Abstract
Trust plays a pivotal role in many different contexts and thus has been investigated by researchers in a variety of disciplines. In this chapter, we provide a comprehensive overview of methodological approaches to investigating trust and its antecedents. We explain how quantitative methods may be used to measure expectations about a trustee or instances of communication about trust efficiently, and we explain how using qualitative measures may be beneficial to researching trust in less explored contexts and for further theory development. We further point out that mixed methods research (uniting both quantitative and qualitative approaches) may be able to grasp the full complexity of trust. Finally, we introduce how agent-based modeling may be used to simulate and predict complex trust relationships on different levels of analysis. We elaborate on challenges and advantages of all these different methodological approaches to researching trust and conclude with recommendations to guide trust researchers in their planning of future investigations on both situational trust and long-term developments of trust in different contexts, and we emphasize why we believe that such undertakings will benefit from interdisciplinary approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The concept of trust frames was previously developed for and applied in Engelke (2018). It is part of the larger concept of trust dimension frames, which additionally encompasses distrust frames and trust problem frames and also includes further actors than those discussed here, namely technologies as objects (see also Sect. 2.1.3) and social systems as both subjects and objects in trust, distrust, or trust problem relationships. The following section is therefore a brief and condensed summary of the more extensive and detailed development, description and application of the concept, which can be found in Engelke (2018).
- 3.
Entman (1993, p. 52) states that the problem definition “determine[s] what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits”, which demonstrates that the central aspect is not necessarily negative but can also be positive (see also Matthes 2007). While it would therefore be more precise to speak of the “central aspect definition,” we nevertheless use the established term “problem definition.”
References
Ashleigh, M. J., Higgs, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2012). A new propensity to trust scale and its relationship with individual well-being: Implications for HRM policies and practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12007.
Ashleigh, M. J., & Meyer, E. (2015). Deepening the understanding of trust: combining repertory grid and narrative to explore the uniqueness of trust. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 138–148). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932013.00023.
Ashleigh, M. J., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Trust and technologies: Implications for organizational work practices. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.018.
Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, & P. Terna (Eds.), Simulating social phenomena (pp. 21–40). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03366-1_2.
Bachmann, R. (2015). Utilising repertory grids in macro-level comparative studies. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 170–177). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547419.00025.
Barnoy, A., & Reich, Z. (2020). Trusting others: A pareto distribution of source and message credibility among news reporters. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220911814.
Bentele, G. (1994). Öffentliches Vertrauen - Normative und soziale Grundlage für Public Relations [Public trust - normative and social basis for public relations]. In W. Armbrecht & U. Zabel (Eds.), Normative Aspekte der Public Relations. Grundlegende Fragen und Perspektiven. Eine Einführung [Normative aspects of public relations. Fundamental questions and perspectives. An introduction] (pp. 131–158). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97043-5_7.
Bentele, G. (2008). Trust of publics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. London: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiect061.
Bentele, G., & Seidenglanz, R. (2008). Trust and credibility - Prerequisites for communication management. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research. European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 49–62). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90918-9_4.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027.
Blöbaum, B. (2014). Trust and journalism in a digital environment. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Working Papers. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Trust%20and%20Journalism%20in%20a%20Digital%20Environment_0.pdf
Blöbaum, B. (2016). Key factors in the process of trust. On the analysis of trust under digital conditions. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 3–25). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_1.
Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x.
Breban, S., & Vassileva, J. (2002, July). A coalition formation mechanism based on inter-agent trust relationships. In Association for Computing Machinery (Ed.), Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: Part 1 (pp. 306–307). New York: ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/544741.544812.
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., Hibben, F., & Hertel, G. (2020). Trust in teams: A taxonomy of perceived trustworthiness factors and risk-taking behaviors in face-to-face and virtual teams. Human Relations, 73(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718818721.
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Understanding qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bromme, R., & Gierth, L. (in press). Rationality and the public understanding of science. In M. Knauff & W. Spohn (Eds.), The handbook of rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.
Bruckes, M., Westmattelmann, D., Oldeweme, A., & Schewe, G. (2019). Determinants and barriers of adopting robo-advisory services. In International conference on information systems (ICIS 2019). Munich: AIS eLibrary.
Burns, C., & Conchie, S. (2012). Measuring implicit trust and automatic attitude activation. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 239–248). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932013.00032.
Chang, J. H.-Y., Yang, H., Yeh, K.-H., & Hsu, S.-C. (2016). Develo** trust in close personal relationships: Ethnic Chinese’s experiences. Journal of Trust Research, 6(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1207543.
Coe, K., & Scacco, J. M. (2017). Content analysis, quantitative. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 346–356). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0045.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85–116.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre.
Diekmann, A., & Przepiorka, W. (2005, August). The evolution of trust and reputation: Results from simulation experiments. Third ESSA Conference, Koblenz, Germany. Retrieved from https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/exp/papers/0508/0508005.pdf
Distel, B. (2018). Bringing light into the shadows: A qualitative interview study on citizens’ non-adoption of e-government. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 16(2), 98–105.
Distel, B. (2020). Assessing citizens’ non-adoption of public e-services in Germany. Information Polity, 2020, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-190214.
Distel, B., Koelmann, H., Schmolke, F., & Becker, J. (2021). The role of trust for users’ adoption of public e-services. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Empirical results and implications (p. XX). Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [Research methods and evaluation in the social sciences and humanities]. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5.
Dreiskämper, D., Pöppel, K., & Strauß, B. (2016). Vertrauen ist gut: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Inventars zur Messung von Vertrauenswürdigkeit im Sport [Trust is good: Development and validation of an inventory to measure trustworthiness in sports]. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1026/1612-5010/a000156.
Endreß, M. (2002). Vertrauen [Trust]. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839400784.
Engelke, K. M. (2018). Die journalistische Darstellung von Vertrauen, Misstrauen und Vertrauensproblemen im Kontext der Digitalisierung. Theoretische Entwicklung und empirische Erfassung von Vertrauensdimensions-Frames [The media’s depiction of trust, distrust, and trust problems within the context of digitalization. Theoretical development and empirical analysis of trust dimension frames]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845291857.
Engelke, K. M., Hase, V., & Wintterlin, F. (2019). On measuring trust and distrust in journalism: Reflection of the status quo and suggestions for the road ahead. Journal of Trust Research, 9(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1588741.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the white house’s frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390244176.
Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199905/06)4:5<41::AID-CPLX9>3.0.CO;2-F.
Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., & Fainshmidt, S. (2013). Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3(2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2013.820026.
Fuchs, G. (2012). Lost youth? Attitudes towards and experiences with e-government: The case of German university students. In M. Gasco (Ed.), 12th european conference on e-government (ECEG 2012) (pp. 251–258). Barcelona: Academic Conferences Ltd..
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shop**: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gierth, L., & Bromme, R. (2020). Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 29(2), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519889275.
Glanz, J. M., Wagner, N. M., Narwaney, K. J., Shoup, J. A., McClure, D. L., McCormick, E. V., & Daley, M. F. (2013). A mixed methods study of parental vaccine decision making and parent-provider trust. Academic Pediatrics, 13(5), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.05.030.
Grünberg, P., Muxfeldt, C. H., Eichmann, S., Weber, F., Müller, M., & Wecker, M. (2015). Die Causa Wulff - eine Vertrauensanalyse der Medienberichterstattung und des Social Media Diskurses [The Wulff affair - A trust analysis of the news coverage and social media discourse]. In R. Fröhlich & T. Koch (Eds.), Politik - PR - Persuasion. Strukturen, Funktionen und Wirkungen politischer Öffentlichkeitsarbeit [Politics - PR - Persuasion. Structures, functions and effects of political public relations] (pp. 285–303). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01683-8_14.
Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 22–36). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.51-2973.
Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016a). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 239–251). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016b). Evoking vigilance: Would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog? Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 992–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516646048.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change (Vol. 19). Yale: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087772.
Jalali, M. S., Bruckes, M., Westmattelmann, D., & Schewe, G. (2020). Why employees (still) click on phishing links: Investigation in hospitals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(1), e16775. https://doi.org/10.2196/16775.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518185.
Jucks, R., Linnemann, G. A., Thon, F. M., & Zimmermann, M. (2016). Trust the words: Insights into the role of language in trust building in a digitalized world. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 225–237). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_13.
Kim, W. S. (2009). Effects of a trust mechanism on complex adaptive supply networks: An agent-based social simulation study. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(3), 4. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.1756.
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315787817.
Kohring, M. (2004). Vertrauen in Journalismus [Trust in journalism]. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071.
König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903.
Kruglanski, A. W., Raviv, A. A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A. A., Sharvit, K., Ellis, S., & Mannetti, L. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 345–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37006-7.
Kukartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren [Mixed methods, methodology, research designs, and analytical methods]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93267-5.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.
Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., Riffe, D., & Lovejoy, J. (2015). Issues and best practices in content analysis. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015607338.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32(6), 991–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294405.
Li, F., Pieńkowski, D., van Moorsel, A., & Smith, C. (2012). A holistic framework for trust in online transactions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00311.x.
Li, X., Zhou, F., & Yang, X. (2011). A multi-dimensional trust evaluation model for large-scale P2P computing. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 71(6), 837–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2011.01.007.
Lyon, F. (2015). Access and non-probability sampling in qualitative research on trust. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 109–117). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932013.00017.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. N. K. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of research methods on trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547419.
Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2009). Agent-based modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference (WSC) (pp. 86–98). Austin: IEEE.
Mast, C. (2018). ABC des Journalismus [ABC of journalism]. Cologne: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Matthes, J. (2007). Framing-Effekte. Zum Einfluss der Politikberichterstattung auf die Einstellungen der Rezipienten [Framing-effects. The influence of news coverage of politics on recipients’ attitudes]. München: Reinhard Fischer Verlag.
Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communications journals, 1990-2005. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600206.
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x.
Maximilien, E. M., & Singh, M. P. (2005, July). Agent-based trust model involving multiple qualities. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 519–526). Utrecht: ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/1082473.1082552.
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(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 20.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266–270). London: Sage.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: Foundations and techniques] (12th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1), 23–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.552424.
McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 2(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353.
Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. (2008). Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1506–1520.
Meijer, S., & Verwaart, T. (2005, June). Feasibility of multi-agent simulation for the trust and tracing game. In International conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems (pp. 145–154). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11504894_22.
Merk, S., & Rosman, T. (2019). Smart but evil? Student-teachers’ perception of educational researchers’ epistemic trustworthiness. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419868158.
Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2014). Trust into collective privacy? The role of subjective theories for self-disclosure in online communication. Societies, 4(4), 770–784. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4040770.
Muethel, M. (2012). Mixed method applications in trust research: Simultaneous hybrid data collection in cross-cultural settings using the board game method. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 121–129). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857932013.00021.
Nooteboom, B. (2015). Agent-based simulation of trust. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 65–74). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547419.00014.
Öksüz, A., Walter, N., Distel, B., Räckers, M., & Becker, J. (2016). Trust in the information systems discipline. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 205–223). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_1.
Oldeweme, A., Märtins, J., Westmattelmann, D., & Schewe, G. (2021). The role of transparency, trust, and social influence on uncertainty reduction in times of pandemics: Empirical study on the adoption of COVID-19 tracing apps. Journal of medical Internet research, 23(2),e25893.
Pahl-Wostl, C., & Ebenhöh, E. (2004). Heuristics to characterise human behaviour in agent based models. In Proceedings of iEMSs 2004 International Congress: “Complexity and Integrated Resources Management”.Osnabrück, Germany. Retrieved from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/HeuristicsHumanBehaviorABM.PahlWostlEbenhoh2004.pdf
Ponte, E. B., Carvajal-Trujillo, E., & Escobar-Rodríguez, T. (2015). Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel online: Integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tourism Management, 47, 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.009.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
Rand, W., & Rust, R. T. (2011). Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.04.002.
Reif, A. (2021). Mehr Raum für Vertrauen? Potenzielle Veränderungen des Vertrauens in Wissenschaft durch partizipative Onlineumgebungen [More space for trust? Potential changes of trust in science through participatory online environments]. In T. Döbler, C. Pentzold, & C. Katzenbach (Eds.), Räume digitaler Kommunikation [Spaces of digital communication] (pp. 210–243). Köln: Herbert von Halem.
Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410114.
Romeike, P. D., Nienaber, A. M., & Schewe, G. (2016). How differences in perceptions of own and team performance impact trust and job satisfaction in virtual teams. Human Performance, 29(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1165226.
Rompf, S. A. (2015). Trust and rationality. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07327-5.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Saunders, M. N., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Researching sensitively without sensitizing: Using a card sort in a concurrent mixed method design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.334.
Scharkow, M. (2017). Content analysis, automatic. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 324–338). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0043.
Schiemann, S. J., Mühlberger, C., Schoorman, F. D., & Jonas, E. (2019). Trust me, I am a caring coach: The benefits of establishing trustworthiness during coaching by communicating benevolence. Journal of Trust Research, 9(2), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751.
Schoorman, F. D., Wood, M. M., & Breuer, C. (2015). Would trust by any other name smell as sweet? Reflections on the meanings and uses of trust across disciplines and context. In B. Bornstein & A. Tomkins (Eds.), Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority (pp. 13–35). New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_2.
Schwarzenegger, C. (2020). Personal epistemologies of the media: Selective criticality, pragmatic trust, and competence–confidence in navigating media repertoires in the digital age. New Media & Society, 22(2), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856919.
Seiffert, J., Bentele, G., & Mende, L. (2011). An explorative study on discrepancies in communication and action of German companies. Journal of Communication Management, 15(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541111183389.
Smith, C. T., De Houwer, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472374.
Sutcliffe, A., & Wang, D. (2012). Computational modelling of trust and social relationships. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.1912.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2015). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 1–42). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n1.
Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (2014). Regulating privacy in interpersonal online communication: The role of self-disclosure. Studies in Communication Sciences, 14(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2014.03.012.
Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (2017). Believing in expertise: How authors’ credentials and language use influence the credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 32(7), 828–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1172296.
Tykhonov, D., Jonker, C. M., Meijer, S. A., & Verwaart, D. (2008). Agent-based simulation of the trust and tracing game for supply chains and networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(3), 1–30.
Vallentin, S., & Thygesen, N. (2017). Trust and control in public sector reform: Complementarity and beyond. Journal of Trust Research, 7(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1354766.
Walker, V. R. (1990). The siren songs of science: Toward a taxonomy of scientific uncertainty for decision makers. Connecticut Law Review, 23, 567–627.
Wei, T. T., Marthandan, G., Chong, A. Y. L., Ooi, K. B., & Arumugam, S. (2009). What drives Malaysian m-commerce adoption? An empirical analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(3), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910939399.
Westmattelmann, D., Sprenger, M., Hokamp, S., & Schewe, G. (2020). Money matters: The impact of prize money on do** behaviour. Sport Management Review, 23(4), 688–703.
Westphal, S., & Blöbaum, B. (2016). Trust as an action: About the overrated significance of trust in information sources in a digitized world. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world. Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 113–124). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_6.
Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wintterlin, F. (2019). Quelle: Internet. Journalistisches Vertrauen bei der Recherche in sozialen Medien [Source: Internet. Journalists‘ trust when researching in social media]. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845295121.
Wintterlin, F., Engelke, K., & Hase, V. (2020). Can transparency preserve journalism’s trustworthiness? Recipients’ views on transparency about source origin and verification regarding user-generated content in the news. Studies in Communication and Media, 9(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2020-2-218.
Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103257362.
Zachariat, S. (2018). Managing trust across levels-empirical propositions for banks [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Münster]. https://d-nb.info/1176629352/34
Zamith, R., & Lewis, S. C. (2015). Content analysis and the algorithmic coder: What computational social science means for traditional modes of media analysis. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215570576.
Zimmermann, M., & Jucks, R. (2018). How experts’ use of medical technical jargon in different types of online health forums affects perceived information credibility: Randomized experiment with laypersons. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(1), e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8346.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hendriks, F., Distel, B., Engelke, K.M., Westmattelmann, D., Wintterlin, F. (2021). Methodological and Practical Challenges of Interdisciplinary Trust Research. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72945-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72945-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72944-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72945-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)