Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations
Abstract
Although the organisational literature is increasingly converging on common definitions and theoretical conceptualisations of trust, it is unclear whether the same is true for the measures used to operationalise trust. In this paper, we review the organisational literature to assess the degree of sophistication and convergence across studies in how trust has been measured. Our analysis of 171 papers published over 48 years revealed that the state of the art of trust measurement is rudimentary and highly fragmented. In particular, we identified a total of 129 different measures of trust. Moreover, in only 24 instances were we able to verify that a previously developed and validated measure of trust had been replicated verbatim, and 11 of these replications were by the same authors who originated the measure. In addition to the limited degree of replication, the measurement of trust in the organisational literature is characterised by weak evidence in support of construct validity and limited consensus on operational dimensions. What makes these findings even more surprising is that our review also identified several measures of trust that have been carefully developed and thoroughly validated. We profile those measures with strong measurement properties and discuss their trade-offs. We also present a framework for measuring trust that provides guidance to researchers for selecting or developing a measure of trust and propose an agenda for future research with an emphasis on re…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A lack of consensus around the measurement of trust is well documented in the literature and leading scholars have called for a more unified approach.
“First, a lack of consensus around the measurement of trust is well documented in the literature and leading scholars in the area have called for a more unified approach (e.g. Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).”
From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 228 · Cited by 477
- Authors
- McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- IESE Business School (ES)
- Corresponding author
- McEvily, Bill
- Venue
- Journal of Trust Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-63
- ISSN
- 2151-5581 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-559X
- OpenAlex
- W2040113013
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 228
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 28.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Trust Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
- Keywords
- trust measurement, organizational trust, trust scale, construct validity, replication, measurement properties, trust dimensions, measurement framework, scale development
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