Effects of Cognition-based and Affect-based Trust Attitudes on Trust Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite decades of research on trust in the workplace, researchers continue to struggle with fundamental questions regarding the conceptualization and measurement of organizational trust. To help clarify this construct, we revisit established trust definitions (Mayer et al. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734, Mayer et al., Academy of Management Review 20:709–734, 1995; Rousseau et al. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 393–404, Rousseau et al., Academy of Management Review 23:393–404, 1998) and distinguish trust attitudes (i.e., positive expectations of others) from trust intentions (i.e., the willingness to be vulnerable). Using a three-study experimental design, we examined the causal effect of two distinct trust attitudes (i.e., cognition-based and affect-based) on two trust intentions (i.e., reliance and disclosure). We found that when cognition-based trust was high, participants were more willing to rely on a colleague (i.e., had higher reliance intentions). When affect-based trust was high, participants were more willing to share sensitive information with that colleague (i.e., higher disclosure intentions) and more willing to rely on a colleague (i.e., higher reliance intentions). We also examined the effect of mixed trust attitudes (i.e., feelings of low (vs. high) cognition-based trust paired with high (vs. low) affect-based trust). We found that, for reliance intentions, for the most part, high affect-based trust could be substituted with high cognition-based trust. Conversely, for disclosure intentions, high cognition-based trust could not substitute for high affect-based trust. The observed patterns indicate that affect-based and cognition-based attitudes are related yet distinct, with differential patterns of prediction with reliance and disclosure intentions. Our findings also underscore the importance of affect-based trust. By nurturing strong interpersonal bonds among employees, organizations can improve communication and collaboration, critical elements for organizational effectiveness.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".