A Sociocognitive View of Repeated Interfirm Exchanges: How the Coevolution of Trust and Learning Impacts Subsequent Contracts

Weber, Libby

doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1139

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mayer and Argyres 2004). A particularly interesting aspect stressed in the literature is the role of contract framing (Weber and Mayer 2011) and its connection to learning effects in IORs (Weber 2017). Future research should consider potential asymmetries between a buyer and a supplier in terms of learning effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-organizational governance: a review, conceptualisation and extension

Roehrich

Selviaridis

Kalra

et al. 2019

Production Planning & Control

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the concepts of relational and contractual governance in inter-organizational relationships have attracted academic and practitioner interest over the last decades, to date there have been limited comprehensive and systematic efforts to review, analyse and synthesise extant literature. We review and analyse 1,415 publications identified from a wide range of management disciplines and journals from 1990 to 2018. We deploy bibliographic and content analyses to offer a comprehensive literature analyses and synthesis and subsequently develop and position a multidimensional framework of exchange governance. The proposed framework covers existing conceptualisations of exchange governance and its diverse mechanisms, environmental dimensions influencing the use of exchange governance mechanisms and performance implications. We uncover areas that are currently under-studied and draw out fruitful future research avenues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-organizational governance: a review, conceptualisation and extension

Roehrich

Selviaridis

Kalra

et al. 2019

Production Planning & Control

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future studies can measure trust development when contracts are instituted following unexpected negative events. Additionally, explanations for unexpected negative behavior (e.g., Kim, Dirks, & Cooper, 2009;Kramer & Lewicki, 2010) and different types of apologies can influence attributions and therefore trust repair under prevention versus promotion contracts (Weber, 2017). As such, a natural extension of the current studies would be to provide opportunities for participants to offer explanations or apologies and measure trust in subsequent exchanges.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cognitive and Behavioral Impact of Promotion and Prevention Contracts on Trust in Repeated Exchanges

Bauman

2019

AMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although contracts certainly facilitate exchange, scholars debate whether contracts and trust are complements or substitutes. Recent theoretical work suggests that contract frames influence the relationship between contracts and trust. We test and extend this theorizing by examining the effects of prevention and promotion contract frames on trust and some potential cognitive and emotional mechanisms responsible for them. We also explore how unexpected negative events affect trust developed under different contract frames. Experiment 1 found that promotion contracts fostered stronger attributions of benevolence than prevention contracts, but emotional experiences of the exchanges did not differ. Additionally, trusting intentions were higher following positive exchange experience under promotion than prevention contracts. Experiment 2 found that people were more willing to engage in trusting behavior following positive exchange experience under promotion than prevention contracts. However, violations of exchange expectations were more damaging to trust developed under promotion than prevention contracts. Together, the studies indicate that contract frames and whether exchange experiences are positive or negative affect the relationship between contracts and trust, likely because contract frames influence attributions of benevolence.

show abstract

“…This evolution of trust has been conceptualised as an ongoing sensemaking and learning process, where an actor interprets another actor's behaviour and makes attributions about the reasons for the observed behaviour (Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). Then, if they believe it is warranted, they adjust the extent to which they trust the other actor and revise the nature of the subsequent interaction (Inkpen & Currall, 2004;Weber, 2017). Over time, then, trust can exhibit upward or downward spirals depending on observed cues (Jones & George, 1998).…”

Section: Trust Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In larger organizations, where partnership development is more bureaucratized and distributed, the relevance of affect-based trust and relational governance may be lower. Indeed, a recent conceptualization of the evolution of inter-organizational trust focuses on competence and integrity as dimensions of trust and ignores affect (Weber, 2017). Accordingly, the propensity to protect goodwill may not exist to the same extent in larger enterprises where authority regarding partnerships is more diluted.…”

Section: Boundary Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%