The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions
Open accessAbstract
Summary: This article presents an integrative review of the rapidly growing body of research on trust in work teams. We start by analyzing prominent definitions of trust and their theoretical foundations, followed by different conceptualizations of trust in teams emphasizing its multilevel, dynamic, and emergent nature. We then review the empirical research and its underlying theoretical perspectives concerning the emergence and development of trust in teams. On the basis of this review, we propose an integrated conceptual framework that organizes the field and can advance knowledge of the multilevel nature of trust in teams. Our conclusion is that trust in teams resides at multiple levels of analysis simultaneously, is subject to factors across levels in organizations, and impacts performance and other relevant outcomes both at the individual and team levels. We argue that research should not only differentiate between interpersonal trust between members from collective trust at the team level but also emphasize the interplay within and between these levels by considering cross‐level influences and dynamics. We conclude by proposing 4 major directions for future research and 3 critical methodological recommendations for study designs derived from our review and framework.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467 · cited 1×
“The literatures on social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), attractionsimilarity (Byrne, 1971), and relational demography (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992) posit that trust develops more naturally and quickly in teams where members have more commonalities and are more comfortable interacting with each…”
BackgroundPsychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
Self-citationEnhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 · Cited by 2,606
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Swift Trust and Temporary Groups
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) · Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research · doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 · Cited by 1,982 · cited 3×
“Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer (1996) developed the concept of ‘swift trust’ to explain how temporary teams can enjoy high levels of trust, even in the absence of the typical trust sources such as familiarity and shared experiences.”
BackgroundIs there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496405277134 · Cited by 1,930
Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jci022 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 1×
“Cross-cultural research has also shown that mean levels of propensity to trust vary greatly from country to country (Delhey & Newton, 2005), with individuals in collectivistic societies showing lower levels than in individualistic societies (Huff & Kelley, 2003).”
BackgroundToward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0028 · Cited by 773
Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000110 · Cited by 616
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630102700202 · Cited by 518
Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y.-T. C. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260210 · Cited by 514
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · cited 1×
“As individuals are more willing to cooperate, share information, offer differing viewpoints, and openly discuss problems, these behaviors lead to higher trust (Barczak et al., 2010).”
BackgroundBreuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000113 · Cited by 375
Hardin, R. (1996) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/233695 · Cited by 331
Dormant Ties: The Value Of Reconnecting
Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0576 · Cited by 326
An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organizational setting
Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D. (2007) · Knowledge and Process Management · doi:10.1002/kpm.284 · Cited by 76
Cited by
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N., Freeman, G., & Williams, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610072 · Cited by 134
Zhang, L., Yan, Q., & Zhang, L. (2018) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.002 · Cited by 114
A Conceptual Model of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Reliance on AI Decision Aids
Solberg, E., Kaarstad, M., Eitrheim, M. H. R., Bisio, R., Reegård, K., & Bloch, M. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011221081238 · Cited by 102
Six challenges for human-AI Co-learning
van den Bosch, K., Schoonderwoerd, T., Blankendaal, R., & Neerincx, M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22341-0_45 · Cited by 50
McGrath, M. J., Duenser, A., Lacey, J., & Paris, C. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100200 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-07-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 169-184
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2729521902
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 25.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
