CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 514Team Dynamics and PerformanceKnowledge Management and SharingTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Individual Swift Trust and Knowledge-Based Trust in Face-to-Face and Virtual Team Members

Open access
Robert, Lionel P., Denis, Alan R., Hung, Yu-Ting Caisy·2009·Journal of Management Information Systems
DOI 10.2753/mis0742-1222260210
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Traditionally, trust has been seen as a result of personal knowledge of an individual's past behavior. In this view, trust develops gradually over time based on an individual's cognitive assessment of the other person's behavior. However, high levels of trust have been observed among members of virtual teams, who often have little prior history of working together and may never meet each other in person. To integrate these two seemingly contradictory views of trust, this study manipulated team member characteristics and team member behavior to empirically test a two-stage theoretical model of trust formation and the influence of information and communication technologies (ICT) on trust formation. The results indicate that category-based processing of team member characteristics and an individual's own disposition to trust dominated the initial formation of swift trust. Once individuals accumulated sufficient information to assess a team member's trustworthiness, the effects of swift trust declined and knowledge-based trust formed using team members' behaviors (perceived ability, integrity, and benevolence) became dominant. The use of ICT increased perceived risk of team failure, which reduced the likelihood that team members would engage in future trusting behaviors.

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 · 10.2753/mis0742-1222260210

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Virtual interaction makes trust development much less likely.

    “Teams that interact virtually are considerably less likely to develop trust [216].”

    From Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review (2020) · cites this paper as [216]

    The Prior Theories and the Proposed Model section (page unavailable) says ICT-mediated interaction can slow relationship development and make trust harder to build. But the Abstract notes that high initial trust has been observed in virtual teams. The source therefore supports a difficulty in developing trust, not the unqualified claim that virtual teams are considerably less likely to develop it. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • According to similarity/attraction theory, team members attribute positive traits to similar others and prefer to interact with them.

    “Furthermore, in accordance with similarity/attraction theory, team members attribute positive traits to team members that they believe are similar to themselves and prefer to interact with them [216,255].”

    From Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review (2020) · cites this paper as [216]

    The “Swift trust” section says that people ascribe positive attributes to in-group members and are more likely to trust teammates they believe are similar to themselves. It does not say they prefer to interact with those teammates; its discussion concerns trust, not interaction preference. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 174 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [15]15. brewer, M.b. Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M.b. brewer and b.E. Collins (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-bass, 1981, pp. 214-231.
  2. [25]25. Chen, S., and Chaiken, S. the heuristic semantic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken and Y. trope (eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social and Cognitive Psychology. New York: guilford, 1999, pp. 73-96.
  3. [33]33. Daft, R.L.; Lengel, R.H.; and trevino, L. Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance. MIS Quarterly, 11, 3 (1987), 355-366.
  4. [45]45. Fiske, S.t.; Lin, M.; and Neuberg, S.L. the continuum model: ten years later. In S. Chaiken and Y. trope (eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social and Cognitive Psychology. New York: guilford Press, 1999, pp. 231-254.
  5. [56]56. Hewstone, M.; Rubin, M.; and Willis, H. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1 (2002), 575-604.
  6. [60]60. Ichijo, K.; von Krogh, g.; and Nonaka, I. Knowledge enablers. In g. von Krogh, J. Roos, and D. Kleine (eds.), Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. London: Sage, 2000, pp. 173-203.
  7. [73]73. Komiak, S.Y.X., and benbasat, I. the effects of internalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 30, 4 (2006), 941-960.
  8. [84]84. In R.M. Kramer and t.R. tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, pp. 114-139.
  9. [93]93. March, J.g. A Primer on Decision Making. New York: Free Press, 1994.
  10. [107]107. In S. Chaiken and Y. trope (eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social and Cognitive Psychology. New York: guilford, 1999, pp. 529-546. 122.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y.-T. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
  • Indiana University (US)
  • Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-09
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
241-279
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
DOI
10.2753/mis0742-1222260210
OpenAlex
W2040936209
Cited by
514
References
174
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 34
FWCI
23.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
swift trust, knowledge-based trust, virtual teams, face-to-face teams, trust formation, information and communication technologies, trustworthiness

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