Mutual and Exclusive: Dyadic Sources of Trust in Interorganizational Exchange
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
Trust in interfirm exchange has traditionally been treated as mutually held and jointly determined by the two parties in a relationship. Yet, the expectations of exchange partners can, and routinely do, differ with respect to the goals, preferences, and vulnerabilities in their shared relationship. To account for such differences in expectations, we propose a broadened conceptualization of the sources of interorganizational trust as dyadic. Viewing the sources of trust as dyadic expands the conventional focus on mutual elements to further emphasize exclusive features of an exchange relationship. To substantiate our theory, we examine a key source of interorganizational trust, exchange hazards, and assess the extent to which its effects vary as a function of (1) the locus of exchange hazards (own versus other) in the dyad, (2) the degree of power imbalance in the dyad, and (3) each party’s power position in the dyad. To assess the validity of our claims, we devise a matched dyad research design and collect identical information from both buyers and suppliers in a given exchange relationship. Based on our results, we make three unique observations consistent with the notion of dyadic sources of trust. First, the same exchange hazards have contrasting effects on trust (enhancing versus diminishing) across the dyad. Second, the degree of power imbalance has opposing effects across the dyad. Third, the relative significance of partners’ exchange hazards varies based on their respective power positions. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1102
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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