CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Technology Adoption and User BehaviourCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyCloud Data Security Solutions

Trust in Cloud Computing: Conceptual Typology and Trust-Building Antecedents

Lansing, Jens, Sunyaev, Ali·2016·ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems
DOI 10.1145/2963175.2963179
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Trust is an important facilitator for successful business relationships and an important technology adoption determinant. However, thus far trust has received little attention in the context of cloud computing, resulting in a lack of understanding of the dimensions of trust in cloud services and trust-building antecedents. Although the literature provides various conceptual models of trust for contexts related to cloud computing that may serve as a reference, in particular trust in IT outsourcing providers and trust in IT artifacts, idiosyncrasies of trust in cloud computing require a novel conceptual model of trust. First, a cloud service has a dual nature of being an IT artifact and a service provided by an organization. Second, cloud services are offered in impersonal cloud marketplaces and build upon a nested network of cloud services within the cloud ecosystem. In this article, we first analyze the concept of trust in cloud contexts. Next, we develop a conceptual model that describes trust in cloud services. The conceptual model incorporates the duality of trust in a cloud provider organization and trust in an IT artifact, as well as trust types for the impersonal environment and the cloud computing ecosystem. Using the conceptual model as a lens we then review 43 empirical studies on trust in IT outsourcing and trust in IT artifacts that were identified by a structured literature search. The resulting conceptual model provides a conceptual typology of constructs for trust in cloud services, defines trust-building antecedents, and develops 19 propositions describing the relationships between trust constructs and between trust constructs and trust-building antecedents. The conceptual model contributes to research by creating grounds for future theory-building on trust in cloud contexts, integrating two previously disjoint strands in the trust literature, and identifying knowledge gaps. Based on the conceptual model, we furthermore provide practical advice for managers from service providers, platform providers, customers, and institutional authorities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2963175.2963179

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • There is no commonly accepted definition of trust but rather a need for contextualized trust conceptualizations.

    “As a result of the plurality of perspectives on this concept, there is no commonly accepted definition of trust (Lansing and Sunyaev 2016;Söllner et al. 2016) but rather a need for contextualized trust conceptualizations (Jarvenpaa et al. 2004).”

    From Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Lansing and Sunyaev 2016

  • Related research has shown that trust in a technology which is perceived as human-like by its user or is highly automated and autonomous, differs from classical interpersonal trust and also classical trust in technology.

    “Related research has shown that trust in a technology which is perceived as human-like by its user or is highly automated and autonomous, differs from classical interpersonal trust and also classical trust in technology (Lansing and Sunyaev 2016).”

    From Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Lansing and Sunyaev 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lansing, J., & Sunyaev, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
ORCID
Sunyaev, Ali
Venue
ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2016-06-24
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
58-96
ISSN
  • 0095-0033 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-0936
DOI
10.1145/2963175.2963179
OpenAlex
W2464220347
Cited by
64
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
FWCI
13.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
trust in cloud computing, cloud services, cloud marketplace, technology adoption, trust typology

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