Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 597

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Behavioral Decision Theory Approach to Modeling Dyadic Trust in Superiors and Subordinates

Butler, John K., Cantrell, R. Stephen·1984·Psychological Reports
DOI 10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The relative importances of five determinants of dyadic trust (integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness) were investigated from two perspectives: trust in superiors and trust in subordinates. Two experiments were designed from research on behavioral decision theory. The participants, 78 undergraduate management students, responded to cues that described hypothetical superiors (Exp. 1) and subordinates (Exp. 2). Responses indicated the amount of trust held in each of 32 superiors and 32 subordinates. Integrity, competence, and consistency were stronger than loyalty or openness as determinants of trust in one's superiors and in one's subordinates. There were no differences in the importance of any of the determinants of trust in one's subordinates versus one's superiors. Method considerations are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S.
Venue
Psychological Reports
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1984-08
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
19-28
ISSN
  • 0033-2941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-691X
DOI
10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19
OpenAlex
W2016549961
Cited by
597
References
0
FWCI
2.39
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

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.