Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams
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
Although trust has received much attention in many streams of information systems research, there has been little theorizing to explain how trust evokes sentiments and affects task performance in IT-enabled relationships. Many studies unquestionably assume that trust is intrinsically beneficial, and dismiss the possibility that the effects of trust may be dependent on the situation (or conditions) at present. This paper theoretically and empirically examines outcomes of an individual's trust in global virtual teams under differing situations (or conditions). In Study 1, we find that early in a team's existence, a member's trusting beliefs have a direct positive effect on his or her trust in the team and perceptions of team cohesiveness. Later on, however, a member's trust in his team operates as a moderator, indirectly affecting the relationships between team communication and perceptual outcomes. Study 2 similarly suggests that trust effects are sensitive to the particular situation or condition. Combined, the studies find that trust affects virtual teams differently in different situations. Future studies on trust will need to consider situational contingencies. This paper contributes to the literature on IT-enabled relationships by theorizing and empirically testing how trust affects attitudes and behaviors.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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