CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trust and distrust in information systems at the workplace

Thielsch, Meinald T., Meeßen, Sarah M., Hertel, Guido·2018·PeerJ
DOI 10.7717/peerj.5483PMC PMC6139009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Digitalization of work processes is advancing, and this is increasingly supported by complex information systems (IS). However, whether such systems are used by employees largely depends on users’ trust in these IS. Because there are few systematic studies on this topic, this research provides an initial exploration and validation of preconditions for trust in work-related IS. In Study 1, N = 30 professionals were asked to describe occupational incidents in which they had highly trusted or distrusted an IS. Content analysis of 111 critical incidents described in the in-depth interviews led to 12 predictors of trust and distrust in IS, which partly correspond to the structure of the established IS success model (Delone & McLean, 2003) but also exceed this structure. The resulting integrative model of trust in IS at work was validated in Study 2 using an online questionnaire with N = 179 professionals. Based on regression analyses, reliability (system quality) and credibility (information quality) of IS were identified as the most important predictors for both trust and distrust in IS at work. Contrasting analyses revealed diverging qualities of trust and distrust in IS : whereas well-being and performance were rated higher in trust events, experienced strain was rated higher in distrust events. Together, this study offers a first comprehensive model of trust in IS at work based on systematic empirical research. In addition to implications for theory advancement, we suggest practical implications for how to support trust and to avoid distrust in IS at work.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.5483

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Appelman, 2016, Measuring message credibility: construction and validation of an exclusive scale, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 59, 10.1177/1077699015606057 · DOI
  2. Aral, 2012, Information, technology, and information worker productivity, Information Systems Research, 23, 849, 10.1287/isre.1110.0408 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Avolio, 2014, E-leadership: re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 105, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Baroudi, 1988, A short-form measure of user information satisfaction: a psychometric evaluation and notes on use, Journal of Management Information Systems, 4, 44, 10.1080/07421222.1988.11517807 · DOI
  5. Butler, 2006, Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems, MIS Quaterly, 30, 211, 10.2307/25148728 · DOI
  6. Cheung, 2006, Understanding consumer trust in Internet shopping: a multidisciplinary approach, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 479, 10.1002/asi.20312 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cigularov, 2010, The effects of error management climate and safety communication on safety: a multi-level study, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1498, 10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.003 · DOI
  8. Cohen, 1960, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37, 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  9. De Wulf, 2006, The role of pleasure in web site success, Information & Management, 43, 434, 10.1016/j.im.2005.10.005 · DOI
  10. DeLone, 1992, Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research, 3, 60, 10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Eisenberger, 2001, Reciprocation of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42, 10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Etezadi-Amoli, 1996, A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance, Information & Management, 30, 65, 10.1016/0378-7206(95)00052-6 · DOI
  13. Flanagan, 1954, The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327, 10.1037/h0061470 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Frink, 1998, Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process, Human relations, 51, 1259, 10.1023/A:1016938030748 · DOI
  15. Gefen, 2008, A research agenda for trust in online environments, Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 275, 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240411 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gefen, 1998, The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness and ease of use: an extension of the technology acceptance model, ACM SIGMIS Database, 29, 35, 10.1145/298752.298757 · DOI
  17. Hartwick, 1994, Explaining the role of user participation in information system use, Management Science, 40, 440, 10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hertel, 2004, Managing distance by interdependence: goal settingm task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1, 10.1080/13594320344000228 · DOI
  19. 2017, The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of the internet at work
  20. Hou, 2012, Examining the effect of user satisfaction on system usage and individual performance with business intelligence systems: an empirical study of Taiwan’s electronics industry, International Journal of Information Management, 32, 560, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.03.001 · DOI
  21. Jäger, 2004, Konstruktion einer Ratingskala mit Smilies als symbolische Marken, Diagnostica, 50, 31, 10.1026/0012-1924.50.1.31 · DOI
  22. Jarvenpaa, 2017, Trust in virtual online environments, 103, 10.1002/9781119256151.ch6 · DOI
  23. Leidner, 2006, Review: a review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict, MIS Quarterly, 30, 357, 10.2307/25148735 · DOI
  24. Li, 2008, Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 39, 10.1016/j.jsis.2008.01.001 · DOI
  25. Mayer, 1995, An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management, 20, 709, 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Mayring, 2000, Qualitative content analysis, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1, 10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089 · DOI
  27. McKnight, 2002, Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology, Information Systems Research, 13, 334, 10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Metzger, 2007, Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078, 10.1002/asi · DOI
  29. Mitchell, 2017, Track how technology is transforming work, Nature, 544, 290, 10.1038/544290a · DOI
  30. Moore, 1991, Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation, Information Systems Research, 2, 192, 10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nathans, 2012, Interpreting multiple linear regression: a guidebook of variable importance, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17, 1, 10.3102/00346543074004525 · DOI
  32. Neyer, 2012, Development and validation of a brief measure of technology commitment, Diagnostica, 58, 87, 10.1026/0012-1924/a000067 · DOI
  33. Palmer, 2002, Web site usability, design, and performance metrics, Information Systems Research, 13, 151, 10.1287/isre.13.2.151.88 · DOI
  34. Porter, 2014, How smart, connected products are transforming competition, Harvard Business Review, 92, 64, 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 · DOI
  35. Rivard, 1997, Development of a measure to assess the quality of user-developed applications, ACM SIGMIS Database, 28, 44, 10.1145/272657.272690 · DOI
  36. Sauser, 2009, Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights—a comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars climate orbiter loss, International Journal of Project Management, 27, 665, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004 · DOI
  37. Schulze, 2017, The ‘virtual team player’: a review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration, Organizational Psychology Review, 7, 66, 10.1177/2041386616675522 · DOI
  38. Seckler, 2015, Trust and distrust on the web: user experiences and website characteristics, Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 39, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.064 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Shankar, 2002, Online trust: a stakeholder perspective, concepts, implications, and future directions, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 325, 10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00022-7 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Silic, 2018, Evaluating the role of trust in adoption: a conceptual replication in the context of open source systems, AIS Transactions on Replication Research, 4, 1, 10.17705/1atrr.00021 · DOI
  41. Sillence, 2007, How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?, Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1853, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.012 · DOI
  42. Stanton, 2001, A general measure of work stress: the stress in general scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 866, 10.1177/00131640121971455 · DOI
  43. Thatcher, 2011, The role of trust in postadoption IT exploration: an empirical examination of knowledge management systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58, 56, 10.1109/TEM.2009.2028320 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Thielsch, Facets of website content, Human-Computer Interaction, 10.1080/07370024.2017.1421954 · DOI
  45. Thüring, 2007, Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human—technology interaction, International Journal of Psychology, 42, 253, 10.1080/00207590701396674 · DOI
  46. Waldrop, 2016, The chips are down for Moore’s law, Nature, 530, 144, 10.1038/530144a · DOI · Paper page
  47. Wang, 2005, An overview of online trust: concepts, elements, and implications, Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105, 10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.008 · DOI
  48. Wathen, 2002, Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Information and Operations Management, 53, 134, 10.1002/asi.10016 · DOI
  49. Wenzel, 2018, The double-edged sword of big data in organizational and management research, Organizational Research Methods, 21, 548, 10.1177/1094428117718627 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Thielsch, M. T., Meeßen, S. M., & Hertel, G.
Affiliations
Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2018-09-12
Volume
6
Pages
e5483
ISSN
2167-8359
DOI
10.7717/peerj.5483
PMC
PMC6139009
Cited by
80
References
11
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (He 2745/16-1)

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