Optimal trust? Uncertainty as a determinant and limit to trust in inter‐firm alliances
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study seeks to investigate a nonlinear relationship between the uncertainty associated with an economic exchange and trust. Design/methodology/approach This study uses data from 191 respondents representing middle and senior management in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in the USA and Canada to achieve the research purpose. Respondents completed a questionnaire designed to assess their firm's attitude towards their counterpart. A select number of executives were also interviewed. Measures were developed to assess inter‐firm trust, relational intensity and uncertainty. Findings The study showed that a certain amount of uncertainty is necessary for trust to emerge. Beyond some threshold, however, increases in uncertainty led to a reduction in trust. This midrange proposition suggests that there may be an optimal level of trust. Research limitations/implications First, the findings show that a focus on the structural aspects of exchange can yield additional understandings of trust. Current research has tended to focus overwhelmingly on relational determinants of trust. Second, the nonlinear relationship between uncertainty and trust should spur additional research on the conditions that lead to trust failure. Finally, the findings may provide a starting point for reconciling two opposing explanations of the governance of economic exchange, namely social exchange and transaction cost theory. The study had some limitations. First, the research used cross‐sectional data and took a snapshot measure of trust. Second, single informants were relied on as the main data source. However, steps were taken to reduce the harmful effects of relying on single informants to collect the data. Practical implications The study demonstrated that the structure of an exchange could be a limit to the creation of trust. This implies that actors should focus on both behaviors and the nature of the exchange itself to understand when trust is likely to emerge, and the conditions under which trust may fail. The study also suggests that actors should approach trust as one of strategic thinking. There are costs to creating trust and, unless it is determined that trust is important (reasonable levels of uncertainty), actors should not invest in trust creation. At the same time, beyond a certain level of uncertainty, it will be prudent to think of other control measures to reduce opportunism in an exchange relationship. Originality/value This study has shown that the structure of an exchange, specifically uncertainty, provides a useful conceptual link to trust. The present research bridged some of the gaps in the understanding of inter‐organizational trust by proposing and empirically testing a midrange hypothesis linking uncertainty and trust. The study also increases understanding of the structural limits to trust. This study may be one of the first to test this midrange hypothesis. The study may also provide groundwork for linking two opposing theories on the governance of exchange. Findings from this research should prove useful to management researchers and practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it