Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Trust is among the main empowerment accelerators for states (Castells, 2009, p. 16), organizations, and individuals and it is an essential factor for interactions and collaborations in community (Flavián et al., 2006). Trust is also among the main influencing factors on people’s intention to use the e-government services (Carter & Bélanger, 2005). However, the concept of trust is “elusive” and “fleeting” (Haukkala et al., 2015, p. 3), “confusing” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Shapiro, 1987) and “vague” (McKnight & Chervany, 2000). Thus, the concept of trust remains “abstract” and “complex,” which makes defining it and its building blocks challenging (Wang & Emurian, 2005, p. 107). Even within specific fields of research, there is not a unique definition of trust. Therefore, the definition of trust is very context-related or “situation-specific” (Frank, 1988; Seckler et al., 2015).
Trust is defined differently in various disciplines. For example, in psychology, trust is defined as the “reliance upon the characteristics of an object, or the occurrence of an event, or the behavior of a person in order to achieve a desired but uncertain objective in a risky situation” (Giffin, 1967, p. 105). While in philosophy, trust is “accepted vulnerability to another's possible but not expected ill will (or lack of good will) toward one” (Baier, 1986, p. 235). Alternatively, in sociology, trust is termed as “a property of collective units” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 968). For the purposes of this study, we use the noted sociological definition of trust. In this regard, based on the level of social interactions of actors, their trust behavior gradually evolves from “mistrust” to “trusting,” (Magrath & Hardy, 1989, p. 385). This conception of trust is relational, and it is “applicable” to all levels of interactions of actors (people, institutions and systems) in society (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 968).
Within the field of trust research, it is generally agreed that trust is a “multi-dimensional” construct (Chen & Dhillon, 2003; Flavián et al., 2006; Casaló et al., 2007; Casaló & Cisneros, 2008). However, there is not a consensus on the dimensions of trust (Wang & Emurian, 2005). Some researchers believe that trust is composed of three elements: “benevolence,” “honesty,” and “competence” (e.g., Chen & Dhillon, 2003; Casaló et al., 2007; Casaló & Cisneros, 2008; Flavián et al., 2006). Some others point out that specific beliefs of “integrity,” “ability,” and “benevolence” are precedents for general trust (Gefen, 2002). In addition, many researchers have considered the conceptualization of trust. For example, Blomqvist’s research shows that common synonyms of trust are “competence,” “credibility,” “confidence,” “faith,” “hope,” “loyalty,” and “reliance” (Blomqvist, 1997, p. 279) and finally, Hardin defines trust as a “three-part relationships: person A trusts person B to do X” (Hardin, 2004, p.6).