Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confirmation in Urban Elementary Schools
Abstract
After an extensive review of the literature on trust, a multi-faceted definition of faculty trust was developed at three organizational levels: trust in principal, trust in colleagues, and trust in clients. Along with a general willingness to risk vulnerability, five faces of trust emerged: benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness. This conceptual formulation of faculty trust was then subjected to empirical test, which supported the theoretical underpinnings of the construct. Finally, three trust scales with substantial validity and reliability are offered to researchers and practitioners to analyze antecedents and consequences of faculty trust in other schools.
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?
Such a punitive style of communication may also be interpreted by students as a lack of benevolence from their teachers, which undermines a fundamental component of trust.
“Such a punitive style of communication may also be interpreted by students as a lack of benevolence from their teachers, which undermines a fundamental component of trust (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999).”
From How does GenAI affect trust in teacher-student relationships? Insights from students’ assessment experiences (2025) · cites this paper as Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999
Cites
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146 · see citing works
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077 · see citing works
Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion
Kee, H. W., & Knox, R. E. (1970) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200277001400307 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trust Evolvement in Hybrid Team Collaboration: A Longitudinal Case Study
Cheng, X., Yin, G., Azadegan, A., & Kolfschoten, G. (2016) · Group Decision and Negotiation · doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9442-x · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Luo (Jess), J. (2025) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2024.2341005 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Van Houtte, M., & Van Maele, D. (2012) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811211400706 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- The Ohio State University, School of Educational Policy and Leadership, 301 Ramseyer Hall, 29 West Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; (614) 292-770; fax (614) 292-790;
- Corresponding author
- Hoy, Wayne K.
- Venue
- Journal of School Leadership
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 184-208
- ISSN
- 1052-6846 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W154040611
- Cited by
- 641
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 27.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of School Leadership (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- faculty trust, trust in principal, trust in colleagues, urban elementary schools, trust scale, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, openness, school leadership
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
