Factors affecting trust in management information
Author:
Supervisor:
Date:
MartiLn van de Bovenkamp (10189661)
prof dr. T. M. van Engers
FACTORS AFFECTING TRUST IN MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
Master Thesis Martijn van de Bovenkamp
Faculty of Science
Information Studies: Business Information Systems Supervisor: prof. dr. T.M. van Engers
Signature: ...
Second examiner: ...
Preface
“All I know of the world beyond the narrow range of my own personal experience is what others have told me”
(Wilson, 1983, p. 9) A long time ago, in a land far away, a building existed that provided people with a seemingly endless supply of knowledge. Information was stored on shelves - systematically arranged from A to Z - and categorized by topics such as, science, biology, people and history. Any individual could visit this ‘palace of knowledge’ and learn and explore new things. They could even take this knowledge home with them. Obviously, the ‘palace of knowledge’ is a metaphor for a library, which was regularly visited, at least before the introduction of the Internet. In a library you could usually find a librarian, who is an information expert and is responsible for a specific part of the library’s collection. For example, you are looking for specific information on a topic, such as “trust”. The librarian will be able to point out the location of books concerning your topic, as well as provide you with advice which books to read. If the librarian recommends a book, you trust his advice based on the nature of his profession and his reputation. In addition, you assume that books in the library pertain a certain level of quality because the information is printed in the form of a book and you assume that a library has a certain standard as to which books they include in their collection.
However, not so long ago, the introduction of the Internet as well as, our ability to digitally store large quantities of information, changed all this. It is now possible to access an ever-increasing amount of information via technology. As a result, the librarian has partly been replaced by technology. Electronic agents advice us with terms, such as “You might be interested in…”, “Also recommended for you…” or “What others have bought…”. Moreover, the Internet does not have a ‘quality standard’ concerning the information it provides, as any individual can post information on the Internet: no matter if the content is correct or not.
My point is, the introduction of technologies has set several changes in motion in the way individuals assess the reliability of information. Information experts, such as the librarian, are generally not available online; they have been replaced by technology. As a result, individuals need to rely more and more on their own skills to evaluate the reliability of information and ask themselves the question: “Can I trust this information?”. This question has been the starting point for my thesis.
I hope you will enjoy reading my thesis as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Martijn van de Bovenkamp
martijnvdb@gmail.com 20-08-2014, Wageningen
‘snooze’ button to turn off the alarm clock or as complicated as deciding whether or not to buy a new apartment. Managers are faced with similar decisions in their daily work. For instance, the decision to allocate certain resources from one project to another project, or the decision whether or not to hire a new employee. It is generally recognized that management information is designed to support managers in their everyday task, activities and decision-making process (Introna, 1997). This means a managers needs to trust the management information available to them provides accurate and reliable information. Existing literature on trust has thus far only focused on trust in digital, online and medical information. As a result, there is currently no research on trust in management information. The main goal of this study is therefore to develop a deeper understanding of trust in management information and identify factors affecting the formation of this trust.
The main findings of this study are that managers believe it is important to know the methods used to create management information are reliable, the information is verifiable with other sources and the technology used to create management information is reliable (e.g. does not malfunction or fail). In addition, the results also revealed that the predictability of management information (i.e. the expectation of the manager) together with bias and distortion free information, were believed to be important factors. Other factors affecting a manager’s trust in management information are: the reputation of the management information; the placement of organisational safeguards to ensure reliable management information; prior experiences with the management information and the extent to which a manager is comfortable and willing to base his or her decisions on management information.
The theoretical implications of this study include a contribution of knowledge to the field of trust in information. Several scholars have mentioned there is a need to further examine trust in information, this study has answered to this call. Furthermore, this study also has practical implications. For instance, practitioners could use the results of this study to increase the trustworthiness of the management information they develop and distribute.
However, one of the major limitations of this study was the low response rate. It is therefore recommended to examine the concept of trust in management information in further research with a larger data set.
Keywords: trust; trust formation; technology; decision-making; information use; trustworthiness; management information; information; business intelligence; management information systems.
1
2 Literature review ...11
2.1 The nature of trust ...11
2.1.1 Definition and characteristics of trust ...11
2.1.2 Different forms and interdisciplinary trust ...15
2.2 Nature of trust in management information ...17
2.2.1 Definitions and characteristics of management information ...17
2.2.2 Is it possible to trust (management) information? ...18
2.2.3 Characteristics of trust in management information ...19
2.2.4 Trust in management information and decision-making ...20
2.3 Previous literature on trust in information ...22
2.3.1 Credibility versus trust ...22
2.3.2 Trustworthiness versus trust ...23
2.3.3 Previous factors affecting trust in information ...24
2.4 Theoretical model trust in management information ...31
2.4.1 Elements of trust in management information ...32
3 Methods ...44 3.1 Item development ...44 3.2 Pre-test ...45 3.3 Sample ...46 4 Results ...48 4.1 Reliability analysis ...48 4.2 Descriptive statistics ...49 4.3 Inferential statistics ...51 5 Discussion ...53 5.1 Theoretical implications ...55 5.2 Practical implications ...56
5.3 Limitations and further research ...56
Acknowledgement ...59
References ...61
Appendix A1: Invitation letter questionnaire ...66
Appendix A2: Questionnaire items ...67
Appendix B1: Item reliability analysis ...71
Appendix B2: Item scores ...73
Appendix B3: Shapiro-Wilk test results ...75
Appendix B4: Scree-plots ...76
1 Introduction
In the early hours of June 1 2009, Air France flight 447 on route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 216 passengers and 12 crew members on board. Three years later, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile (BEA) reported that the probable cause of the accident was due to ice crystals blocking the airplane’s ‘pitot tubes’, which measure the airplane’s airspeed2. This caused the flight system
to disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle because it received inconsistent airspeed measurements. As a result, the crew was confronted with an unusual situation at high altitude: a disengaged flight system, and inconsistent information from their airspeed indicators.
Pilots rely on their flight instruments to provide them with reliable and accurate information concerning the airplane’s altitude, airspeed, heading, attitude and other flight information (Cooper, Argyris, & Starbuck, 2005; Montague, Winchester, & Kleiner, 2010). This information is essential to safely operate an airplane. To be more precise, pilots base their decisions on the information provided by the flight instruments, because they trust this information. In the case of Air France flight 447, the pilots received conflicting airspeed information from the flight instruments. However, the pilot in command trusted that his primary flight display (PDF) showed the correct airspeed, and thought the airplane was in risk of overspeeding, while in fact the true airspeed of the airplane had not changed. The pilot therefore decided to lift the nose of the airplane in an effort to reduce the airplane’s speed. Because of this decision the wings of the airplane could not produce enough lift to keep the airplane in the air. This caused the airplane to stall at high altitude with a catastrophic ending: the hyper modern Airbus 330 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean.
Trust plays an important role in our society. To trust someone - or something - means one relies on the other party to do something (Pettit, 1995). Rotter (1967) defines trust as “an expectancy held by individuals or groups that the word, promise, verbal, or written statement of another can be relied on” (p. 651). However, there is no assurance the other party will actually fulfil our expectations. For example, the pilots of flight 447 trusted their flight instruments to display the correct airspeed, but there is no guarantee that these instruments will always display the correct airspeed.
Although it is obvious that determining the trustworthiness of flight information in a crisis situation at 35.000 feet in the air is completely different from, for example, trying to determine the trustworthiness of information found in an online article, the question, however, remains the same: “can we trust the information we receive”? Trust, according to Castelfranchi (2003), is (either explicitly or implicitly) necessary for individuals in order to believe or rely on information they receive. Kelton et al. (2008) even takes this one step further and states that whether an individual chooses to use the information or not, greatly depends on the individuals’ trust in the information.
2
Managers are faced with a similar situation when assessing whether or not to trust the management information they receive. Management information, according to Introna (1997), is used to support the management activities of managers. In addition, all management activities involve decision-making (Introna, 1997). In other words, management information is used to support the decision-making process of managers. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that there are several levels in an organisation’s hierarchy on which decisions are made: strategic, tactical, and operational (Anthony, 1965). It is not beyond the bounds of credibility to assume that management information used for decisions on a strategic level involve a different level of trust compared to management information used in operational decisions.
Trust is originally a concept to explain face-to-face relationships between individuals. However, scholars have begun to adapt the concept of trust to other fields. For instance, trust in information systems (Gefen, 2004; Lippert, 2005), trust in technology (Kivijarvi, Leppanen, & Hallikainen, 2012; Li, Hess, & Valacich, 2008), trust in electronic agents (Komiak & Benbasat, 2004; Louta, Michalas, Anagnostoupoulos, & Vergados, 2009; Marsh, 1994), trust in e-commerce (Beatty, Reay, Dick, & Miller, 2011; Kelton, Fleischmann, & Wallace, 2008; S. Y. Komiak, Wang, & Benbasat, 2004; M. K. Lee & Turban, 2001; McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002; Rowley & Johnson, 2013) and trust in information (Castelfranchi, Falcone, & Pezzulo, 2003; Kelton et al., 2008; Montague, Kleiner, & Winchester, 2009; Rowley & Johnson, 2013). Nevertheless, research on trust in information is currently scarce and focuses mainly on trust in online information (i.e. Wikipedia) (Flanagin & Metzger, 2011; Lim, 2009; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; 2012; Rowley & Johnson, 2013) and trust in online health information (Hove, Paek, & Isaacson, 2011; Huntington et al., 2004; Sillence, Briggs, Fishwick, & Harris, 2004; Ye, 2010; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Notably, research on trust in management information seems to be non-existing in current literature (i.e. this study did not found any literature) and it is unknown to which extent literature on trust in information is directly applicable to trust in management information. The absence of research in trust in management information is peculiar considering the fact that (1) trust in information is an important issue in order to believe or rely on the information, (2) the fact that management information is used in the decision-making process of managers, (3) the high impact of the decisions in an organisation and (4) technology used to create management information (e.g. Management Information Systems (MIS) or Business Intelligence (BI) tools) usually involves substantial financial resources of an organisation.
As noted earlier, there seems to be a gap in trust literature regarding trust in management information. As a result, the aim of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of the formation of trust in management information. This study will use the current literature from traditional trust as a starting point. The research question is therefore: “Which factors, as perceived by managers, are important in the trust formation process of management information”. However, it is not clear if trust factors from previous literature will also affect trust in management information. As such, the term ‘perceived’ is used in the research question and refers to identifying trust factors, which are regarded by managers as important.
Several sub questions have been developed to assist answering the main research questions. Sub question 1, what does trust in management information entail? The purpose of this question is to define management information based on current literature, as well as explore to which extent trust is relevant in management information. Sub question 2, what are the relevant, existing factors affecting trust in information based on current literature? Literature on trust is extensive and includes numerous factors, which could influence, or are related to, the trust formation process. Based on this literature, and by answering the previous sub question, all factors will be collected. Sub question 3, what are the trust factors affecting in trust in management information as perceived by managers? The final sub question involves presenting the factors found from previous trust literature to managers of an organisation. Managers will be able to assess which factors they find important in assessing whether or not they trust management information. The results of this sub question, together with the other sub questions are used to answer this studies main research question. Moreover, sub question 1 and 2 will be answered in the literature review, whereas sub question 3 and this studies main research question will be answered in the discussion.
These questions are important from both a theoretical as well as a practical point of view. The theoretical relevance of this study is that it supplies valuable insights into the trust factors related with trust in management information as perceived by managers, which does currently not exist. In addition, several scholars (Kelton et al., 2008; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Vance, Elie-Dit-Cosaque, & Straub, 2008) have mentioned the need for further research on trust in information, this study answers their call. Practitioners could use the results of this study to increase the trustworthiness of new management information.
This study seeks to contribute to the literature on trust in information via three goals. First, develop a better understanding of (possible) factors affecting trust in management information. Second, examine which factors actually affect trust formation according to managers. Lastly, explore if the level of trust varies depending on the level of decision-making (strategic, tactical or operational).
This study is divided in five chapters. First, the extensive literature review in chapter two enables the reader to grasp the meaning of trust, as well as trust in management information. In these sections, the definitions and characteristics of trust, different forms of trust and trust in management information in relation with decision-making are discussed. Furthermore, section 2.3 explores factors affecting trust from previous literature on trust in information and in section 2.4 this information is used to develop a theoretical model for trust in management information. Chapter 3 describes the method used in this study, whereas chapter 4 present the results. Finally, in chapter 5 the results are discussed in relation with this studies research questions. This chapter also discusses the limitations of this study, as well as theoretical and practical implications of the results and recommendations for further research.
2 Literature review
Over the past years numerous studies have examined the topic of trust. As a result, current literature on trust is extensive and at times contradicting. This chapter is designed to enable the reader to acquire (1) a broader understanding of the nature of trust, definitions from various disciplines, characteristics of trust and (2) develop a deeper understanding of how current trust research applies to trust in management information.
2.1 The nature of trust
“Without [trust] one could not get out of bed in the morning.”
(Luhmann, 1979, p. 10) Trusting decisions are made by everyone on a regular basis (Marsh, 1994; Luhmann, 1979). A seemingly insignificant activity, for example, driving our car to the office in the morning, involves several trusting decisions. For instance, we trust our car does not break down, we trust other road users will respect the traffic rules, we trust traffic congestion is as predicted and we trust to arrive safely at our destination. Similar trusting decisions apply to the use of public transportation. For instance, we trust the railway company will transport us safely and on time to our destination. In other words, with every trusting decision “we put something on the line; our lives, our house, our car, a book: something” (Marsh, 1994, p. 1).
The concept of trust has received a substantial amount of attention from different disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology and economics. However, scholars usually conceptualize trust in agreement with the conditions of a particular context (Wang & Emurian, 2005). This means that each discipline conceptualizes trust according to their specific field of study. For example, philosophizers focus on interpersonal trust, which involves studying the trusting relationships between individuals (Rotter, 1971; Baier, 1986). Psychologists are also concerned with interpersonal trust, but mainly centre their focus on the effects that personality traits have on trust (Wang & Emurian, 2005). Economists view trust as institutional or calculative (Gefen et al., 2003; Rousseau et al., 1998), whereas sociologists usually believe that trust is socially immersed in relationships between people or institutions (Rousseau et al., 1998). As a result of these different conceptualizations of trust, scholars have not reached consensus about the basic definition, dimensions, and the related constructs of trust (Rousseau et al., 1998; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Wang & Emurian, 2005; McKnight & Chervany, 2001).
2.1.1 Definition and characteristics of trust
As mentioned earlier, scholars have not reached consensus about the basic definition of trust. However, it is generally recognized that Morton Deutsch, Niklas Luhmann and Diego Gambetta’s research on trust has had a significant impact on the field of trust (Marsh, 1994).
As such, their definition and perspective on trust will be discussed briefly to introduce the concept of trust.
Morton Deutsch (1958) approaches trust from a psychological perspective and defines trust as: “An individual may be said to have trust in the occurrence of an event if he expects its occurrence and his expectation leads to behaviour which he perceives to have greater negative motivational consequences if the expectation is not confirmed than positive motivational consequences if it is confirmed” (Deutsch, 1958, p. 266). In other words, trust refers to the expectation that the outcome of an event is not detrimental to the individual. Furthermore, the term ‘perceives’ used by Deutsch implies that trust is subjective and decisions are made based on one’s own experience and view of the world (Marsh, 1994). This is consistent with the psychological perspective of trust, which focuses on specific trust in individuals.
Niklas Luhmann views trust as a means to reduce complexity of a society and studies trust from a sociological standpoint. His view is based on the assumption that individuals experience difficulties when trying to align or adapt themselves to the world with all its complexity. This complexity is described as “the unimaginable superabundance of ... realities and ... possibilities [that exist in our society]” (Marsh, 1994, p. 31-32). In other words, the interaction with our environment is complex because our society consists out of an excessive amount of possibilities. According to Luhmann, trust has the ability to increase an individual’s alignment to the world and thus reduce its complexity.
Diego Gambetta does not focus on a single discipline, but has a rather multi-disciplinary view on trust (Marsh, 1994). His definition of trust is as follows: “trust … is a particular level of the subjective probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action, both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his own action” (Gambetta, 2000, p. 4). To be more precise, trust involves an expectation that the other party’s actions are beneficial or at least not detrimental to us. This view on trust seems to correspond with the definition of trust as mentioned by Deutsch.
In addition to the conceptualization of trust by Deutsch, Luhmann and Gambetta, other scholars from the fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology and economics have examined the concept of trust. Their definitions are presented in table 1.
Table 1: A range of trust definitions from various disciplines
Philosophy
- Trust is “accepted vulnerability to another’s possible but not expected ill will (or lack of good will) toward one” (Baier, 1986, p. 235)
- “To trust someone in our sense may not always be to take a risk, in the sense of relying on that person to do something, which you are not assured he will do. But it will always be to take a risk in another sense: It will always be to make yourself vulnerable to the other person in some measure, to put yourself in a position where it is possible for the other person, so far as that person is a free agent, to harm you or yours.” (Pettit, 1995, p. 208)
Psychology
- “An individual may be said to have trust in the occurrence of an event if he expects its
occurrence and his expectation leads to behaviour which he perceives to have greater negative motivational consequences if the expectation is not confirmed than positive motivational consequences if it is confirmed” (Deutsch, 1958, p. 266)
- Trust is defined as “an expectancy held by individuals or groups that the word, promise, verbal, or written statement of another can be relied on” (Rotter, 1967, p. 651).
- “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395) Sociology
- Trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”. (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712)
- Trust refers to “the willingness to increase one's vulnerability to another whose behaviour is not under one's control". (Zand, 1972 as cited in Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997, p. 311)
- Trust is “a means for reducing the complexity of society; complexity created by interacting individuals with different perceptions and goals”. (Luhmann et al., 1979, p. 7)
- “Trust concerns a positive expectation regarding the behaviour of somebody or something in a situation that entails risk to the trusting party” (Marsh & Dibben, 2003, p. 470).
Economics
- “When we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him.” (Gambetta, 2000, p. 4).
- “we say that a person ‘trusts someone to do X’ if the truster … acts on the expectation that the trustee … will do X when both know that two conditions obtain: (a) If the trustee fails to do X the truster would have done better to act otherwise and (b) The truster acting in the way that he does gives the trustee the opportunity to pursue a selfish reason not to do X ”(Ermisch, Gambetta, Laurie, Siedler, & Uhrig, 2009, p. 751).
The table shows that each discipline has a different interpretation of the concept of trust. Moreover, among scholars within a specific discipline consensus also seems lacking with regards to the definition of trust. This would confirm that trust is conceptualized according to a specific context, as was suggested by Wang (2005). However, it would seem that the definitions are based on similar characteristics: trust involves a trustor and a trustee; the willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al., 1995; Nooteboom et al., 1997; Rousseau et al., 1998); it involves risk (Deutsch, 1958; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995; Pettit, 1995); entails an expectation (Deutsch, 1958; Ermisch et al., 2009; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995; Rotter, 1967; Rousseau et al., 1998) and is subjective (Deutsch, 1958; Wang & Emurian, 2005). These characteristics will now be discussed in more detail.
Trustor and trustee: In a trusting relationship the following two parties are required: a trustor (someone who trusts) and a trustee (someone who is trusted) (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011). Both parties expect that the other party acts in the other parties best interest (Deutsch, 1958; Ermisch et al., 2009; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995; Rotter, 1967; Rousseau et al., 1998; Wang & Emurian, 2005).
Vulnerability: Trust is the willingness to be in, or acceptance to be in, a vulnerable situation (Rousseau et al., 1998) (Baier, 1986). This means the trustor is aware of his or her vulnerable position and trusts the trustee does not abuse this vulnerability. For instance, we trust financial institutions to safeguard our money and we willingly put ourselves in this vulnerable position.
Risk: “Trust leads to actions, mostly risk-taking behaviours“ (Wang & Emurian, 2005, p. 111). The presence of risk creates a need for trust (Luhmann et al., 1979). Marsh (2003) even takes it one step further by stating: “for trust to occur, risk must be perceived by the trusting party” (Marsh & Dibben, 2003, p. 471). For example, when lending money to a friend, the possibility (i.e. risk) exists that our money will not be returned. However, our trust in the friend leads to the belief that the money will be returned.
Expectancy: Trust involves the state of thinking that the intentions or behaviour of the other party are beneficial, or at least not purposely detrimental (Baier, 1986; Deutsch, 1958; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Rotter, 1967; Rousseau et al., 1998). Other studies refer to this characteristic as confidence (Marsh, 1994; Mayer et al., 1995; Pettit, 1995). These studies state that trust involves “confidence that other people will treat you reasonably well: confidence that they will not waylay or cheat you” (Pettit, 1995)(p. 204).
Subjectivity: Individuals trust each other depending on different situational factors and according to the perspective of the individual (Hertzum, Andersen, Andersen, & Hansen, 2002; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Wang & Strong, 1996). Furthermore, Deutsch’s (1958) defines trust as “ an individual may be said to have trust in the occurrence of an event if he expects its occurrence and his expectation leads to behaviour which he perceives to have greater negative …” (p. 266). The use of the word ‘perceives’ in the definition by Deutsch also suggests that trust is subjective (Marsh, 1994).
To summarize, it is generally recognized that scholars have not reached consensus concerning the basic definition of trust. However, several basic characteristics of trust have been identified: trust involves two parties, a trustor and trustee, trust involves the willingness
to be vulnerable in a specific situation; trust involves a risk; trust involves the expectancy that the other party’s actions will not harm us and each individual has a different view on trust. In addition to different definitions of trust, scholars have also studied trust on different conceptual levels. These levels of trust will be briefly discussed in the next section.
2.1.2 Different forms and interdisciplinary trust
“Trust does not develop in a vacuum but, instead, evolves in a complex individual, cultural, and organizational context”
(Lee & See, 2004, p. 57) During the past years, research on trust has identified several forms of trust. For instance, Lewis and Weigert (1985) propose two forms of trust from a sociological perspective: cognitive and emotional trust. Cognitive trust involves assessing the trustworthiness of persons and institutions based on “what we take to be "good reasons”, constituting evidence of trustworthiness” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970). Emotional trust, also referred to as affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995), compliments cognitive trust and consists of an emotional (trust) bond towards the other party.
Rousseau (1998) distinguishes several other forms of trust: deterrence-based trust, which involves the trustor to assess the trustworthiness of a trustee based on utilitarian3
considerations; calculus-based trust, which involves an economic exchange (cost and benefits) interaction of another party and is based on rational choice; relational-based trust arises between the trustor and trustee from recurrent interactions over a period of time; institution-based trust entails several institutional factors, such as contract, legal forms, or regulations.
Gefen (2003) recognizes cognitive-, calculative- and institution-based trust. However, Gefen also identified personality- and knowledge-based trust in his research. Personality-based trust is relevant when a trustor has “the tendency to believe or not to believe in others and so trust them … and is based on a belief that others are typically well-meaning and reliable” (Gefen et al., 2003, p. 62). Knowledge-based trust, on the other hand, assumes that the trustor already has some information about the trustee and uses this information to predict the behaviour of the other party.
In addition to the above-mentioned forms of trust, scholars have identified different conceptual levels of trust. For instance, Kelton et al. (2008) trust has been studied on four levels of trust: individual, interpersonal, relational and societal. However, McKnight et al., in an extensive literature review of 65 articles on trust, identified the following three conceptual levels of trust: dispositional trust, which refers to trust in general others; institutional trust, which indicates trust in the situation or structure and interpersonal trust, which describes trust in specific others. Table 2 shows the typology of the different levels of trust as defined by McKnight et al.
3
Table 2: Conceptual levels of trust
(as defined by McKnight & Chervany, 2001, p. 33)
Level of trust Description Roots
Dispositional Trust in general others Psychology/Economics Institutional Trust in situation or structures Sociology
Interpersonal Trust in specific others Social Psychology and other disciplines
The first level of trust, dispositional trust, refers to the willingness to trust general others regardless of the situation or person (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). To be more precise, it involves a natural tendency to behave in a particular way when facing trust situations. For example, McKnight et al. (2001) interviewed an employee and asked whether the employee trusted his new boss. The employee replied by stating that he generally trusts new people, both at work and elsewhere”. In other words, the employee tends to trust new people regardless of the situation (at home or at work) or the person. Other scholars refer to this level of trust as personality-based trust (Gefen et al., 2003) or propensity to trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Rotter, 1971).
The second level of trust is institutional trust or social trust (Luhmann et al., 1979), which describes a belief towards protective structures, such as regulations, promises, contracts, processes or procedures, rather than the people involved (Gefen et al., 2003; McKnight & Chervany, 2001; Rousseau et al., 1998). Furthermore, institutional trust is based on impersonal institutional mechanisms, which is often considered a key element of institutional trust (Smith, 2010). For example, people generally feel safe using an airplane as a means of transportation, because they know airlines are under strict laws, rules and regulations as imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The last level is interpersonal trust or specific beliefs (Gefen, 2004) and refers to the expectation that a specific individual or group can be trusted (Rotter, 1967; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). According to Rotter (1967), this level of trust is usually defined as “an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon” (p. 651). An example of such an expectancy is, for instance, having confidence in the ability of a trustee to perform a certain act or task.
To conclude, different forms and conceptual levels of trust have been proposed. However, studying trust, for instance, from a dispositional perspective, is interesting for this specific perspective, but it would not show trust “as it really is” (Marsh, 1994, p. 23). Marsh further emphasises that “the concept of trust needs to be studied in [a] cross-disciplinary fashion” (Marsh, 1994, p. 23). Furthermore, several scholars (Marsh, 1994; Mayer et al., 1995; McKnight & Chervany, 2001; Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993; Rousseau et al., 1998) have supported this claim by stating that the concept of trust is a multiplex of concepts and not unitary. As a result, and in accordance with one of the goals of this research,
this current study will adopt an interdisciplinary approach. Moreover, it will adopt the typology presented by McKnight et al. for three reasons. First, the authors have conducted a thorough study on trust in an effort to create a typology and reliable concepts for trust. Second, their work is highly recommended by other scholars, such as (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Third, their work, framework and constructs have been cited and used numerous times by other scholars in the academic field of trust.
2.2 Nature of trust in management information
This section sets out to further develop an understanding of trust in management information. First, the definition of management information will be analysed to identify the characteristics of management information. Next, the issue whether it is possible to ‘trust’ information is discussed. Lastly, the earlier identified characteristics of trust will be discussed in the context of trust in management information.
2.2.1 Definitions and characteristics of management information
Management information is specifically designed to provide organisations with strategic, middle, or operational information concerning their primary business processes (Gorry & Scott Morton, 1971). As a result, management information plays an important role in organisations, especially for managers. This is because the main role of management information is to support managers in executing their daily management activities effectively and efficiently (Introna, 1997). Introna has defined management information as follows:
Management information is essential information filtered from the transaction processing systems or primary activities and processed (or structured) by the management information system in such a manner as to support management … in identifying and solving problems or making decisions that will ensure the efficient and effective management of the organization.
(Introna, 1997, p.152)
Several characteristics of management information can be identified from this definition: (1) management information is filtered information, (2) management information supports management in identifying and solving problems, and (3) management information supports the decision-making process of managers.
First, management information is information created and filtered from operational data. Hence, management information is seen as one step higher than operational or transactional data (Introna, 1997). The amount of operational or transactional data available in organisations is tremendous. As a result, technologies such as Management Information Systems (MIS) or Business Intelligence (BI) tools are designed to collect, filter and refine
relevant data (Introna, 1997). However, this requires a manager to rely on the organisation, as well as on the technology, to deliver reliable management information.
Second, management information supports management in identifying and solving problems. This means managers have to trust management information to support them in finding a solution for the identified problem. Management information should provide relevant information, which enables management to identify problems in the organisation. For instance, a manager should be able to determine if the performance of a specific business unit is according to target. If the manager detects the specific business unit performance is not according to target then he should be able to find a solution using the same management information. For example, the management information reveals that the resources of this specific business unit were not sufficient to achieve the target.
Third, management information supports the decision-making process of managers. Examples of such decisions are: planning which activities should be organized, determining the number of staff needed or deciding if the current activities are performing as expected (Introna, 1997). As a result, the impact of management information on an organisation is substantial, because the decisions of managers are generally based on this type of information.
Overall, analysing the characteristics of management information reveals two important facts. First, management information involves technology such as MIS or BI tools. For this reason, managers need to rely on the IT department and the available technology in delivering reliable management information. Second, management information has an important role in organisations due to the fact that it generally provides information that could influence the decisions-making process of managers.
2.2.2 Is it possible to trust (management) information?
Trust in (management) information may at first seem like a questionable concept. Especially considering the fact that trust is originally a concept used to describe face-to-face relations between individuals. However, trust concepts from the interpersonal domain have also been applied to the domain of human-technology interaction (Gefen, Benbasat, & Pavlou, 2008). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that individuals apply the same social rules and responses towards computers as they would apply to human individuals (Reeves & Nass, 1996). This concept is known as the “computer as social actors” paradigm. Although this assumption has received criticism from several scholars, the paradigm provides clear evidence that humans are able to trust computers in the same way they trust other humans (Gefen et al., 2008). Friedman et al. (2000) (as cited in Marsh, 2003) also argued that people can and do trust technology. McKnight et al. (2002) even go a step further by stating that their “definitions may be adapted for trust of people in computers or trust between computer agents” (McKnight & Chervany, 2001, p. 28).
Furthermore, several studies have indicated the applicability of trust theories to the domain of trust in information technology. For instance, individuals consider recommendation agents (Komiak et al., 2004), information sources (Hertzum et al., 2002), and other technologies (Komiak et al., 2004; McKnight et al., 2011; Paul & McDaniel, 2004;
Vance et al., 2008) to be objects of trust. Examples of the applicability of trust in information are found in studies on trust in medical information and on trust in digital information. For instance, an individual’s trust in online medical information is based on the perceived creditability and personalization of the information content (Sillence et al., 2004). The ease to locate and the ability to understand the information also play a role (Ye, 2010). In a study on trust in digital information, the results showed that users of information try to find several trust indicators to determine if they can in fact trust the information (Rowley & Johnson, 2013).
Overall, several studies have shown that individuals are willing to trust another party regardless if this other party is human, an IT artefact, or digital (medical) information. This claim is supported by Kelton et al. (2008) who stated, “It thus appears that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that people are capable of instilling trust in information” (p. 365). It is therefore hypothesized that the original concept of trust can be adapted to trust in (management) information.
2.2.3 Characteristics of trust in management information
In the previous paragraph, the claim that trust in (management) information is possible was found plausible. This section will discuss the identified characteristics of traditional trust in the context of trust in management information. This will (1) help broaden the understanding of trust in management information as well as (2) contribute to identifying relevant factors affecting trust in management information, which will be discussed later. The characteristics of trust in management information are as follows.
Trustor and trustee: As previously discussed, individuals are able to trust information in a similar way that they trust other individuals. As a result, the trusting relation involves a trustor (e.g. management or manager) and the trustee (management information). In addition, since technology is used to create management information, it is likely that trust in technology is also involved. For instance, management information is usually created by an organisational unit (i.e. the IT department) using Management Information Systems, Business Intelligence tools, or other technology and utilizes sources such as a data warehouses.
Vulnerability: In traditional trust literature, vulnerability refers to the willingness to be exposed, or acceptance to be exposed, in a particular situation (Rousseau et al., 1998; Baier, 1986). When using management information, the trustor could be exposed to incorrect parameters that filter the information, the use of faulty technology, deficit information sources, lack of the information’s ability to identify problems or the inability of the information to provide adequate solutions.
Risk: The presence of risk creates a need for trust (Luhmann et al., 1979). As mentioned earlier, management information supports the decision-making process. As such, the trustor is exposed to the risk of making undesirable or incorrect decisions as a result of flawed management information. Kelton et al. (2008) recognizes this by stating that the use of faulty information is potentially harmful.
Expectancy: Trust involves an individual’s thoughts on the intentions or behaviour of the other party as positive, or at least not purposely negative (Baier, 1986; Deutsch, 1958; Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Rotter, 1971; Rousseau et al., 1998). In the context of trust in management information, this means a trustor has certain expectations of the information. For instance, is the information provided to them biased or impartial?
Subjectivity: Individuals trust each other depending on several situational factors (Hertzum et al., 2002) and the individual’s particular attitude towards the other party (Marsh & Dibben, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995; Wang & Emurian, 2005). It is not beyond the bounds of credibility to assume that a trustor also bases his or her trust in management information on situational factors. For example, a trustor could trust the information because he or she is familiar with the previous reputation of the information. Another example of a situational factor is trusting information based on guarantees and safeguards from a third-party. For instance, we generally believe information from an encyclopaedia because we trust the organisation responsible. Several studies have found that situational factors are relevant in trust in information (Kelton et al., 2008; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; Rowley & Johnson, 2013). It is therefore possible to assume that trust in management information could be influenced by situational factors as perceived by an individual.
2.2.4 Trust in management information and decision-making
According to a British article, the average person will make approximately 773.618 personal decisions over the duration of his or her life4
. A decision can be as simple as hitting the ‘snooze’ button to turn off the alarm clock or as complicated as deciding whether or not to buy a new apartment. Managers are faced with similar decisions in their daily work. For instance, the decision to allocate certain resources from one project to another project, or the decision whether or not to hire a new employee.
It is widely accepted that there are several levels in an organisation’s hierarchy on which decisions are made: strategic decisions, tactical decisions, and operational decisions (Anthony, 1965). Strategic decisions mainly involve organisational strategies, goals and objectives (Kontio et al., 2013). As a result, strategic decisions usually influence the scope of the organisation and require a substantial amount of resources. In addition, these decisions are usually based on incomplete information, thus introducing a certain amount of risk in the decision-making process. Tactical decisions focus on the identification and allocation of resources (Kontio et al., 2013; Moe, Aurum, & Dybå, 2012) Examples of such resources are employees, funds, or supplies. Operational decisions deal with carrying out the specific task set forth by strategic and middle management. Moreover, operational decisions do no significantly influence the scope of the organisation, but focus on daily routine decisions instead. In other words, operational decisions are concerned with effectively executing an organisation’s day-to-day activities.
4
As noted before, management information is used to support managers in executing their daily management activities (Introna, 1997). However, according to Gorry & Scott Morton (1971), the characteristics of the management information are different depending on the type of decisions - strategic, tactical or operational - being made. For instance, strategic decisions usually involve long-term organisational goals and thus require information that is oriented towards the future. In contrast, operational decisions involve the monitoring of performance and the setting of targets, these decisions concern activities that have already happened, and thus usually require historical information.
Table 3 presents the framework developed by Gorry and Scott Morton. The framework links the characteristics of management information with operational, middle and strategic decision-making. The table shows that information on an operational level is, for example, based on past events, well defined, has a high accuracy and is well structured. The information on a strategic level, on the other hand, has a wide scope, is very unstructured and accuracy is less important. Middle – or tactical - management operates between the operational and strategic level and involves, for instance, a medium scope, is semi structured and the accuracy of the information is less important compared to operational information.
Table 3: Management information characteristics5
Level of Management Characteristics of
Information Operational Middle Strategic
Source Largely internal <---> Largely external
Scope Well defined
Narrow
<---> General Wide
Level of aggregation Detailed <---> Aggregate
Time horizon Historic <---> Future oriented
Required accuracy High <---> Low
Frequency of use Frequent <---> Very infrequent
Structure Structured <---> Very unstructured
Organisational decision-making, regardless at which level, assumes the manager has a set of alternative outcomes, including the consequence of each outcome. The manager is responsible for choosing the outcome that he or she believes most fit for the specific situation (March, 1991). This decision, according to March and Shapira (1987), involves a risk and the authors claim that risk is an important element in organisational decision-making. To be more precise, the authors suggest that every choice involves a probability that the outcome is uncertain. March and Shapira (1987) define risk-taking in organisational decision-making as
5
“the probabilistic uncertainty of outcomes stemming from a choice” (p. 1411). Therefore, the presence of risk in organisational decision-making creates a need to trust (Luhmann, 1979).
It is generally agreed that uncertain and vulnerable circumstances are necessary conditions for trust to arise (Kelton et al., 2008). As noted earlier, decisions involve a probabilistic uncertainty regarding the outcome the decision-maker chooses. In addition, a decision-maker accepts to be exposed to the risk making (the wrong) decisions in a particular situation. For example, being a manager involves making decisions on a daily basis, but it also involves taking responsibility for the decisions made. It thus seems that the circumstances of uncertainty and vulnerability are present in organisational decision-making. This means that it is possible to assume that organisational decision-making involves trust. Examples of trust in organisational decision making are: trust that the most effective outcome has been chosen; trust in the organisation to efficiently execute the decision and trust that the information used in the decision-making is reliable.
It is clear that the risk present in organisational decision-making creates a need for trust. Furthermore, it is possible to assume that the level of risk – and thus the need for trust - varies depending on the level of management (operational, tactical or strategic). For instance, on an operational level, decisions are primarily based on past events and involve routine decisions, such as setting targets or monitoring performance. In contrast, decisions on a tactical or strategic level require future oriented information and involve decisions that significantly impact organisational goals or resources. Thus increasing the uncertainty of the outcome and vulnerability of the decision-maker. In other words, higher levels of management are likely to involve a higher need for trust.
2.3 Previous literature on trust in information
This section reviews relevant studies from trust in medical and online information, as well as trust in e-commerce, to locate factors that could affect the formation of trust in management information. Previous literature on trust in information often associates credibility and trustworthiness with the concept of trust. However, several scholars have mentioned a lack of clarity between credibility and trust (Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Tseng & Fogg, 1999) and between trustworthiness and trust (Hardin, 2002; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Vance et al., 2008). For example, some scholars do not provide a definition for credibility (Catellier & Yang, 2012; Sillence et al., 2007), or they use the terms trust, trustworthiness and credibility interchangeably (Huntington et al., 2004; Lim, 2009; Ye, 2010). This section aims to provide clarity concerning these concepts and provides the definitions that will be used in this study.
2.3.1 Credibility versus trust
Credibility is closely related to the concept of trust and could provide a reason to trust someone. However, credibility is not a synonym for trust (Corritore et al., 2003; Tseng &
Fogg, 1999). The work of Tseng and Fogg (1999) is frequently used by scholars to refer to the term credibility. According to Tseng and Fogg (1999), credibility refers to the believability of the other party and trust refers to dependability. The authors write that the most important factors of credibility are trustworthiness and expertise. Trustworthiness is, according to Tseng and Fogg, defined in terms of “well-intentioned, truthful, and unbiased” (p. 40) whereas expertise is referred to “knowledgeable, experienced and competent” (p. 40).
However, several scholars have expressed their concerns regarding the fact that Tseng and Fogg view trustworthiness as a factor of credibility. In contrast, Corritore et al. (2003) propose that credibility is a signal for trustworthiness. To be more precise, the authors claim that credibility is a positive signal towards the trustworthiness of the other party. While holding a similar view, Lucassen and Schraagen (2011) describe credibility as an aspect that is relevant when assessing trust. They define credibility as perceived information quality, or as the assessment of the quality of information. Kelton et al. (2008) also disagree with the idea that trustworthiness is part of credibility and note that credibility “does not reflect the full scope of our understanding of the trust construct” (p. 371). Moreover, Kelton et al. even suggest that the relation between trust and credibility is an area open for further research.
It is clear that there is confusion between the concepts of trust and credibility. However, the majority of the scholars have indicated that credibility is part of trust and not the other way around. As such, this study will approach credibility from the same standpoint, as being a part of trust.
2.3.2 Trustworthiness versus trust
Hardin (1996) has expressed a similar confusion between the concepts trustworthiness and trust. However, scholars in the field of trust in information seem to generally agree on the definition of trustworthiness. For instance, Zahedi et al. (2008) argue that trustworthiness involves cognitive processes, such as ability, benevolence and integrity of the other party, whereas trust is an emotion or feeling. The work of Kelton et al. (2008) expresses a similar view by defining trustworthiness as the “perceived likelihood a particular trustee will uphold one’s trust” (p. 367). However, they propose that accuracy, objectivity, validity and stability are important factors to determine the trustworthiness of a particular trustee (in this case the information). In another study, Lucassen and Schraagen (2011) argue that trustworthiness involves specific characteristics of the trustee, which are important for the trustor.
The distinction between trust and trustworthiness is made clear in an article by Corritore (2003). According to the author, trust is related with the trustor. In other words, an individual can decide to trust the other party. However, trustworthiness refers specifically to characteristics of the other party. Corritore makes the connection between trust and trustworthiness clear in the following sentence: “I trust in [a party] because it exhibits characteristics that signal its trustworthiness to me” (p. 741). To be more precise, trustworthiness refers specifically to characteristics of the trustee, whereas trust is related with the trustor and could be influenced by other factors. Hardin supports this claim by stating:
“The best device for creating trust is to establish and support trustworthiness” (p. 29). This study will follow the view of Corritore and Hardin and refers to trustworthiness as ‘characteristics of the trustee’ and views trust as related to the trustor.
2.3.3 Previous factors affecting trust in information
Previous studies on trust in information, as well as trust in e-commerce, have found different factors affecting the formation of trust (Komiak et al., 2004). However, it would appear possible to identify several dimensions to which these factors belong. The following dimensions are identified: characteristics of the trustor (individual), characteristics of the trustee (information) and external trust factors. Characteristics of the trustor refer to individual differences between users, which could affect their trust assessment behaviour (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011). Characteristics of the trustee relates to specific features of the information that are important for the trustor. Several scholars, as noted earlier, refer to this dimension as ‘trustworthiness’ (Corritore et al., 2003; Gefen et al., 2008; Kelton et al., 2008; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; Zahedi & Song, 2008). The last dimension, external factors, describes physical and psychological factors that are relevant to the situation (Corritore et al., 2003). This dimension includes, for example, factors such as a trustors disposition to information; past experiences; recommendations or experience with technology (Beatty et al., 2011; Corritore et al., 2003; Kelton et al., 2008; Lee & See, 2004; Lim, 2009; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2012; McKnight et al., 2002; Pavlou, 2002; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Zahedi & Song, 2008).
2.3.3.1 Characteristics of the trustor
It would appear that research on trust in information occasionally focuses on specific characteristics of the trustor. So far, this study has only found two studies that included the characteristics of the trustor in their research. For example, in a study on trust in online health information, Ye (2010) focused on the characteristics of the trustor as well as on the characteristics of the trustee. Ye investigated if age, personal capital, education, income and subjective health status correlated with trust in online health information, as well as information characteristics such as importance, relevance, accuracy, presentation and format of the information. Results indicated that information features have a stronger correlation with trust in online health information than characteristics of the trustor.
While holding a similar view, Lucassen and Schraagen (2011) examined trust judgements in online information between novice and expert users based on trustor characteristics such as source experience, domain expertise and information skills, as well as information characteristics (trustee) such as semantic, surface and source information features. Semantic features involve accuracy, completeness, scope and neutrality of the information. Surface features refer to the length of the text, the presence of references, pictures and writing style, whereas authority and reputation of the website are related to source features. Lucassen and
Schraagen discovered that expert users tend to focus more on semantic information features, whereas novice users were more concerned with the information’s surface features.
2.3.3.2 Characteristics of the trustee
As noted earlier, the characteristics of the trustee refer to specific features of the information that are deemed important by the trustor. It is important to note that this dimension only includes features of the trustee itself and not, for example, external factors such as recommendations or the reputation of the trustee. This dimension can be divided into three sub-dimensions (1) the source of the information, (2) the information itself and (3) how the information is presented.
Only a small number of scholars have examined if individuals include the source of the information in their decision to trust information. Some factors that are proposed by these authors are: the knowledgeability (Briggs et al., 2002; Sillence et al., 2007), authority (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011) and credibility (in terms of availability, objectivity and owner) (Briggs et al., 2002; Rowley & Johnson, 2013) of the source.
The majority of previous research on trust in information focuses on the second sub-dimension: the information itself. The most cited factors in this sub-dimension are: predictability, usefulness, accuracy, objectivity, relevance, integrity, benevolence and ability of the information (Beatty et al., 2011; Briggs et al., 2002; Corritore et al., 2003; Kelton et al., 2008; Komiak et al., 2004; Lim, 2009; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; McKnight et al., 2002; Pavlou, 2002; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Sillence et al., 2007; Song & Zahedi, 2007; Ye, 2010; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Predictability means the trustee’s behaviour (good or bad) will always be as expected by the trustor (Komiak et al., 2004) and is also referred to as stability (Kelton et al., 2008). Furthermore, predictability is closely related to expectations, which entails the belief that the trustee will behave as expected (Komiak et al., 2004; Lim, 2009; Pavlou, 2002). However, there is a subtle difference between these two concepts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, predictability means: “to say or estimate that a specific thing will happen in the future”, whereas an expectation refers to “a strong belief that something will happen”. This study will regard predictability and expectation as the same factor. Usefulness of the information is, according to several scholars, a feeling of the trustor that the information is applicable or relevant for a specific situation (Briggs et al., 2002; Lim, 2009; Rowley & Johnson, 2013; Song & Zahedi, 2007; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Accuracy refers to the extent to which the information is free from errors (Kelton et al., 2008) or perceived sufficient and complete (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Objectivity involves information which is impartial and independent (Briggs et al., 2002; Sillence et al., 2007), as well as free from distortion, deception and bias (Kelton et al., 2008).
The factors ability, benevolence and integrity proposed by Mayer et al. (1995) have been repeatedly used by other scholars in trust in information (Beatty et al., 2011; Corritore et al., 2003; Komiak et al., 2004; McKnight et al., 2002; Pavlou, 2002; Sillence et al., 2007; Song & Zahedi, 2007; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Ability can be defined as a belief that the trustee has the
necessary knowledge skills and competences to provide the information (Song & Zahedi, 2007). This factor is also referred to as competence (Komiak et al., 2004; McKnight et al., 2002). Benevolence is a term that refers to the extent to which the trustee is willing to behave in the trustors best interests (Zahedi & Song, 2008). Integrity means the trustee is honest, tells the truth and fulfils promises (Mcknight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998).
Apart from the above-mentioned frequently used factors, scholars have proposed several other factors in relation with trust in information. These factors are: personalisation of the information (Zahedi & Song, 2008); the ability to verify the information (Komiak et al., 2004; Rowley & Johnson, 2013); understandability (Zahedi & Song, 2008); reliability (Zahedi & Song, 2008); validity (Kelton et al., 2008) and relevance (Kelton et al., 2008; Lim, 2009; Zahedi & Song, 2008).
The last sub-dimension of the characteristics of the trustee relates to the presentation of the information. Previous research on trust in information has mainly been in the field of information available via websites (for instance, health websites or Wikipedia). As a result, research indicated that the presentation of digital information did indeed affect a user’s trust in the information (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011). Scholars frequently refer to ease of use of the website as an important factor for this sub-dimension (Beatty et al., 2011; Corritore et al., 2003; Lim, 2009; Sillence et al., 2007; Zahedi & Song, 2008). Other factors related to the presentation of information are: length of text, references, pictures, writing style (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011), response time (Briggs et al., 2002), interactivity (Zahedi & Song, 2008), and design of the website (Briggs et al., 2002; Komiak & Benbasat, 2004; Ye, 2010).
2.3.3.3 External factors
This dimension mainly consists of physical and psychological factors relevant for the relation between trustor and trustee. Commonly used factors in this dimension are: reputation; prior experience; institution-based trust and disposition to trust. Reputation refers to building one’s own trust in information based on the trust perception of others (Kelton et al., 2008). Prior or past experience involves a trustors positive or negative direct experiences with the trustee (Lim, 2009). Institution-based trust is a term that refers to factors related to trust in situations or structures. According to McKnight et al. (1998), it involves two sub-factors: (1) structural assurance, and (2) situational normality. Structural assurance means that regulations, legal recourse, or other procedures are in place to ensure a particular success (Mcknight et al., 1998; Zucker, 1986), whereas situational normality means “one believes that the environment is in proper order and success is likely because the situation is normal or favourable” (McKnight et al., 2002)(p. 339). Disposition to trust refers to an individual’s default mode to trust or distrust the other party (Corritore et al., 2003; Kelton et al., 2008; Lim, 2009; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2012; McKnight et al., 2002; Rotter, 1971; Zahedi & Song, 2008). For instance, there are individuals who presume received information is accurate and reliable and thus trust the information, whereas other individuals receive the same information with scepticism and try to verify the information. Other factors mentioned by scholars are: the
