

Y_{n k} = β_{0} + Σ β_{j} V_{j k} + Σ γ_{h} R_{h n} + u_{n} + e_{k},

where Y_nk is the rating of vignette k by respondent n, V_jk is the jth factor of vignette k, R_hn is the hth characteristic of respondent n, β₀ is a constant term, β_j and γ_h are regression coefficients, u_n is a respondent-level residual (random effect), and e_ik is a vignette-level residual. The model conceptualizes the ratings as a function of the factors of the situation described in the vignette and the characteristics of the respondent as hypothesized above. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on these factors and their relative importance, which constitute the trust judgment for individuals, and not only the mean level of trust.³

Results

Trustor-Related Determinants of Public Trust in a Firm

The first set of hypotheses examines the trustor-related determinants of public trust in a firm. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c predict that public trust in a firm will be affected by a member of the public’s level of experience with business, age, and gender. To test the first set of hypotheses, a regression analysis of the rating task on the trustee (firm) factors and trustor (respondent) control measures was conducted. The results are in Table 2 representing the regression of the first rating task for all respondents (Trust DV; N = 11,800). The findings suggest that public trust in a firm is affected by a member of the public’s level of experience with business. The results support the prediction in Hypothesis 1a that the more experience in business, the less trust an individual will have in a firm (β = −0.266, p = .00), even controlling for age (Table 2).

Table 2.

Full Regression of All Factors and Control Measures.

	General trust
	Model A
	N = 11,800
	R² = .3031
	β	p
Trust factors
BenevolenceId	3.072*	.00
IntegrityId	5.997*	.00
TransparencyId	3.220*	.00
ProfitabilityId	1.676*	.00
AbilityId	2.375*	.00
Size of firm
SmallCo	0.763	.47
RegionalCo	0.272	.80
NationalCo	0.313	.77
(Null = Global)
Industry
Pharma	−3.547*	.00
OilGas	−4.719*	.00
FinancialSvc	−2.247*	.04
(Null = Solar)
Mission statement
ValueFcn	0.588	.58
WorkFcn	2.050	.06
SocietyFcn	1.626	.13
(Null = Profit)
Control variables
TrustBusiness	0.103*	.00
TrustPeople	0.095*	.00
Male	3.587*	.00
AgeOver23	−2.361*	.04
Age	0.033	.48
ExperienceBusinessYears	−0.266*	.00
_cons	−101.225*	.00

Note. Factor labels and definitions in the appendix.

p < .05.

The findings further support the prediction in Hypothesis 1b that public trust in a firm will be affected by a member of the public’s age. First, a continuous variable was used to measure age as reported by respondents. Second, a dummy variable was created to capture whether the respondent’s age was above 23 (AgeOver23) roughly approximating undergraduate and non-undergraduate status to capture these specific age effects. The results in Table 2 show that age is negatively related to trust in a firm with those above 23 years old rating a firm 2.361 points lower (p = .04) than respondents under 23 years old even when controlling for years of experience and age.

The findings support our prediction in Hypothesis 1c that public trust in a firm is affected by a member of the public’s gender. The results in Table 2 specifically support Hypothesis 1c illustrating that males rate firms more trustworthy (β = 3.587, p = .00) than females. In sum, the results suggest public trust in a firm is affected by a member of the public’s experience, age, and gender. Specifically, experience and age are negatively correlated with public trust in a firm, and males rate firms more trustworthy than females.

Role of “Public Trust in Business” in Determining Trust in a Firm

Finally, Hypothesis 1d predicts that the more positive the general attitude toward business by a member of the public, the higher the level of public trust in a firm. To test Hypothesis 1d, the full regression analysis in Table 2 contains the impact of a respondent’s general trust in the institution of business on his or her more specific trust in a firm (Trust in Business). The findings support the prediction in Hypothesis 1d. Specifically, a respondent’s trust-in-business rating explains only 10.3% of his or her trust rating in a particular firm. For every additional point a respondent saw the institution of business more positively, his or her trust in a particular firm increased by 0.103 points (p = .00).

Trustee-Related Determinants of Public Trust in a Firm

The second set of hypotheses focuses on the role of firm-level factors on trust judgments of a firm. Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c predict public trust in a firm will be affected by the firm’s size, industry, and objective function. To test the second set of hypotheses, a dummy variable for each dimension of the trustee factors—size, industry, and objective function—was created to isolate the impact of each level on the trust in a firm. The findings do not support the prediction in Hypothesis 2a that the smaller the firm, the more public trust it will engender. The results in Table 2 show that changing the size of the firm in the vignette from small, regional, national, or global does not move the dial for trust, therefore not supporting our hypothesis that public trust in a firm will be affected by the firm’s size.

The findings support the prediction that public trust in a firm will be affected by a firm’s industry. The results in Table 2 support Hypothesis 2b as they illustrate that industries viewed as socially beneficial also engender higher public trust of firms in said industry. We find specifically that changing the industry of the firm to “solar” does move the dial on trust for respondents positively. In contrast, companies in the pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and financial services industries are less trusted in comparison with the solar industry.

The findings are mixed with regard to our prediction in that public trust in a firm will be affected by the mission statements of the particular businesses. The results in Table 2 illustrate indeed some support for Hypothesis 2c suggesting that firms aiming to create more direct societal value will engender higher levels of public trust. For example, a mission statement focused on creating employment is slightly more trusted than the one focused on profitability creation alone. All other mission statements, however, were statistically identical to a mission statement focused on profitability.

Hypothesis 2d predicts that the higher the ascribed trustworthiness of a business along the dimensions of ability, benevolence, integrity, transparency, and value congruence, the more public trust a firm engenders. To test Hypothesis 2d, the full regression of the first rating task on the trustee factors and trustor measures in Table 2 is used to test the importance of ability, benevolence, integrity, and transparency. The findings support the prediction in Hypothesis 2d. The results in Table 2 illustrate that ability, benevolence, integrity, transparency, and profitability are all statistically significant in a respondent’s judgment of trust. For example, for each increase in grade in integrity, the respondent rated the firm 5.997 points higher in trust (p = .00). In comparison, for each letter grade increase for profitability, the respondents rated a firm 1.676 points higher in trust (p = .00).

In addition, value congruence was tested by examining a subset of the vignettes associated with those respondents who ranked their top business values at the end of the factorial vignette survey. A vignette-level variable was created signifying whether both values assigned to the firm in the vignette matched those ranked by the respondent. This variable is listed as “Value Agree” in Table 3. Where a firm had strong value congruence with the respondent, in other words, where the values of the firm and respondent matched, respondents rated the firm as more trustworthy (β = 6.041, p = .00). In summary, the findings support Hypothesis 2d that the higher the ascribed trustworthiness of a business along the dimensions of ability, benevolence, integrity, transparency, and value congruence, the more public trust in a firm engenders.

Table 3.

Regression for Value Congruence.

	Value agreement
	Model B
	N = 5,200
	R2 = .3013
	β	p
Trust factors
BenevolenceId	2.664*	.00
IntegrityId	5.355*	.00
TransparencyId	2.907*	.00
ProfitabilityId	1.574*	.00
AbilityId	2.311*	.00
Size of firm
SmallCo	0.875	.58
RegionalCo	0.553	.73
NationalCo	1.377	.38
(Global)
Industry
Pharma	−2.776	.08
OilGas	−5.338*	.00
FinancialSvc	−2.680	.09
(Solar)
Mission statement
ValueFcn	1.802	.25
WorkFcn	4.578*	.00
SocietyFcn	1.848	.24
(Profit)
Control variables
TrustBusiness	0.098*	.00
TrustPeople	0.142*	.00
Male	4.572*	.00
AgeOver23	−0.367	.84
Age	−0.294*	.00
ExperienceBusinessYears	−0.028	.69
Value Agree	6.041*	.00
_cons	−87.973*	.00

Note. Factor labels and definitions in the appendix.

p < .05.

Discussion

The authors first defined public trust in business as a distinct type of trust, which draws on existing research of generalized, institutional, reputation-based, and stakeholder-based forms of trust. Using these four existing streams of trust research, we complement existing theory by further distinguishing public trust in a business from these other types of trust and highlight how existing trust research streams can inform the study of public trust in a business. Our theorizing is informed by the context of businesses and firms in specific, but may be applicable in other, wider institutional contexts in which public trust plays a role, such as legal institutions as well as other intermediary organizations of various kinds including churches, universities, or hospitals. Building on these four existing streams of trust research, we provide a model for analyzing and exploring public trust in business using the trustor–trustee lens. This lens then provides access to the various applicable attributes and drivers that can inform the development of public trust in organizations. We propose that this model can not only help assess current levels of public trust but also help identify potential levers for trust repair.

Using the trustor–trustee model, we proceeded to test the determinants of public trust in a firm. Moving beyond general attitude-based measures of trust-in-business used by public relation firms, we provide one of the first empirical studies of the determinants of public trust in a firm. Using a more comprehensive view of public trust, we examined two classes of variables in detail: attributes of the trustor (in our case, members of the public) and attributes of the trustee (in our case, generalized business firms). We believe this model could help further research span the various levels of analysis, which pose a difficulty in understanding public trust in general and in specific relationships.

By deploying a specifically tailored factorial vignette methodology, we found considerable empirical support for our hypotheses. However, we also discovered several unexpected findings. For example, we hypothesized that the level of trust in a business would be affected by its size, with larger more bureaucratic firms having less public trust. Our data, in contrast to other general attitude-based surveys, did not support this claim. The discrepancy between our data and general attitude-based surveys may be due to the fact that (a) direct surveys such as the Gallup survey can have a problem of respondent bias where the respondents give an answer they think is appropriate or considered reasonable by society. Factorial vignette methodology, however, decreases the incidents of respondent bias by testing for the importance of multiple factors simultaneously—respondents are not sure what the socially acceptable answer is. Second, the questions for Gallup are asked separate of other factors, whereas the factorial vignette survey weighs the import of size in comparison with the import of trust factors such as ability, benevolence, and integrity. Although size may be important alone, its importance may diminish when other factors are included. Further research using different methodologies will be required to better understand these different empirical findings.

In addition, empirical support for industry and objective function were mixed. Experience, age, and gender were all significant predictors of the level of trust in a firm. It might be interesting to explore why the younger generation trusts business generally more than the older generations, despite the claim that millennials are less materialistic and more purpose oriented. Overall, we find that trustor-related determinants are much more predictive of public trust in a firm than trustee-related determinants. That, in turn, leaves practitioners and policy makers less leeway for managing public trust. The fact that the people trust business less the more they have been exposed to it is reflective of larger generational phenomena sociologists have long noted (Putnam, 2000). However, some levers that are at the disposal of the trustee related to stakeholder trust attributes do have significant influence on public trust, such as integrity and competence perceptions. This influence opens the perspective of managing public trust similarly to stakeholder trust.

These results represent a first attempt at empirically evaluating the determinants of public trust. However, much work remains to be done. Although we establish a first set of determinants, this set is not comprehensive and alternative determinants need to be explored. Furthermore, this study sets up several interesting questions to explore regarding public trust in a firm. First, we find that trustor-related attributes are driving trust in a firm more systematically than trustee-related attributes. This suggests that we can possibly identify better how members of the public generate their “individual equations in the head” for determining public trust in a firm. Subsequent studies could explore how these equations are formed, and under what conditions they change. This study focused on broad characteristics of the business and of the public. It could be interesting to see how more specific institutional arrangements, such as executive compensation patterns, corporate governance structures, or corporate social responsibility activities affect individuals’ assessment of trust in business or a firm. Finally, this work sets up a subsequent body of research on repairing public trust in business by examining stakeholder-level trustworthiness dimensions. Further studies could examine strategies available to organizational actors, and how can they best be deployed to increase public trust in business.

Conclusion

This study presents a theoretical model based on existing trust research to examine public trust in business. We extend current theorizing to encompass the somewhat elusive yet pertinent concept of public trust by suggesting a trustor–trustee model. This model helps us to theorize the various dimensions affecting public trust in business institutions. We believe that the question of public trust in business institutions, and especially in firms, is becoming more prevalent.

For example, the Occupy Wall Street, as well as the tea party movement, highlights the public’s low level of trust in business. Business practitioners feel the effects of such reduced trust: Some bankers report that they are afraid to talk about where they are working, when posing as consultants. Although there seem some intuitive repercussions for low-trust institutions, we contribute a more foundational framework to explore such questions. Although business leaders are searching for ways to increase the level of public trust in business, scholars have so far not adequately addressed this issue. Although there is existing research that we can draw on, in this article, we develop a notion of public trust that can support endeavors to increase public trust in business. By distinguishing public trust from previous concepts of trust in the literature and empirically testing its determinants, this study gets us one step closer to better understanding the drivers of public trust in business.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Michael Pirson (PhD, University of St. Gallen) is a scholar of humanistic management, which holds that business and commerce ought to protect human dignity and promote societal well-being. He is currently an associate professor of global sustainability and social entrepreneurship at Fordham University, New York, a research fellow at Harvard University, and a full member of the Club of Rome. His research has appeared in Business Ethics Quarterly, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Human System Management, Journal of Business Ethics, MIT Sloan Review of Management, Organization Science, Psychological Science, and various other outlets. He co-edits the Humanism in Business Series at Palgrave and is editor in chief of the Humanistic Management Journal (Springer/Nature).

Kirsten Martin (PhD, University of Virginia) is an assistant professor of strategic management and public policy at the George Washington University’s School of Business. She is the principal investigator on a 3-year grant from the National Science Foundation to study online privacy and is also a member of the advisory board for the Future Privacy Forum and the Census Bureau’s National Advisory Committee for her work on privacy. She has published academic articles in Ethics and Information Technology Journal, First Monday, The Information Society, Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, and MISQ Executive, and she is co-author of the textbook Business ethics: A managerial approach. Her research interests center on online privacy, corporate responsibility, and stakeholder theory.

Bidhan Parmar (PhD, University of Virginia) is an assistant professor of business administration at the Darden School of Business Administration. His research interests focus on how managers make decisions and collaborate in uncertain and changing environments to create value for stakeholders. He has published in Psychological Science, Organization Science, Organization Studies, and the Journal of Business Ethics among other places.

References

Appelbaum

L. D.

Lennon

M. C.

Aber

J. L.

(2006). When effort is threatening: The influence of the belief in a just world on Americans’ attitudes toward antipoverty policy. Political Psychology, 2, 387-402.

Barber

(1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Barney

J. B.

Hansen

M. H.

(1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175-190.

Blois

K. J.

(1999). Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its status. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 197-215.

Bohnet

Zeckhauser

(2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 467-484.

Buchan

Croson

Solnick

(2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 466-476.

Burt

R. S.

Knez

(1996). Trust and third-party gossip. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 68, 89.

Clegg

Unsworth

Epitropaki

Parker

(2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 409-423.

Coleman

J. S.

(1984). Introducing social structure into economic analysis. American Economic Review, 74, 84-88.

10.

Collins

Porras

(2002). Built to last. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

11.

Cook

K. S.

Hardin

Levi

(2005). Cooperation without trust? (The Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, Vol. 9). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

12.

Cook

K. S.

Schilke

(2010). The role of public, relational and organizational trust in economic affairs. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 98-109.

13.

Dacin

M. T.

(1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46-81.

14.

Davis

F. D.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Tan

H. H.

(2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 563-576.

15.

Dervitsiotis

K. N.

(2003). Beyond stakeholder satisfaction: Aiming for a new frontier of sustainable stakeholder trust. Total Quality Management, 14, 511-524.

16.

DiPiazza

S. A.

(2002). Building public trust: The future of corporate reporting. New York, NY: John Wiley.

17.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2001). The role of interpersonal trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467.

18.

Doney

P. M.

Cannon

J. P.

(1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51.

19.

Eckel

Wilson

(2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race and facial expressions in an experimental trust game (Working Paper Series). Blacksburg: Department of Economics, Virginia Tech University.

20.

Edelman

(2011). Trust barometer 2011. Retrieved from http://edelman.com/trust/2011/

21.

Enz

(1988). The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 284-304.

22.

Fichman

Goodman

P. S.

(1996). Customer supplier ties in interorganizational relations. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 286-329). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

23.

Fombrun

C. J.

(1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

24.

Fombrun

C. J.

van Riel

(2003). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times-Prentice Hall.

25.

Freeman

R. E.

Harrison

J. S.

Wicks

A. C.

Parmar

B. L.

De Colle

(2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Fukuyama

(1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

27.

Ganesan

(1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1-19.

28.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

(2006). Multiple segment factorial vignette designs. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 455-468.

29.

Giddens

(1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

30.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31.

Glaeser

Laibson

Scheinkman

Soutter

(2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 811-846.

32.

Gulati

(1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85-112.

33.

Gulati

Westphal

J. D.

(1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 473-506.

34.

Hardin

(2002). Trust and trustworthiness (The Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

35.

Holste

J. S.

Fields

(2005). The relationship of affect and cognition based trust with sharing and use of tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Best Conference Papers, 1, B3-B7.

36.

Jackson

I. A.

Nelson

(2004). Profits with Principles: Seven strategies for delivering value with values. Broadway Business.

37.

Jasso

(2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34, 334-423.

38.

Jensen

(2003). The role of network resources in market entry: Commercial banks’ entry into investment banking, 1991-1997. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 466-497.

39.

Kluckhohn

(1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In Parsons

Shils

(Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

40.

Levitt

S. D.

List

J. A.

(2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153-174.

41.

Lewicki

R. J.

Bunker

B. B.

(1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Lewis

D. J.

Weigert

(1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.

43.

Lewis

J. D.

(1999). Trusted partners: How companies build mutual trust and win together. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

44.

Luhmann

(1979). Trust: A mechanism for the reduction of social complexity. New York, NY: John Wiley.

45.

Lynch

J. G.

Jr. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 225-239.

46.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

47.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123.

48.

Mayer

R. C.

Gavin

M. B.

(2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.

49.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

50.

McKnight

D. H.

Chervany

N. L.

(2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 35-53.

51.

McKnight

D. H.

Cummings

L. L.

Chervany

N. L.

(1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473-490.

52.

Morgan

R. M.

Hunt

S. D.

(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

53.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.

54.

Nock

Gutterbock

T. M.

(2010). Survey experiments. Handbook of Survey Research, 2, 837-865.

55.

Noteboom

(1996). Trust, opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organizational Studies, 17, 985-1010.

56.

Osterloh

Frey

B. S.

(2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550.

57.

Parsons

(1961). Theories of society: Foundations of modern sociological theory. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

58.

Paxton

(1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88-127.

59.

Paine

L. S.

(2003). Value shift. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.

60.

Pirson

(2007). Facing the trust gap: How organizations can measure and manage stakeholder trust. St. Gallen, Switzerland: University of St. Gallen. Retrieved from http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3276/$FILE/dis3276.pdf

61.

Pirson

Malhotra

(2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22, 1087-1104.

62.

Politis

J. D.

(2003). The connection between trust and knowledge management: What are its implications for team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 55-66.

63.

Poppo

Schepker

D. J.

(2010). Repairing public trust in organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 124-141.

64.

Porter

Kramer

(2011, January). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 1-17.

65.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

66.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

67.

Rossi

P. H.

Nock

S. L.

(1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

68.

Rotter

J. B.

(1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.

69.

Rotter

J. B.

Chance

J. E.

Phares

E. J.

(1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

70.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-405.

71.

Saparito

P. A.

Chen

Sapienza

H. J.

(2004). The role of relational trust in bank-small firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 400-410.

72.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65.

73.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

74.

Schwartz

S. H.

Sagiv

(1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.

75.

Sheppard

B. H.

Sherman

D. A.

(1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23, 422-437.

76.

Simmel

(1908). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung [Studies on the forms of public ownership]. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot Verlag.

77.

Sprenger

R. K.

(2002). Vertrauen führt - worauf es im Unternehmen wirklich ankommt [Confidence leads—What really matters in the company]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.

78.

Swift

(2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10, 15-26.

79.

Sztompka

(1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

80.

Tsai

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464-477.

81.

Turnbull

(2002). A new way to govern: Organizations and society after Enron. London, England: New Economics Foundation Pocketbook.

82.

Uzzi

(1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.

83.

Wallander

(2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38, 505-520.

84.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-531.

85.

Williams

(2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 377-396.

86.

Williamson

O. E.

(1988). Corporate finance and corporate governance. Journal of Finance, XLIII, 567-591.

87.

Williamson

O. E.

(1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law & Economics, 36, 453-486.

88.

Yaniv

Farkas

(2005). The impact of person-organization fit on the corporate brand perception of employees and customers. Journal of Change Management, 5, 447-461.

89.

Zucker

L. G.

(1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.