Effects of national culture on trust development : a study of Canadian and Japanese business students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trust represents an important issue in the study of business alliances, especially cross-border alliances. Difficulties in monitoring, differences in national legal systems, and geographic limits on jurisdiction often require significant ex-ante trust in potential international joint venture (IJV) partners. The attributes of each partner's cultural context as well as the cultural differences between partners may facilitate or impede the formation of trust in IJVs. However, little work has examined the role of culture in the nature and development of trust across borders. Comparing samples of Canadian and Japanese business students, this study investigates whether national culture matters in assessing trustworthiness and determining appropriate levels of behavioral trust. The study follows a fractional factorial design, using 48 different vignettes to manipulate eight different contextual factors (trustee characteristics and IJV contingencies). The results suggest that at least two dimensions of culture, individualism/collectivism and umversalism/particularism, do matter in trust development. Initial analyses indicate that while formal mechanisms (e.g., contracts) play an important role in Canada, where they increase the perceived predictability, integrity and trust in potential partners, neither formal nor informal mechanisms (e.g., the number of relationship linkages between the trustor and trustee) change the assessments of trustworthiness or the levels of trust in Japan. Follow-up analyses, however, indicate that the specific type of relationships is important for assessing trustworthiness in Japan. Furthermore, integrity and benevolence play distinctly different roles: Canadian trustors place most emphasis on integrity whereas Japanese trustors place most emphasis on benevolence. Moreover, integrity has a greater impact on perceptions of intent to be trustworthy in Canada than Japan, and benevolence has a greater impact on perceptions of intent to be trustworthy in Japan than in Canada. These findings suggest that cognitive trust-building mechanisms are more prominent in Canada while affective mechanisms are more prominent in Japan.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".