The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity
Abstract
The recognition that better use of existing internal knowledge could enhance survival chances of organizations has spawned substantial interest in the transferability of routinized, experiential learning to additional settings within the organization. Previous research has established that trustworthiness of the source enhances such knowledge transfer. More recent work, however, suggests that this may not always be the case. Yet, little systematic attention has been paid to moderating conditions. The major purpose of this paper is to identify a moderator, causal ambiguity, which delineates the conditions as to when and how a recipient's perception of the trustworthiness of a source affects the effectiveness of the transfer of organizational practices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939 · cited 1×
“For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.”
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
An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378802500207 · Cited by 6,293
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367 · Cited by 1,545
Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing
Attewell, P. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.1.1 · Cited by 1,401
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychosocial filter
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00204 · Cited by 501
Cited by
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x · Cited by 1,335
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Cross‐Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination
Pérez‐Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., & Rasheed, A. A. (2008) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00767.x · Cited by 337
Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1884 · Cited by 207
Knowledge Retention From Older and Retiring Workers: What Do We Know, and Where Do We Go From Here?
Burmeister, A., & Deller, J. (2016) · Work, Aging and Retirement · doi:10.1093/workar/waw002 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 600-613
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W1976503988
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 52.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1040.0096
- The paper
- Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0096
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
