Cited by 209Technology Adoption and User BehaviourTeam Dynamics and PerformancePersonality Traits and Psychology

Interpersonal Traits, Complementarity, and Trust in Virtual Collaboration

BROWN, HOUGHTON G., POOLE, MARSHALL SCOTT, RODGERS, THOMAS L.·2004·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

Trust has been a focus of research on virtual collaboration in distributed teams, e-commerce, e-learning, and telemedicine. Central to several models of trust and virtual collaboration is user's disposition to trust. This construct, however, has generally been conceptualized in as a stand-alone trait without a substantive theoretical background in personality theory. This paper advances the interpersonal circumplex model (ICM) as a theoretical framework for understanding the role of personal traits in collaboration in virtual contexts. The ICM posits that tendencies in interpersonal interaction stem from personal dispositions that can be understood in terms of dimensions of power and affiliation, fundamental constituents of user's personality. We develop a model that proposes that interpersonal traits, specifically, personality type as defined by the circumplex, affect the individual's disposition to trust, perceived trustworthiness, communication, and thereby affects willingness to collaborate and the sustainability and productivity of the collaboration. The model enables us to unpack the black box concepts of disposition to trust, faith in others, and trusting stance that are currently incorporated in theories of trust in information systems. The theory also enables explanation of trust dynamics at the dyadic and group levels. We develop propositions positing that individual's traits and dyadic complementarity are mediating factors in interpersonal trust and willingness to use new technologies and significantly affect the initiation, duration, and productivity of computer-mediated collaboration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045785

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 94 · Cited by 209

Authors
BROWN, H. G., POOLE, M. S., & RODGERS, T. L.
Affiliations
Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Published
2004-03
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
115-138
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
OpenAlex
W1592140955
Cited by
209
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
18.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
interpersonal traits, personality theory, trustworthiness, willingness to collaborate, computer-mediated collaboration, trust dynamics, trust in information systems, technology acceptance

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