The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams1
Abstract
This article reports the findings of a longitudinal study of temporary virtual teams and explores the role of behavior control on trust decline. We conducted an experiment involving 51 temporary virtual teams. Half of the teams were required to comply with behavior control mechanisms traditionally used in colocated teams. Their counterparts were allowed to self-direct. Our analysis shows that the behavior control mechanisms typically used in traditional teams have a significant negative effect on trust in virtual teams. In-depth analysis of the communication logs of selected teams reveals that trust decline in virtual teams is rooted in instances of reneging and incongruence. Behavior control mechanisms increase vigilance and make instances when individuals perceive team members to have failed to uphold their obligations (i.e., reneging and incongruence) salient. Heightened vigilance and salience increase the likelihood that team members’ failure to fulfill their obligations will be detected, thus contributing to trust decline.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
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
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025 · cited 1×
“Prior witnessed behavior is used to make attributions about the intentions behind current witnessed behavior (Kelley 1973).”
MethodSwift Trust and Temporary Groups
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) · Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research · doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 · Cited by 1,982 · cited 1×
“As early trust can be established, the challenge then is to maintain it while the team moves toward completion of the project (Meyerson et al. 1996).”
Background
Cited by
Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0028 · Cited by 773
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0065 · Cited by 580
Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y.-T. C. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260210 · Cited by 514
The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Teams1
O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148802 · Cited by 497
Swift Trust in Global Virtual Teams: Trusting Beliefs and Normative Actions
Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013) · Journal of Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000075 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Piccoli, G., & Ives, B.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2003-09-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 365-396
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1493002702
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.17
- 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: Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/30036538
- The paper
- Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036538
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.
