What Trust Means in e Commerce PDF

International Journal of Electronic Commerce
ISSN: 1086-4415 (Print) 1557-9301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mjec20
What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer

Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual
Typology
D. Harrison McKnight & Norman L. Chervany
To cite this article: D. Harrison McKnight & Norman L. Chervany (2001) What Trust Means in E-
Commerce Customer Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology, International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 6:2, 35-59, DOI: 10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235
Published online: 23 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1814
View related articles
Citing articles: 67 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mjec20
What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual
Typology
D. Harrison McKnight and Norman L. Chervany

ABSTRACT: Trust is a vital relationship concept that needs clarification because research-
ers across disciplines have defined it in so many different ways. A typology of trust t ypes
would make it easier to compare and communicate results, and would be especially valu-
able if the types of trust related to one other. The typology should be interdisciplinary
because many disciplines research e-commerce. This paper justifies a parsimonious inter-
disciplinary t ypology and relates trust constructs to e-commerce consumer actions, defin-
ing both conceptual-level and operational-level trust constructs. Conceptual-level constructs
consist of disposition to trust (primarily from psychology), institution-based trust (from soci-
ology), and trusting beliefs and trusting intentions (primarily from social psychology). Each
construct is decomposed into measurable subconstructs, and the typology shows how
trust constructs relate to already existing Internet relationship constructs. The effects of
Web vendor interventions on consumer behaviors are posited to be partially mediated by
consumer trusting beliefs and trusting intentions in the e-vendor.
KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: Customer relationships, human issues in e-commerce,
Internet consumers, trust.
Ms. Wilson . . . was looking for a lawyer to help her win custody of
her son. Trolling the Internet, she hit upon Mr. Lais. She was so im-
pressed with his credentials, including a claim to the title of “Advo-
cate, The Republic of India,” that she agreed to wire him $5,000 so he
could get right on the case. . . . That was the last she ever saw of her
money. Mr. Lais made himself scarce, too. [She later found that] he
had a history of run-ins with bar regulators [and] was under a three-
month suspension . . . by the State Bar of California. . . . For lawyers
who have been suspended, the Web can be a way to keep up a virtual
shingle. [68]
With 15 prescriptions costing $800 a month and no insurance cover-
age, 65-year-old Starr Tolleson is desperate to find ways to cut drug
costs. But even though Internet pharmacies promise savings of 20%
or more, Mrs. Tolleson has yet to venture onto the Web. “It is a little
frightening to think that there is a possibility that the medicines that
you order are not pure or are not the ones you have ordered,” says the
Fernandina Beach, Fla., retiree. [56]
To many consumers, e-commerce represents an excursion beyond the un-

known into the unknowable. A generation ago, purchasing drugs or dry goods
from the corner store or dealing with a lawyer or doctor involved a known
quantity. One could inspect the goods and evaluate the vendor before making
the purchase. The druggist and the family doctor and the neighborhood law-
yer, like their clients, had been there for many years. Clients knew them by
reputation through trusted friends and by their own personal experience with
International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Winter 2001–2002, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 35–59.
Copyright © 2002 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
1086-4415/2002 $9.50 + 0.00.
36 D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT AND NORMAN L. CHERVANY
them as professionals and as members of a club or church or PTA. Since then,

however, the influx of new people into old communities, the growth of urban
populations, and, more recently, widespread job turnover and geographic
movement has shifted the basis of trust from personal knowledge to institu-
tional knowledge [82]. Clients are able to deal with professionals who are
personally unknown to them because licensing and regulating entities only
legitimate professionals who have passed certain competence hurdles. With-
out knowing lawyers or doctors personally, clients can rely on them because
they have passed the tests needed to put up a shingle. Clients see the medi-
cal or legal certificate on the wall and can test the professional through per-
sonal interaction. Since e-commerce provides little opportunity to verify the
quality of goods through inspection or the quality of a professional through
interpersonal interaction, it makes even greater demands on the credulity of
consumers.
Trust is central to interpersonal and commercial relationships [27, 51] be-
cause it is crucial wherever risk, uncertainty, or interdependence exist [45, 50].
These conditions flourish in many settings, but thrive in socially distant rela-
tionships. Researchers have found trust to be important to both virtual teams
and e-commerce [1, 30, 31, 32, 53, 73]. As increased transaction complexity
makes conditions more uncertain, as is the case in computer-mediated com-
merce, the need for trust grows [50].
This article proceeds under the belief that conceptual work is as valid a
scientific pursuit as empirical testing of theory. Although conceptual efforts,
unlike empirical work, do not report test results from the real world, they are
important because they form a firm basis upon which empirical studies build,
as several researchers have argued (e.g., [76]). In the four-base model of re-
search developed by Sagasti and Mitroff, one base is the conceptual model—
the step before building an empirically testable model [66]. Schwab
demonstrates the importance of good conceptual work to construct validity
[69]. In his classic treatise on conducting research, Kaplan devotes entire chap-
ters to theory building and conceptualizing [34]. Conceptual models help re-
searchers by linking science to the real world upfront, so that the results of the
scientific research may later be of greater use to practice [66].
Testing a theory before it is properly conceptualized causes problems. The
resulting research is often misinterpreted because researchers have not yet
agreed on what the terms mean. Moreover, as Crozier warns, “premature rigor”
can keep a theory “from being adequately comprehensive” [13, p. 5]. Narrow
results are not as likely to contribute to practice [76]. The logical positivist
view of science requires that theory be developed conceptually first and then
operationally, so that the results of operationalizing it will be applicable to the
conceptual theory. “Because we cannot identify observable representations of
a concept unless its meaning is clear, the initial step is to clarify the mental
imagery conveyed by one’s concepts” [71, p. 98]. In short, pursuing empirical
work before adequately defining concepts is like putting the cart before the
horse.
A good deal of research on trust is under way, with the potential to produce
significant understanding of e-commerce or other social phenomena. How-
ever, a clearer understanding of what the term “trust” means is needed if the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 37
results are to be interpreted and compared across disciplines. This paper jus-
tifies and specifies a conceptual typology of trust constructs. It then defines
the four resulting constructs and ten measurable subconstructs, and relates
them to other e-commerce concepts. Distrust constructs are separate from trust
constructs [40], and lie outside the scope of this paper. Distrust should be
defined as the mirror-image opposite of trust [48]. Three example definitions
of distrust constructs are given below.
The State of Trust Definitions

There are literally dozens of definitions of trust. Some researchers find them
contradictory and confusing (e.g., [41, 70, 74]), others conclude that the con-
cept is almost or elusive to define [22, 80], and still others choose not to define
it [28, 55]. All of these problems are found in the e-commerce research do-
main, with researchers defining trust as a willingness to believe [20] or as
beliefs regarding various attributes of the other party [49, 73], such as fair-
ness, goodness, strength, ability, benevolence, honesty, and predictability. Some
Internet researchers, for whatever reason, do not specifically define trust (e.g.,
[4, 5, 12, 19, 30, 53, 78]). A consensus definition would help researchers form
e-commerce models that communicate shared meaning between researchers
and practitioners. Why does the term “trust” elicit either confusion or reluc-
tance to define?
One reason is that every discipline views trust from its own unique per-
spective. Like the story of the six blind men and the elephant, a disciplinary
lens colors researchers’ views of what trust is. Psychologists see trust as a
personal trait, sociologists see it as a social structure, and economists see it as
an economic-choice mechanism [39]. Scholars in one discipline may not un-
derstand and appreciate the view of trust held in other disciplines (e.g., [42]).
Hence, definitions differ widely, often clustering along disciplinary lines.
A second reason for the confusion is that “trust” is a vague term. Like other
natural language terms, it has acquired many meanings [71]. Three unabridged
dictionaries (Webster ’s, Random House, and Oxford) give “trust,” on aver-
age, 17.0 definitions, while the terms “cooperation,” “confidence,” and “pre-
dictable” have an average of 4.7 definitions. “Cooperation,” “confidence,” and
“predictable” are the terms that Mayer et al. use to discriminate trust from
similar concepts [45].
Few researchers address this issue head-on by trying to reconcile the vari-
ous types of trust into a sensible set of constructs that adequately cover its
different meanings (exceptions: [3, 7, 16, 21, 35, 45, 50]). In part, this is because
of disciplinary perspectives. For example, Lewis and Weigert, as sociologists,
argue that psychological views of trust are invalid because trust cannot be
reduced to a personal characteristic [42]. Disciplinary lenses help us see some
things, but may also act as blinders [64].
The other problem is that empirical research drives most definitions of trust.
Researchers tend to develop narrow conceptualizations of trust that fit the
type of research they do. They defend their narrow conceptualizations by re-
ferring to the factor analysis. Van de Ven warned that when theories on a topic
widely diverge, the advocates “for each theory engage in activities to make
their theory better by increasing its internal consistency, often at the expense
of limiting its scope. As a result, and as Pogge stated, a way of seeing is a way
of not seeing. From an overall Academy perspective, such impeccable micro
logic is creating macro nonsense!” [76, p. 487]. The broad proliferation of in-
commensurate trust definitions is evidence that this has happened in trust
research.
The Need for Better Conceptual Trust Definitions

Researchers should agree on trust definitions for two practical reasons. First,
common definitions would enable them to sort out findings across studies.
Currently, this is very hard to do [27]. Without agreed-upon definitions, effec-
tive meta-analyses is difficult and ineffective. A search in ABI Inform yielded
only two meta-analyses about trust, both published recently and both focused
on sales relations. This meager result may be a symptom of the difficulty of
comparing trust studies, especially across disciplines. What trust research needs
is a set of rules for translating one result to another, as Rubin recommended
for the equally diverse literature on love [65]. Consensus knowledge about
trust will then progress more rapidly.
Second, consistent definitions enable researchers to communicate clearly
with practitioners and provide them with better prescriptions. Common-sense
terms like “trust” should be accessed from the real world [36, p. 11] and then
sharpened for scientific use [3, 6]. Next, they should be compared back to
common-sense terms to see how well they match the meaning and range of
meaning the terms connote in everyday use [66]. Luhmann suggested that
researchers should build trust theory and “then enter a dialogue with the ev-
eryday understanding of the social world” [44, p. 3]. This dialogue would
enable trust research to be more valuable to practitioners and enable research-
ers to obtain valuable practitioner knowledge. Such interplay improves the
practical applicability of the scientific and renders researchable the common
[36].
The trust prescriptions provided to practitioners are typically couched in
the same vague terminology (“trust”) that confuses so many researchers. Vague
prescriptions that generic trust will solve the Internet’s problems are danger-
ous because they may not address a specific problem in a productive way.
Worse, the researcher/consultant’s type of trust may be prescribed or applied
mistakenly to situations in which it is not appropriate. This is like giving a
patient pain medication for a heart problem because it worked for a head-
ache. As an example, what better leads to consumer adoption of an Internet
service, user trust perceptions about the Internet or user disposition to trust?
Both have been referred to as trust, but one may be much more crucial in this
situation than the other.
The key to defining trust lies only indirectly in empirical work or even in
construct validation. After all, it is the plethora of empirical studies that has
brought trust research to so confusing a state. Wrightsman argues that “the
general concept of trust deserves much more theoretical analysis. Measure-
ment has advanced more rapidly than conceptual clarification” [79, p. 411]. If
so, then efforts to conceptualize should be redoubled, as several trust research-
ers suggest [35, 39, 74]. Other scientists maintain that effective conceptuali-
zation is vital to progress with any construct [34, 69]. Thus, building a good
theoretical, conceptual view of trust will help move trust research forward.
One Sugges tion: Create a Trust Typology

Because trust is so broad a concept, and is defined in so many different ways,
a typology of trust constructs is an appropriate desideratum. A good typol-
ogy would do two things [75]. First, it would create order out of chaos by
distinguishing concepts that at first appear to be the same. Second, it would
make it possible to postulate how the different types of trust relate to each
other [69], creating a model of trust types. “This is because a good typology is
not a collection of undifferentiated entities but is composed of a cluster of
traits which do in reality ‘hang together’ ” [75, p. 178]. However, a typology is
only appropriate if it is parsimonious enough to be easily understood and
thus useful to practice [45]. Given the breadth of meaning of the trust con-
struct, this is difficult. The more complex a concept is, the less parsimonious
its dimensions may seem. However, as Hirschman has advised, researchers
should loosen their most stringent demands regarding parsimony in order to
increase conceptual understanding of social phenomena that are by nature
complex [29].
Producing an acceptable typology requires analysis of existing trust defini-
tions. In the research reported here, various definitions were compared to find
conceptual trends. From about 80 articles and books on trust, 65 were identi-
fied that provided definitions of trust. The articles and books were from the
fields of psychology/social psychology (23), sociology/economics/political
science (19), and either management or communications (23). The books were
specifically about trust. The articles tended to be from well-read journals in
their domain. Each was either oft-cited by others or had a unique trust defini-
tion. The search was stopped when conceptual saturation was reached, that
is, when no new definitions emerged [26].
An analysis of these definitions showed that they fell into two broad group-
ings. Many of them could be categorized into different conceptual types, such
as attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and dispositions, whereas others could be
categorized as reflecting different referents: trust in something, trust in some-
one, or trust in a specific characteristic of someone (e.g., honesty). In terms
of specific characteristics, 16 categories of trust-related characteristics were
identified.
As Table 1 shows, the 16 categories can be distilled into five second-order
conceptual categories by comparing one type of characteristic with another.
Ninety-three student raters validated the categorizations. Seventy-one percent
of their ratings agreed with those by the authors. Most of the categorizations
were intuitive, but based on the literature, it was possible to differentiate pre-
dictability and integrity by defining the latter as value-laden and the former as
valueless. The value-laden literature definitions of dependable and reliable more
Trust-related Second-order Percentage

characteristic conceptual category Definition count of total
1. Competent 14
2. Expert 3
3. Dynamic 3
Competence 20 20.4
4. Predictable Predictability 6 6.1
5. Good, moral 6
6. Good will 10
7. Benevolent, caring 18
8. Responsive 4
Benevolence 38 38.8
9. Honest 11
10. Credible 1
11. Reliable 8
12. Dependable 6
Integrit y 26 26.5
13. Open 3
14. Careful, safe 3
15. Shared understanding 1
16. Personally attractive 1
Other 8 8.2
Total 98 100.0
Table 1. Trust Referent Characteristic–based Definition Categories.
closely fit in the integrity category than in the predictability category. Predict-
ability was included as an economics-based subconstruct. This differs from
Mayer et al., who excluded predictability from their trust typology [45]. Thus,
four second-order categories (competence, benevolence, integrity, and predict-
ability) cover 91.8 percent of the characteristics-based trust definitions found.
The two types of groupings of trust definitions (construct type and refer-
ent ) did not appear to overlap, in that the first refers to what type of construct
trust is, and the second to the object of trust. Therefore, after the number of
attributes was reduced to five, these two categories were used as dimensions
of a five-by-six table that made it possible to categorize the types of trust defi-
nitions used by researchers (see Table 2). Each of the definitions in the 65 ar-
ticles and books was mapped onto these dimensions. The result was the
expected finding—that trust definitions ranged all over the map.
A Typology of Related Trust Constructs

From this mapping, and from a conceptual analysis of how trust types relate
to one other [47], an interdisciplinary model of trust types was formulated.
The model, shown in Figure 1, has concepts representing all of the columns in
Conceptual t ypes
Structural/ Dispo-
ins titutional sition Attitude Belief Intention Behavior
Referent
characteristic:
Competence x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

xxxxxxxx
Benevolence xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
Integrity xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx

xxxxxxx
Predictability x xxxxxxxxxxx x
Other xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
xxxxxx
Table 2. Mapping of Literature Trust Definitions.

Notes:
1. Each x represents one trust definition.
2. Attitude includes affect and confidence; Belief includes expectancy.
Table 2. Disposition to trust reflects Table 2’s disposition column. Institution-

based trust reflects the structural/institutional column. The attitude and be-
lief columns were combined into trusting beliefs, which were defined as having
both affective and cognitive components (see [59]). Trusting intentions covers
the intention column.
Trust-related behaviors was made a dotted-line concept outside the trust
typology because behavioral forms of trust already have other labels (e.g.,
cooperation, information sharing, entering agreements with, risk taking,
involvement with). What these have in common is that, in each case, one party
behaviorally depends on the other party. Calling these trusting behaviors would
needlessly duplicate other constructs. The umbrella term “trust-related
behaviors” provides a second-order category for constructs like cooperation
and risk taking, keeping them separate from, but related to, trust constructs.
The dispositional, institutional, and interpersonal trust constructs are
discriminant from each other for at least three reasons. First, as Figure 1 shows,
they come from different research disciplines. Because psychologists and
sociologists, for example, think about the world very differently, their concepts
also differ, primarily in terms of the nature of the research behind their origin.
Disposition to trust comes primarily from trait psychology, which says that
actions are molded by certain childhood-derived attributes that become more
or less stable over time. Institution-based trust derives from sociology, which
says that behaviors are situationally constructed. In this paradigm, action is
not determined by factors within the person but by the environment or
Dispositional Trust Institutional Trust Interpersonal Trust
Psychology Sociology Social Psychology & Economics

Economics (Trust in the (Trust in Specific Others)
(Trust in Situation or
General Others) Structures)
Disposition
to
Trust
Trusting Trust-
Trusting
Institution- Beliefs Related
Intentions
Based Behaviors
Trust
Figure 1. An Interdisciplinary Model of High-Level Trust Concepts

Note: The Trust-Related Behaviors construct lies outside the trust typology.
situation. Trusting beliefs and intentions reflect the idea that interactions
between people and cognitive-emotional reactions to such interactions
determine behavior (e.g., [37]). Based on these large differences, one could
argue that this typology contains constructs that are too diverse to be related
at all. Yet, by establishing as the level of analysis the individual trusting the
other party, the starkness of the differences is subtly reduced, such that each
construct relates to another more naturally. For example, institution-based trust
is defined below as a belief about situations and structures rather than an
intersubjective shared reality, as some sociologists would have it. This was
done, in part, to create a more cohesive set of concepts, but also to recognize
the sociological work that defines beliefs/perceptions as concepts.
The second reason the constructs are clearly discriminant from each other
is that they form different sentences in the “grammar” of trust. That is, trust
was modeled as an action sentence with a subject, verb, and direct object (see
Figure 2). The trustor is the subject or nominative of the sentence, trust itself is
the verb or predicate, and the trustee is the direct object. Figure 1 shows (in
parentheses ) that the direct object is the differentiating factor among
dispositional, institutional, and interpersonal constructs. Per Figure 2, while
dispositional trust means that one trusts others generally, institutional trust
means that one trusts the situation or structures. With interpersonal trust, the
direct object is the specific other individual one trusts. This suggests the essence
of the definitions of the psychological state known as trust: to willingly become
vulnerable to the trustee, whether another person, an institution, or people
generally, having taken into consideration the characteristics of the trustee.
This comprises a comprehensive definition of trust.
A third way to distinguish these concepts is by their contextual orientation
(see Table 3). Disposition to trust is cross-situational and cross-personal because
A. Basic Sentence structure

Nominative/Noun Predicate/Verb Direct Object Type of Trust
Concept
The trustor trusts* the trustee. (various)
B. Examples of Sentence Variations
The E-commerce consumer trusts the E-vendor. Interpersonal
The E-commerce consumer trusts the web itself. Institutional
The E-commerce consumer trusts others generally. Dispositional
Figure 2. Grammar of the Trust Model

* Here, the word “trust” is used as a surrogate for “willing to depend on” or “intends to depend on” (trusting
intentions or disposition to trust), “believes in the {attribute} of” (trusting beliefs), or “believes it is a context
conducive to success” (institution-based trust).
it reflects the extent to which the trustor has a general propensity/tendency to

depend on most people across most situations. Institution-based trust is
situation-specific but cross-personal because it means that one trusts the specific
situation but does so irrespective of the specific people in that situation. Trusting
beliefs and intentions have a person-specific direct object but are cross-
situational in that one trusts the person across various contexts [40].
The four trust constructs in Figure 1 can be subdivided into lower level
constructs that are measurable via scales (see Figure 3). Disposition to trust includes
the faith in humanity and trusting stance subconstructs. Institution-based trust
consists of structural assurance and situational normality of the Web. Trusting
beliefs includes competence, benevolence, integrity, and predictability beliefs,
corresponding to the first four rows of Table 2. Trusting intentions includes
willingness to depend and subjective probability of depending on the Web vendor
[14, 16].
As the definitions below will show, these subconstructs of the four main
constructs are conceptually distinguishable from each other and from the
construct. They are not simply two parts of a dual construct. Like the subtypes of
a data-modeling supertype, each subconstruct partakes of the overall conceptual
meaning of the concept (supertype ), but has certain attributes that distinguish it
from the concept and from other subconstructs (subtypes) [8]. For example,
consider the biological categories and subcategories of the animal kingdom. A
cow and an elephant are both in the mammal category, for example, because
they both give live birth, have hair, and nourish their babies through mammary
glands. These attributes are common to all mammals, but cows and elephants
(subcategories), respectively, have additional attributes not specified for a
mammal (category). The elephant is different from other mammals because of
attributes like size, unique ears, a flexible, elongated snout, tusks, and its toe/
Concept orientation
Situational Personal
Situation- Cross- Person- Cross-
specific situational specific personal
Disposition to trust X X
Institution-based trust X X
Trusting beliefs X X
Trusting intentions X X
Table 3. Contextual Orientation of Trust Concepts.
Disposition to Trus t in Web Vendor/Business

Trus t
Institution-
Faith in based Trust TrusTrus
tingting
Beliefs
Humanity Beliefs Trus ting
Structural Intentions
Assurance of Competence
the Web belief
Trusting Willingness
Stance to
Situational Depend
Normalit y of Benevolence
the Web belief
Integrit y
belief
Subjective
Predictability
Probabilit y of
belief
Depending
Web Vendor
Interventions
– Privacy Policy
–3rd Party Seals
– Interacting with
Customers Trust-Related
– Reputation Internet Behaviors
building – Purchasing
– Links to other – Cooperating
Sites – Information
– Guarantees Sharing
Figure 3. A Model of E-Commerce Customer Relationships Trust

Constructs
Source: Adapted from {47}.
Note: Thinner arrows are proposed to be weaker links than thicker arrows, usually due to mediation effects.
foot arrangement. Similarly, each of the subconstructs of the four main constructs
partakes of the nature of the construct but has attributes that differentiate it from
its parent construct and from other subconstructs of its parent construct. The
constructs and subconstructs in Figure 1 can now be defined, reflecting on their
meaning and inter-relationships in light of e-commerce customer-vendor relations.
Conceptual Definitions of Trust Constructs

Implicit in all the definitions presented here are two aspects not explicitly
listed in each definition: felt security and a risky situation. A feeling of security
means that one feels safe, assured, and comfortable (not anxious or fearful)
about the prospect of depending on the trustee [42, 59]. Feelings of security
reflect the affective side of trust. Both security and confidence are often
included in research and dictionary definitions of trust (e.g., [11, 25, 43, 67]).
The possibility of negative consequences or risk is what makes trust in
unfamiliar or uncertain situations like the Internet important but problematic
[22, 25, 60, 81]. One should therefore implicitly add to each definition below
the phrase: “with a feeling of relative security in a situation of risk.”
The Internet provides a dual challenge, in that both it and its players are
relatively new. Researchers have found that in novel situations, people rely
on their general disposition to trust [33, 63]. Disposition to trust means the
extent to which one displays a consistent tendency to be willing to depend on
others in general across a broad spectrum of situations and persons. This con-
struct derives primarily from disposition or trait psychology. The preceding
definition does not literally refer to a person’s trait. Rather, it means that one
has a general propensity to be willing to depend on others [45]. Disposition to
trust does not necessarily imply that one believes others to be trustworthy.
Whatever the reason, one tends to be willing to depend on others. People may
grow up with a disposition to trust or may develop it later in life [17]. Either
way, it is acted out as a generalized reaction to life’s experiences with other
people [63]. Because disposition to trust is a generalized tendency across situ-
ations and persons, it colors our interpretation of situations and actors in situ-
ations. Thus, as Figure 1 indicates, disposition to trust will influence
institution-based trust, which reflects beliefs about the situation. Disposition
to trust will affect trust in a specific other (interpersonal trust), but only when
novel situations arise in which the other and the situation are unfamiliar [33].
To the extent that e-commerce is novel to a consumer, disposition to trust will
influence interpersonal trust in the vendor (see Figure 1), as Gefen found [24].
Referring to the vignette that began this article, perhaps it was a high disposi-
tion to trust others that influenced Ms. Wilson to trust Mr. Lais initially.
As a new phenomenon to many people, the Internet presents almost the
same unnerving prospect as that presented to a person who walks on ice of
unknown thickness: Will it hold up, or will I break through and drown? In
other words, are Internet conditions such that I will be successful? Institution-
based trust means one believes that favorable conditions are in place that are
conducive to situational success in an endeavor or aspect of one’s life [41, 44,
70, 82]. In the Internet context, “favorable conditions” refers to the legal, regu-
latory, business, and technical environment perceived to support success. This

construct comes from the sociology tradition that people can rely on others
because of structures, situations, or roles that provide assurances that things
will go well [2]. Hence, the causal link in Figure 1 goes from institution-based
trust to trusting beliefs and intentions, and not in the other direction. Zucker
traced the history of regulations and institutions in America that enabled people
to trust one other not because they knew one other personally, but because
licensing or auditing or laws or governmental enforcement bodies were in
place to make sure the other person was either afraid to harm you or pun-
ished for doing so [82]. Similarly, beliefs that the Internet has legal or regula-
tory protections for consumers (institution-based trust) should influence trust
in a particular e-vendor (interpersonal trust). Mrs. Tolleson (in the second vi-
gnette) apparently feared that Internet protections were not sufficient to protect
her from getting impure or incorrect medicines. It is likely that institution-based
trust will link more strongly to trusting beliefs than disposition to trust because
situation tends to have stronger effects on interpersonal beliefs than disposi-
tion when the situation is known [33]. However, if the situation itself is un-
known, as with prospective Internet users, disposition to trust may have a
stronger relationship with interpersonal trust than does institution-based trust.
In the Internet context, the people involved include consumers and e-ven-
dors. The term “e-vendor” is here left vague so that it may encompass both
the Web store and the store owner or manager. Interpersonal trust of e-ven-
dors by consumers is critical for establishing transactional behavior. As a Wall
Street Journal article put it, “It seems that trust equals revenue, even on-line”
[57]. Trusting beliefs means that one believes that the other party has one or
more characteristics beneficial to oneself. In terms of characteristics, the con-
sumer wants the e-vendor to be willing and able to act in the consumer’s
interest, honest in transactions, and both capable of, and predictable at, deliv-
ering as promised. Ms. Wilson had high trusting beliefs in Mr. Lais at first, but
low trusting beliefs after the transaction. Trusting beliefs is not an expecta-
tion, as some have defined trust (e.g., [3, 15]), but is specified as a cognitive/
affective belief in order to reflect the type of construct more normally used in
social science. Perceptions about the other party’s traits are often included in
trust definitions [59, 80]. Trusting beliefs are here defined as person-specific,
in contrast to institution-based trust, which is situation-specific.
Can one depend on an e-vendor to deliver and not betray by divulging
personal information (e.g., credit card number ) to other vendors? If one is
willing to provide such information, then this is the essence of being willing
to depend on the vendor to keep the information confidential. The informed
consumer has to reconcile these issues before being willing to transact busi-
ness on the Web. Trusting intentions means that one is willing to depend on, or
intends to depend on, the other party even though one cannot control that
party. Trusting intentions definitions embody three elements synthesized from
the trust literature. First, a readiness to depend or rely on another (such as Ms.
Wilson relying on her Web lawyer) is central to trusting intentions [16, 25, 42,
61]. To depend means to have the trustee do something on one’s behalf. Sec-
ond, trusting intentions is person-specific [21, 72]. Finally, trusting intentions
involves willingness that is not based on having control or power over the
other party [22, 60, 61]. In the Internet context, the consumer has less control
than in the brick-and-mortar context, and may incur greater negative conse-
quences (e.g., a stolen identity), making trusting intentions especially prob-
lematic. Trusting intentions relates to the power literature because it is defined
in terms of dependence and control. This may be researched: For example, the
feeling of powerlessness against the faceless Internet is probably a factor re-
lated to fear to do business on the Web. Reflecting such feelings, one distrust
definition is added for contrast. Distrusting intentions means that one is against
being willing to depend, or intends not to depend, on the other party. The
feelings behind this construct are usually strong and emotionally charged [48],
as were Ms. Wilson’s post-transaction feelings toward Mr. Lais.
The link between trusting beliefs and trusting intentions is natural because
the theory of reasoned action posits that beliefs influence intentions [18]. In
the Internet setting, it seems reasonable that strong beliefs that the vendor is
honest, competent, benevolent, and predictable should lead to willingness to
depend, or to intend to depend, on the vendor (see Figure 3). People are will-
ing to depend on those they feel have beneficial characteristics. Additional
theoretical justification for model linkages among the above trust constructs
is provided by McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany [47].
Conceptual Definitions of Trust Subconstructs

Disposition to trust has two subconstructs, faith in humanity and trusting
stance. Faith in humanity refers to underlying assumptions about people, while
trusting stance is like a personal strategy. Faith in humanity means that one
assumes others are usually competent, benevolent, honest/ethical, and pre-
dictable (e.g., [62, 79]). Mayer et al. gave the example that if you were going to
drown, could you trust nonspecific others to come to your aid? [45].You would
if, having high faith in humanity, you assumed that others generally care
enough to help. Likewise, you would be more likely to have high trusting
beliefs that an Internet vendor is trustworthy if your faith in humanity is high,
since it is people that operate e-businesses (see Figure 3). Those with high
faith in humanity tend to be less judgmental or critical of others upfront and
are usually more tolerant of their mistakes.
Trusting stance means that, regardless of what one assumes about other
people generally, one assumes that one will achieve better outcomes by deal-
ing with people as though they were well-meaning and reliable. Therefore,
trusting stance is like a personal choice or strategy to trust others. Because it
involves a choice that is presumably based on a subjective calculation of the
odds of success in a venture, trusting stance derives from the calculative, eco-
nomics-based trust research stream (e.g., [60]). Here is an example. A con-
sumer asked why he or she trusted a Web store might answer, “Because I
always trust Web stores until they give me a reason not to trust them.” Some-
one with high trusting stance would probably have high trusting intentions
(see Figure 3), that is, would be willing to take normal risks (e.g., risk of credit
card fraud) to buy goods or services on-line, until an adverse experience forces
a change of mind about e-vendors.
Trusting stance and faith in humanity are alike in that they each constitute
a tendency or propensity to trust other people [45]. They differ in terms of
their assumptions. Because faith in humanity relates to assumptions about
the attributes of other people, it is more likely than trusting stance to be an
antecedent to trusting beliefs (in people ) (see Figure 3). Trusting stance will
relate more to trusting intention, since it is a strategy related to trusting others
rather than a belief about people [47].
Institution-based trust has two subconstructs, structural assurance and situ-
ational normality of the Web. Structural assurance means that one believes that
protective structures—guarantees, contracts, regulations, promises, legal re-
course, processes, or procedures—are in place that are conducive to situational
success [70, 82]. For example, users of the Internet have structural assurance
to the extent to which they believe that legal and technological Internet safe-
guards (e.g., encryption) protect them from privacy loss, identity loss, or credit
card fraud generally [30]. Structural assurance is the opposite of perceived
Web risk. With a high level of structural assurance regarding the Internet, one
would be more likely to believe in the goodness of Internet vendors (trust-
ing beliefs ) and to rely on specific Internet vendors (trusting intentions) be-
cause of the secure feeling structural assurance engenders (see Figure 3).
Situational normality means that one believes that the situation in a venture
is normal or favorable or conducive to situational success. Situation (on the
Web) reflects Garfinkel’s idea that trust is the perception that things in a situ-
ation are normal, proper, customary, fitting, or in proper order [2, 23, 41].
Garfinkel found in natural experiments that people do not trust others when
things “go weird,” that is, when they face inexplicable, abnormal situations.
For example, one subject told the experimenter that he’d had a flat tire on the
way to work. The experimenter responded, “What do you mean you had a
flat tire?” The subject replied, in a hostile way, “What do you mean ‘What do
you mean’? A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I meant. Nothing special. What
a crazy question!” [23, p. 221] At this point, trust between them broke down
because the illogical question produced an abnormal situation. Situational
normality means that a properly ordered setting is likely to facilitate a suc-
cessful venture. When Web consumers believe that the Internet situation is
normal and that their role and the vendor’s roles in the situation are appro-
priate and conducive to success, then they have a basis for trusting the ven-
dor in the situation. Hence, situational normality regarding the Internet setting
will affect trusting beliefs and trusting intentions about Internet vendors (see
Figure 3).
Just as those with high faith in humanity are less critical of people, they are
probably also less critical of situations and more positive about the structures
beneath situations. Therefore, one with a high faith in humanity should have
high situational normality and structural assurance regarding the e-commerce
setting. Similarly, those who give people the benefit of the doubt because of
high trusting stance will be more likely to have high situational normality and
structural assurance beliefs. Hence, both disposition to trust constructs should
influence both institution-based trust constructs, as Figure 3 indicates.
The trusting beliefs subconstructs defined here are of four types, building
on Mayer et al. [45], although it is recognized that other types exist. Trusting
belief-competence means that one believes that the other party has the ability or
power to do for one what one needs done. In the case of the Internet relation-
ship, the consumer would believe that the vendor can provide the goods and
services in a proper and convenient way. Trusting belief-benevolence means that
one believes that the other party cares about one and is motivated to act in
one’s interest. A benevolent Internet vendor would not be perceived to act
opportunistically by taking advantage of the trustor. Benevolence reflects the
specific relationship between trustor and trustee, not trustee kindness to all.
Trusting belief-integrity means that one believes that the other party makes good-
faith agreements, tells the truth, acts ethically, and fulfills promises [7]. This
would reflect the belief that the Internet vendor will come through on its prom-
ises and ethical obligations, such as to deliver goods or services or to keep
private information secure. Thus, integrity is more about the character of the
trustee than about the trustor-trustee relationship. Trusting belief-predictability
means that one believes the other party’s actions (good or bad) are consistent
enough that one can forecast them in a given situation. Those with high trust-
ing belief-predictability would believe that they can predict the Internet
vendor’s future behavior in a given situation. This construct, as opposed to
trusting belief-integrity, is value-neutral, such that the vendor is believed pre-
dictably to do either good or bad things in the future. The vendor may have
good or bad traits, but is perceived to be consistent in those traits. For ex-
ample, a consumer with a high level of predictability belief would forecast
that Amazon.com will consistently deliver a book in seven days. One with a
high belief level would forecast that Amazon.com will need a follow-up e-
mail before it sends off the package. Predictability is separate from, but inter-
acts with, the other constructs, because having predictability means that the
trustee’s willingness and ability to serve trustor interests does not vary or
change over time. Thus, in contrast to the view of Mayer et al., predictability
is important to the trust typology.
Which of the four beliefs is more important? In a sense, they complement
one another, comprising an unassailable foundation for trusting intentions
and trust-related behaviors [45]. That is, if the trustor has high beliefs in the
competence, integrity, benevolence, and predictability of the trustee, then
the trustor will have the highest level of willingness to depend on the trustee,
because these attributes address nearly every contingent circumstance in
the relationship. Specifically, a vendor consistently (predictability belief )
shown to be willing (benevolence belief ) and able (competence belief ) to
serve consumer interests with total honesty (integrity belief ) is indeed wor-
thy of trust.
On the individual level, however, the belief that addresses the greatest fear
of the prospective Web user is the belief that is most important. For example,
if a consumer fears that his or her credit card number might inadvertently be
made available to other Web users, the consumer’s competence belief that the
vendor will use its technical prowess to take proper precautions using SSL or
other tools will address this issue. If the fear is that the vendor might sell
personal information to other vendors for marketing purposes, then trusting
belief-integrity may be the most important because of the ethical issues. Ms.
Wilson may at first have placed greater emphasis on credential-based compe-
tence, but after the transaction would probably emphasize Mr. Lais’s (lack of)
integrity. On the level of potential Web users as a whole, the most important
trusting belief will address the most important issue affecting overall use. Ini-
tially, if this is the private data security issue, then competence may be the
most important belief. However, this is an empirical question, and research-
ers are hereby challenged to test it.
Some or all of these trusting beliefs will probably merge together into one
construct when the trustor knows little about the trustee, but as the parties get
to know each other, the trustor will be able to differentiate among the trusting
beliefs more discretely [40]. The two most likely to merge are integrity and be-
nevolence, since they both imply that the trustee will do the trustor good in-
stead of harm.
The subconstructs of trusting intentions include willingness to depend and
subjective probability of depending. Willingness to depend means that one is
volitionally prepared to make oneself vulnerable to the other party in a situa-
tion by relying on the other party (e.g., [16, 45]). Here, the e-consumer is will-
ing to depend on the vendor to do its part of the transaction in a proper and
efficient way. Subjective probability of depending means the extent to which one
forecasts or predicts that one will depend on the other party [14]. This means
that consumers predict that they will rely or depend on the e-commerce ven-
dor in the future. While willingness to depend expresses volition or desire,
subjective probability of depending expresses something stronger—a verifi-
able intent or commitment to depend. These constructs could refer to a
consumer’s willingness or intention to depend on the vendor to fulfill an or-
der, provide a service, provide excellent advice, keep personal information
confidential and secure, or warrant its products. To provide contrast, two dis-
trusting intentions subconstructs are defined. No willingness to depend means
that one is against making oneself vulnerable to the other party by relying on
the other party. Subjective probability of not depending means the extent to which
one forecasts or predicts that one will not depend on the other party. These
definitions are mirror opposites of the trust definitions. Other distrust con-
structs could be defined [48], but are not included here.
Linking Trust Constructs to Other Internet Constructs

Figure 3 links trust variables to two Internet constructs. First, trusting inten-
tions and trusting beliefs are linked to a construct termed trust-related Internet
behaviors. This construct is defined constitutively as behaviors that demon-
strate that one is willing to purchase from or do business with the Internet
vendor, cooperate with it, and share information with it. Trust-related Internet
behaviors is not a trust construct, but a naturally following consequence of
the interpersonal trust constructs. Just as the theory of reasoned action shows
that behavioral beliefs and intentions lead to related behaviors [18], so the
model presented here posits that in the Internet setting, trusting beliefs and
intentions will influence one to actually do business with the Web vendor. It
posits that trusting intentions will only partially mediate trusting beliefs be-
cause these beliefs are likely to become very specific over time [72]. Therefore,
one or more trusting beliefs will probably have a direct effect on specific Internet
behaviors. For example, belief in vendor benevolence may have a partially
mediated effect on consumer information sharing because it provides assur-
ances specific to this construct.
So far, only trusting beliefs and intentions have been posited as antecedent
factors to Internet behaviors like purchasing. But vendors can also try to in-
fluence consumers to purchase and cooperate and share information through
the Web vendor interventions shown in Figure 3. Web vendor interventions
are actions a vendor may take to provide assurances to consumers about the
vendor’s site. Rather than relating to the Web environment as a whole, as
institution-based trust does, a Web vendor intervention assures customers that
this particular vendor site is safe in spite of whatever deficiencies exist in the
overall Web environment. Over time, if such interventions become standard
and actual practices, the overall Web may be widely perceived as a safer, more
secure place, increasing institution-based trust.
At this point it is necessary to explain how the trust constructs relate to
Web vendor interventions (see Figure 3). Existing Internet theory postulates
that privacy policies, third-party seals [4], interacting with customers, reputa-
tion building, links to other sites, and guarantees may help induce such con-
sumer behaviors as purchasing and personal information sharing (e.g., [30]),
as reflected by the arrow from Web vendor interventions to trust-related
Internet behaviors. The potential contribution to theory made in this paper is
the suggestion that although the direct link exists, the effects of trust-building
interventions on Internet behaviors will be partially mediated by trusting be-
liefs and intentions. Therefore, arrows have been drawn from interventions to
trusting beliefs and trusting intentions. The rationale for these mediating links
will now be discussed.
Privacy Policy and Third-Party Privacy Seals

If a vendor posts a privacy policy or uses a third-party seal (e.g., TRUSTe)
indicating that a privacy policy exists on the site, the consumer should believe
that this vendor is ethical with regard to capturing personal information (trust-
ing belief—integrity). Thus, the consumer is more likely to be willing to share
personal information with this vendor (trusting intentions). A consumer who
intends to share personal information is more likely to actually share the in-
formation (trust-related Internet behaviors—information sharing).
Interacting with Customers

If a vendor interacts on-line with its customers, it should be able to convey to
them that it is benevolent, competent, honest, and/or predictable. The inter-
action provides the customer with evidence that the vendor has various posi-
tive attributes, thereby strengthening trusting beliefs. The interaction also
provides the customer with assurances that support willingness to depend on
the vendor (trusting intentions). Therefore the customer is more likely to en-
gage in trust-related Internet behaviors like purchasing, cooperating, and shar-
ing information.
Reputation Building
The vendor may advertise its good reputation in order to induce purchasing
behaviors. But improving its reputation will also improve trusting beliefs,
because reputation is the second-hand rumor that one has positive general
traits, whereas trusting beliefs constitute the first-hand belief. Trusting inten-
tions directly result from these beliefs.
Links to Other Sites

Links to other reputable sites may provide assurance enabling purchasing or
other Internet behaviors [73]. However, outside links imply that one has good
company because one is good company, which would have a positive impact
on trusting beliefs about the site vendor.
Guarantees or Other Seals

Guarantees or third-party seals related to the reliability of the site (e.g., BBB,
AICPA’s WebTrust or SysTrust) would raise trusting beliefs in the integrity of
the vendor, thereby engendering willingness to depend on that vendor. The
trusting belief affected depends on the nature of the seal.
In sum, each consumer trust-building intervention tends to build trusting
beliefs and intentions that act as intermediate mechanisms for producing trust-
related Internet behaviors. If the preceding arguments hold true empirically,
trusting beliefs and trusting intentions will partially mediate the effects of
these interventions on trust-related Internet behaviors.
Reasons the Typology May Be Applicable

1. The authors have created and tested scales for each of these trust
subconstructs, as will be reported elsewhere. Thus, all the
subconstructs are measurable, facilitating new research on either part
or all of the model.
2. The constructs are specific and parsimonious enough to be easily
understood and distinguished. Subconstructs tie closely to constructs
in a precise definitional way, such that moving from subconstruct to
construct does not constitute the vagueness of concept stretching [54].
3. The constructs are grounded in the literature in terms of the more
often used types of trust.
4. The constructs traverse several disciplines. Although they do not
correspond exactly to each discipline’s trust concepts, they capture
significant conceptual meaning from each [58].
5. The constructs form a model that is potentially helpful in the e-
commerce relationship domain. The model provides “heuristic
value” by generating research possibilities that connect dispositional,
institutional, and interpersonal types of trust [34].
6. The definitions were genericized so that the constructs can travel to

other research domains [54].
The reader may wish to compare the typology with other trust typologies
in terms of coverage. Gabarro, Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna, and Mishra ad-
dressed several types of trusting beliefs [21, 50, 59]. Bromiley and Cummings
had three types of beliefs and intentions that addressed benevolence and in-
tegrity attributes [7]. Barber defined three distinct types of trust [3]. McAllister
addressed two trust types: cognitive-based and affective-based trust [46]
Mayer, Davis and Schoorman were very thorough, positing both trust itself,
propensity to trust, and integrity, ability, and benevolence perceptions [45].
They also mentioned the need for institutional trust constructs. This article
extends the work of McKnight et al. [47] by delineating two trusting inten-
tions, adding trust-related behaviors, including an affective definitional basis
for the trust concepts (felt security), and linking disposition to trust with situ-
ational normality.
Model Limitations
The model has two potential drawbacks. First, because it ventures across dis-
ciplinary lines, it risks losing some of the meanings associated with the origi-
nal trust definitions [77]. This limitation has been addressed up front, as Van
de Ven and Ferry suggested, by making the definitions clear and by ground-
ing them in the originating literature. Splitting institution-based trust into two
clearly defined and grounded constructs, situational normality and structural
assurance, is an example of how proper conceptual grounding in the litera-
ture has been ensured. Second, some of the model constructs are delineated
so finely that they may not be discriminant in empirical studies. The best ex-
ample of this is the four trusting beliefs. Although these beliefs are often dis-
criminant when the trustor knows the trustee well, they tend to factor together
when the trustor and trustee are not well known—especially trusting be-
lief—benevolence and trusting belief—integrity. On the other hand, the dis-
position to trust and institution-based trust subconstructs are consistently
distinguishable.
Conclusion
Lewis and Weigert called trust a highly complex and multi-dimensional phe-
nomenon [41]. The classification system presented in this article clarifies the
complexity by specifying categories for most existing trust meanings, thereby
facilitating meta-analyses of trust research (see Table 2). This trust typology
helps address conceptual confusion by representing trust as a coherent, de-
fined set of four concepts and ten subconstructs. These constructs are also
clarified by explaining how they relate to one other and to already-used Internet
relationship constructs. This depiction of trust has heuristic value because it
generates research possibilities [34]. The model will help researchers examine
e-commerce customer relationships in new ways, since it includes personal,

institutional, and interpersonal concepts. Another benefit is that the model
presents a vocabulary (and grammar) of specifically defined trust types that
scholars and practitioners can use to converse on this important topic. Finally,
because the operational model constructs are well grounded in actual phe-
nomena, more specific (and thus more helpful ) trust prescriptions should re-
sult. This is especially true in the Internet world, where researchers are
already finding that perceptions about the situation and propensity to trust
are important to consumer trust in Internet vendors (e.g., [24]). Given the
current holes in general Web protections, additional structural assurances
are needed.
For unscrupulous lawyers, the Web is the perfect marketing tool—

cheap, pervasive and lacking serious regulation. Bar authorities, who
were already struggling in the Old Economy, are throwing up their
hands in the New. Most don’t even try to keep tabs on lawyers’
Internet ads, citing a lack of resources. . . . Ms. Wilson still kicks herself
for not doing a more thorough background check on Mr. Lais, but
says she thinks the bar should have tried harder, too. The bar says it
wasn’t aware of the site until Ms. Wilson started complaining, and
that even if it had been, taking the legal steps to shut it down might
have taken longer than his three-month suspension. [68]
REFERENCES
1. Ba, S.; Whinston, A.B.; and Zhang, H. Building trust in the electronic
market through an economic incentive mechanism. In P. De and J.I. DeGross
(eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information
Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 208–213.
2. Baier, A. Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96 (January 1986), 231–260.
3. Barber, B. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 1983.
4. Benassi, P. TRUSTe: An online privacy seal program. Communications of
the ACM, 42, 2 (February 1999), 56–59.
5. Bensaou, M. Electronically-mediated partnerships: The use of CAD
technologies in supplier relations. In P. De and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceed-
ings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems. Charlotte,
NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 307–323.
6. Berscheid, E., and Meyers, S.A. A social categorical approach to a
question about love. Personal Relationships, 3 (1996), 19–43.
7. Bromiley, P., and Cummings, L.L. Transactions costs in organizations
with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard, and R. Lewicki (eds.), Research on Nego-
tiations in Organizations, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995, pp. 219–247.
8. Brown, R.G. Data modeling methodologies—contrasts in style. In B. von
Halle and D. Kull (eds.), Data Management Handbook. Boston: Auerbach,
1993, pp. 389–439.
9. Chrusciel, D., and Zahedi, F.M. Seller-based vs. buyer-based Internet
intermediaries: A research design. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth
(eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 241–243.
10. Clarke, R. Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention.
Communications of the ACM, 42, 2 (February 1999), 60–68.
11. Cook, J., and Wall, T. New work attitude measures of trust, organiza-
tional commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 53 (1980), 39–52.
12. Cranor, L.F. Internet privacy. Communications of the ACM, 42, 2 (February
1999), 28–31.
13. Crozier, M. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1964.
14. Currall, S.C., and Judge, T.A. Measuring trust between organizational
boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
64, 2 (1995), 151–170.
15. Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive
Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.
16. Dobing, B. Building trust in user-analyst relationships. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Minnesota, 1993.
17. Erikson, E.H. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.
18. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
19. Fritscher, M. Towards a unique world-wide digital certificate. In W.D.
Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Confer-
ence on Information Systems. Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 432–434.
20. Fung, R.K.K., and Lee, M.K.O. EC-trust (trust in electronic commerce):
Exploring the antecedent factors. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth
(eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Milwaukee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 517–519.
21. Gabarro, J. J. The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In
A.G. Athos and J.J. Gabarro (eds.), Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and
Understanding in Relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978, pp.
290–303.
22. Gambetta, D. Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (ed. ), Trust: Making and
Breaking Cooperative Relations. New York: Blackwell, 1988, pp. 213–237.
23. Garfinkel, H. A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a
condition of stable concerted actions. In O.J. Harvey (ed. ), Motivation and
Social Interaction. New York: Ronald Press, 1963, pp. 187–238.
24. Gefen, D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. OMEGA, 28, 6
(2000), 725–737.
25. Giffin, K. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of
interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 2
(1967), 104–120.
26. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:
Aldine, 1967.
27. Golembiewski, R.T., and McConkie, M. The centrality of interpersonal
trust in group processes. In G.L. Cooper (ed. ), Theories of Group Processes.
London: John Wiley, 1975, pp. 131–185.
28. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3 (1985), 481–510.

29. Hirschman, A.O. Against parsimony: Three easy ways of complicating
some categories of economic discourse. American Economic Review, 74, 1
(1984), 89–96.
30. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P.; and Peralta, M., Building consumer trust
online. Communications of the ACM, 42, 4 (April 1999), 80–85.
31. Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Leidner, D.E. Communication and trust in global
virtual teams. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3, 4 (June 1998),
1–29.
32. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; and Vitale, M. Consumer trust in an
Internet store. Working paper, Department of MSIS, University of Texas,
April 1998.
33. Johnson-George, C., and Swap, W.C. Measurement of specific interper-
sonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a
specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 3 (1982), 1306–
1317.
34. Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Chandler, 1964.
35. Kee, H.W., and Knox, R.E. Conceptual and methodological consider-
ations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14, 3
(1970), 357–366.
36. Kelley, H.H. Common-sense psychology and scientific psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1992), 1–23.
37. Kelley, H.H.; Berscheid, E.; Christensen, A.; Harvey, J.H.; Huston, T.L.;
Levinger, G.; McClintock, E.; Peplau, L.A.; and Peterson, D. R. Analyzing
close relationships. In H.H. Kelley; E. Berscheid; A. Christensen; J.H.
Harvey; T.L. Huston; G. Levinger; E. McClintock; L.A. Peplau; and
D.R. Peterson (eds.), Close Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983, pp.
20–67.
38. Klose, M., and Lechner, U. Design of business media: An integrated
model of electronic commerce. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.),
Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Milwau-
kee: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 559–561.
39. Lewicki, R.J., and Bunker, B.B. Trust in relationships: A model of trust
development and decline. In B.B. Bunker and J.Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict,
Cooperation and Justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995, pp. 133–173.
40. Lewicki, R.J.; McAllister, D.J.; and Bies, R. J. Trust and distrust: New
relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3 (1998), 438–
458.
41. Lewis, J.D., and Weigert, A.J. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 4
(1985), 967–985.
42. Lewis, J.D., and Weigert, A.J. Social atomism, holism, and trust. Sociologi-
cal Quarterly, 26, 4 (1985), 455–471.
43. Lindskold, S. Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects of
conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. Psychological Bulletin, 8, 3 (July
1978), 772–793.
44. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power. New York: John Wiley, 1979.
45. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; and Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3 (1995), 709–734.
46. McAllister, D.J. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 3 (1995), 24–59.
47. McKnight, D.H.; Cummings, L.L.; and Chervany, N.L. Initial trust
formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 3 (1998), 473–490.
48. McKnight, D.H., and Chervany, N.L. While trust is cool and collected,
distrust is fiery and frenzied: A model of distrust concepts. In D. Strong, D.
Straub, and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference
on Information Systems. Boston: Omnipress, 2001, pp. 883–888.
49. Menon, N.M.; Konana, P.; Browne, G.J.; and Balasubramanian, S.
Understanding trustworthiness beliefs in electronic brokerage usage. In P.
De and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference
on Information Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 552–555.
50. Mishra, A.K. Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In
R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory
and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, pp. 261–287.
51. Morgan, R.M., and Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relation-
ship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 3 (1994), 20–38.
52. Muthitacharoen, A. Investigating consumer’s attitude toward Internet
shopping. In W.D. Haseman and D.L. Nazareth (eds.), Proceedings of the
Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee: Omnipress,
1999, pp. 532–534.
53. Noteberg, A.; Christiaanse, E.; and Wallage, P. The role of trust and
assurance services in electronic channels: An exploratory study. In P. De and
J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on
Information Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress, 1999, pp. 472–478.
54. Osigweh, C. Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 4 (1989), 579–594.
55. Ouchi, W.G. Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese
Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
56. Parker-Pope, T. How to tell whether that online drugstore is really a
good deal. Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2001, B1.
57. Petersen, A. Private matters: It seems that trust equals revenue, even
online. Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2001, R24, R31.
58. Poole, M.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. Using paradox to build management
and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 4 (1989),
562–578.
59. Rempel, J.K.; Holmes, J. G.; and Zanna, M. P. Trust in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1985), 95–112.
60. Riker, W.H. The nature of trust. In J.T. Tedeschi (ed.), Perspectives on
Social Power. Chicago: Aldine, 1971, pp. 63–81.
61. Ring, P.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 1
(1994), 90–118.
62. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and Values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957.
63. Rotter, Julian B. Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 26, 5 (May 1971), 443–452.
64. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; and Camerer, C. Not so different
after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23,
3 (1998), 393–404.
65. Rubin, Z. Preface. In R.J. Sternberg and M.L. Barnes (eds.), The Psychol-
ogy of Love. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. vii–xii.
66. Sagasti, F.R., and Mitroff, I.I. Operations research from the viewpoint of
general systems theory. OMEGA, 1, 6 (1973), 695–709.
67. Scanzoni, J. Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R.L.
Burgess and T.L. Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships.
New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 61–98.
68. Schmitt, R.B. Lowering the bar: Lawyers flood Web, but many ads fail to
tell the whole truth. Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2001, A1, A12.
69. Schwab, D.P. Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw
and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 2. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press, 1980, pp. 3–43.
70. Shapiro, S.P. The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of
Sociology, 93, 3 (1987), 623–658.
71. Singleton, R., Jr.; Straits, B.C.; Straits, M.M.; and McAllister, R.J. Ap-
proaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
72. Sitkin, S.B., and Roth, N.L. Explaining the limited effectiveness of
legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 3 (August
1993), 367–392.
73. Stewart, K.J. Transference as a means of building trust in world wide
Web sites. In P. De and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth
International Conference on Information Systems. Charlotte, NC: Omnipress,
1999, pp. 459–464.
74. Taylor, R.G. The role of trust in labor-management relations. Organization
Development Journal (summer 1989), 85–89.
75. Tiryakian, E.A. Typologies. In D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
the Social Science, vol. 16. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968, pp.
177–186.
76. Van de Ven, A. H. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 14, 4 (1989), 486–489.
77. Van de Ven, A.H., and Ferry, D. L. Measuring and Assessing Organizations.
New York: John Wiley, 1980.
78. Wang, H.; Lee, M.K.O.; and Wang, C. Consumer privacy concerns about
Internet marketing. Communications of the ACM, 41, 3 (March 1998), 63–70.
79. Wrightsman, L.S. Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human
nature. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures
of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, vol. 1. San Diego: Academic
Press, 1991, pp. 373–412.
80. Yamagishi, T., and Yamagishi, M. Trust and commitment in the United
States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 2 (1994), 129–166.
81. Zand, D.E. Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 2 (1972), 229–239.
82. Zucker, L.G. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic
structure, 1840–1920. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, pp. 53–111.
D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT (mcknight@bus.msu.edu) is an assistant professor in

the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D.
from the University of Minnesota. His research interests include trust in e-commerce
and information system settings, leadership, and the retention and motivation of com-
puter personnel.
NORMAN L. CHERVANY (nchervany@csom.umn.edu) is a professor of informa-

tion and decision sciences at the Carlson School of Management, University of Min-
nesota. He received his doctorate in decision sciences from Indiana University. His
research interests revolve around the relationships among information technology/
systems and organizational strategy, organizational design, work design, and project
implementation.

What Trust Means in e Commerce PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

What Trust Means in e Commerce PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

International Journal of Electronic Commerce

ISSN: 1086-4415 (Print) 1557-9301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mjec20

What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer

D. Harrison McKnight & Norman L. Chervany

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235

Published online: 23 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1814

View related articles

Citing articles: 67 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

D. Harrison McKnight and Norman L. Chervany

To many consumers, e-commerce represents an excursion beyond the un-

them as professionals and as members of a club or church or PTA. Since then,

The State of Trust Definitions

The Need for Better Conceptual Trust Definitions

One Sugges tion: Create a Trust Typology

Trust-related Second-order Percentage

4. Predictable Predictability 6 6.1

Table 1. Trust Referent Characteristic–based Definition Categories.

A Typology of Related Trust Constructs

Competence x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

Benevolence xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx

Integrity xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx

Other xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

Table 2. Mapping of Literature Trust Definitions.

Table 2. Disposition to trust reflects Table 2’s disposition column. Institution-

Dispositional Trust Institutional Trust Interpersonal Trust

Psychology Sociology Social Psychology & Economics

Figure 1. An Interdisciplinary Model of High-Level Trust Concepts

A. Basic Sentence structure

The trustor trusts* the trustee. (various)

B. Examples of Sentence Variations

The E-commerce consumer trusts the E-vendor. Interpersonal

The E-commerce consumer trusts the web itself. Institutional

The E-commerce consumer trusts others generally. Dispositional

Figure 2. Grammar of the Trust Model

it reflects the extent to which the trustor has a general propensity/tendency to

Table 3. Contextual Orientation of Trust Concepts.

Disposition to Trus t in Web Vendor/Business

Figure 3. A Model of E-Commerce Customer Relationships Trust

Source: Adapted from {47}.

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Constructs

latory, business, and technical environment perceived to support success. This

Conceptual Definitions of Trust Subconstructs

Linking Trust Constructs to Other Internet Constructs

Privacy Policy and Third-Party Privacy Seals

Interacting with Customers

Links to Other Sites

Guarantees or Other Seals

Reasons the Typology May Be Applicable

6. The definitions were genericized so that the constructs can travel to

e-commerce customer relationships in new ways, since it includes personal,

For unscrupulous lawyers, the Web is the perfect marketing tool—

(eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems.

embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3 (1985), 481–510.

46. McAllister, D.J. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for

D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT (mcknight@bus.msu.edu) is an assistant professor in

NORMAN L. CHERVANY (nchervany@csom.umn.edu) is a professor of informa-

Você também pode gostar