It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust
Abstract
Scholars have called for examinations of trust at the dyadic level, but only recently have we begun to see trust examined as a dyadic phenomenon from multiple perspectives. This review examines three approaches to understanding dyadic trust: reciprocal trust, wherein one party’s trust influences the other party’s trust; mutual trust, wherein both parties share a given level of trust that has important consequences for the dyad; and asymmetric trust, wherein each party has a different level of trust, and this disparity has consequences for the dyad. We provide a critical analysis of the empirical research addressing these three approaches and suggest future research directions to provide a more comprehensive view of dyadic trust.
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?
The foundations of LMX assume a level of reciprocity in the relationship that is not necessarily a feature of trust relationships.
“Third, as observed by Brower et al. (2000), the foundations of LMX assume a level of reciprocity in the relationship that is not necessarily a feature of trust relationships (Korsgaard et al., 2015).”
From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as Korsgaard et al., 2015
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077 · see citing works
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407512453827 · Cited by 751 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This proposition was tested by Przybylski and Weinstein (2013), who found that the mere presence of a cell phone during relationship development diminished trust between partners.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship
Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2021) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
- Authors
- Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Wake Forest University (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-09-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-70
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2093212244
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 30.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- dyadic trust, mutual trust, asymmetric trust, inter-organizational trust, trust dynamics, dyads
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
