CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorManagement and Organizational StudiesFacilities and Workplace Management

Trusting the “Look and Feel”: Situational Normality, Situational Aesthetics, and the Perceived Trustworthiness of Organizations

Open access
Baer, Michael D., van der Werff, Lisa, Colquitt, Jason A., Rodell, Jessica B., Zipay, Kate P., Buckley, Finian·2018·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj.2016.0248
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We conducted two studies examining how the “look and feel” of an organization shapes newcomers’ trust in that organization. More specifically, we examined the effects of situational normality—the degree to which the work setting appears customary, with everything in proper order. We then introduced the construct of situational aesthetics—the degree to which the work setting has a pleasing and attractive appearance. A field study of new accountants revealed that situational normality and situational aesthetics had indirect effects on trust through perceived trustworthiness, with trust going on to predict coworker ratings of learning behavior. We then replicated those trustworthiness findings in a laboratory setting. Taken together, our results suggest that newcomer trust formation may be shaped by aspects of the work setting that have been heretofore ignored by trust scholars.

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 · 10.5465/amj.2016.0248

Cites

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?

  • Trust theorists argue that expectations of the other party's behaviour are informed by more than perceptions of the leader's past behaviour and that heuristic processes play a key role in trust formation.

    “However, trust theorists argue that these expectations are informed by more than perceptions of the leader's past behaviour and that heuristic processes play a key role in trust formation (Baer et al., 2018; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010).”

    From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as Baer et al., 2018

    The introduction (p. 4) says newcomers may form trust perceptions before they have gathered directly relevant evidence, and Study 1: Theory Development (pp. 8–10) describes heuristic models of trust formation alongside rational, history-based models. This supports the claim that trust expectations draw on more than past behaviour. The paper studies newcomers’ perceptions of organizations, however, and does not establish the claim specifically for perceptions of a leader’s past behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 96 · Cited by 69

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. 1992. Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 256-274.
  2. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1265-1281.
  3. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 267-285.
  4. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. 2007. Socialization in organizational contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 22: 1-70.
  5. Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G. W., & Van Der Velde, M. E. G. 2008. Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72: 143-158.
  6. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5: 323 -370.
  7. Bitner, M. J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56: 57-71.
  8. Bolino, M., Long, D., & Turnley, W. 2016. Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3: 377-406.
  9. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology: 73-96. New York: Guilford Press.
  10. Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. 2014. Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: A comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 599-618.
  11. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24: 285-290.
  12. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin , 110: 109-128.
  13. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
  14. Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. 2007. The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4: 181-224.
  15. Gardner, T. M. 2005. Interfirm competition for human resources: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 237-256.
  16. Garfinkel, H. 1963. A conception of, and experiments with 'trust' as a condition of concerted stable actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants: 187-238. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
  17. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  18. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27: 51-90.
  19. Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review , 34: 127-145.
  20. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23: 531-546.
  21. Kant, I. 1790/1952. The critique of judgment. Translation by J. C. Meredith. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  22. Klapper, A., Dotsch, R., Van Rooij, I., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. 2016. Do we spontaneously form stable trustworthiness impressions from facial appearance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111: 655-664.
  23. Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
  24. Lau, D. C., Lam, L. W., & Deutsch Salamon, S. 2008. The impact of relational demographics on perceived managerial trustworthiness: Similarity or norms? Journal of Social Psychology, 148: 187-208.
  25. Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly , 9: 370-390.
  26. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 114-139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  27. Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice: 56-88. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  28. Lo, S., & Aryee, S. 2003. Psychological contract breach in a Chinese context: An integrative approach. Journal of Management Studies , 40 : 1005-1020.
  29. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123-136.
  30. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.
  31. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 874-888.
  32. McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 38: 24-59.
  33. McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. 2002. The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14: 409-426.
  34. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23: 473-490.
  35. Miner-Rufino, K., & Reed, W. D. 2010. Testing a moderated mediational model of workgroup incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40: 3148-3168.
  36. Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. 2008. Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1367-1381.
  37. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review , 22: 226256.
  38. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology , 2: 175-220.
  39. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. 2013. Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64: 77-107.
  40. Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly , 41: 574-599.
  41. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 2000. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21: 525-546.
  42. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 245-259.
  43. Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1274-1294.
  44. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review , 32: 344-354.
  45. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1992. Caught in the act: When impressions based on highly diagnostic behaviours are resistant to contradiction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22: 435-452.
  46. Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning . Psychological Bulletin, 119: 3-22.
  47. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 40: 82-111.
  48. Whitener, E. M. 1997. The impact of human resource activities on employee trust. Human Resource Management Review , 7: 389-404.
  49. Williams, M. 2001. In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26: 377-396.

Authors
Baer, M. D., van der Werff, L., Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B., Zipay, K. P., & Buckley, F.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Dublin City University
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • Dublin City University (IE)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2018-10
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
1718-1740
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj.2016.0248
OpenAlex
W2605476767
Cited by
69
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
Keywords
organizational trust, perceived trustworthiness, new employees, learning behavior

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