Social Exchange and Behavioral Interdependence

Scanzoni, John

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-143550-9.50009-4

Cited by 219 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers refer to the possibility of negative consequences as risk (Coleman, 1990;Giffin, 1967;Johnson-George & Swap, 1982;Luhmann, 1991;Riker, 1971;Scanzoni, 1979;Shapiro, 1987a;Swinth, 1967), while others describe it as uncertainty (Deutsch, 1973;Gambetta, 1988;Schlenker, Helm & Tedeschi, 1973) .…”

Section: Section 1: a Typology Of Trust-related Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of researchers refer to trust as a dependence (Atwater, 1988;Dobing, 1993;Lewis & Weigert, 1985b;Scanzoni, 1979) or reliance (Giffin, 1967;Good, 1988;McGregor, 1967;Ring & Van de Ven, 1994) upon others. If one is not required to depend on the other, one does not need to trust the other.…”

Section: Section 1: a Typology Of Trust-related Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of trust fits this definition of homonymy. Trust has been defined as: a behavior (e.g., Zand, 1972); an attitude (Kegan & Rubenstein, 1973); a confidence (Cohen, 1966); an expectancy (Rotter, 1980;Scanzoni, 1979); a belief or set of beliefs (Barber, 1983;Rotter, 1967); a dispositional variable (Rosenberg, 1957;Rotter, 1967Rotter, , 1980; a situational variable (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982); a structural variable (Fox, 1974;Lewis & Weigert, 1985a,b): a social agency relationship variable (Shapiro, 1987a); and, an interpersonal variable (Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985). Some have discussed and described trust and its effects without specifically defining it (Granovetter, 1985).…”

Section: Problem 1--conceptual Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships

McKnight

Cummings

Chervany

1998

AMR

2,291

1,413

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Trust is a key enabler of cooperative human actions. Three main deficiencies about our current knowledge of trust are addressed by this paper. First, due to widely divergent conceptual definitions of trust, the literature on trust is in a state of construct confusion. Second, too little is understood about how trust forms and on what trust is based. Third, little has been discussed about the role of emotion in trust formation.To address the first deficiency, this paper develops a typology of trust. The rest of the paper addresses the second and third deficiencies by proposing a model of how trust is initially formed, including the role of emotion. Dispositional, interpersonal, and impersonal (system) trust are integrated in the model. The paper also clarifies the cognitive and emotional bases on which interpersonal trust is formed in early relationships. The implications of the model are drawn for future research.

show abstract

Section: Section 1: a Typology Of Trust-related Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Section 1: a Typology Of Trust-related Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem 1--conceptual Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships

McKnight

Cummings

Chervany

1998

AMR

2,291

1,413

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dwyer et al (1987) have published probably the most comprehensive framework of the development of trust in business relationships. Their framework, which draws from Scanzoni (1979), suggests that these relationships evolve through the following five general phases: (1) awareness, (2) exploration, (3) expansion, (4) commitment, and (5) dissolution. Each phase involves different types and levels of interaction, each having implications for the establishment of expectations, direct experiences, and interdependence.…”

Section: Review Of Trust Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Consumers' trust of salesperson and manufacturer: an empirical study

Kennedy¹,

Ferrell

LeClair

2001

Journal of Business Research

296

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A positive model of consumers' trust of salesperson and manufacturer is developed which provides suggestions for improving relationships and increasing buyer ± seller trust. The findings indicate that buyer ± seller trust results from salesperson competence, lowpressure selling tactics, service quality, manufacturer ethical concern, and a general tendency to trust others. Product familiarity acts to decrease the overall trust of the salesperson. Manufacturer trust is fostered by satisfaction with the ownership experience, through the antecedents of satisfaction (salesperson competence, low-pressure selling tactics, product quality, and manufacturer ethical concern), and a general tendency to trust others. Global managerial implications and directions for future research are provided. D

show abstract

“…Participants in exchange who trust one another reportedly may obtain a variety of performance related benefits including: (1) eliminated duplication of activities (Scanzoni 1979), (2) system and transaction savings (Ouchi 1980;Dore 1983;Noordewier et al 1990;Sako 1992), (3) enhanced adaptability (Zand 1972), (4) lower opportunism (Rindfleisch and Moorman 2003); (5) greater commitment, cooperation, collaboration, interaction, integrative bargaining, loyalty (and less propensity to switch), relationalism, satisfaction, and anticipated long-term interaction (Agustin and Singh 2005;Anderson and Weitz 1989;Cannon and Perreault 1999;Chiou and Droge 2006;Doney and Cannon 1997;Ganesan 1994;Grayson et al 2008;Jap and Anderson 2003;Morgan and Hunt 1994;Palmatier et al 2008), (6) a greater willingness to explore opportunities and implement decisions (Golembiewski and McConkie 1975), (7) a share of a customer's purchases (Ahearne et al 2007), service usage (Maltz and Kohli 1996) and sales performance overall (Palmatier et al 2008). Together, this and other research suggests that trust can enhance relationship quality and facilitate performance in exchange.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Trust but verify”? The performance implications of verification strategies in trusting relationships

Gundlach

Cannon

2009

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable extant research demonstrates the benefits of trust in buyer-seller relationships. More recent research points out downsides of the vulnerability inherent with trust. Recognizing this dilemma of trust, partners may offset the vulnerability of trust with verification strategiesefforts to produce information relevant to the exchange relationship. This research examines the use of three types of verification strategies-monitoring, assurances, and corroboration-which may be employed to safeguard against the vulnerability of trust. When control mechanisms like trust and information are combined, they may complement one another and enhance performance or function as substitutes, be redundant or compete, and consequently detract from performance. Emerging theory on combined modes of governance provides insights. We draw on this theory and develop hypotheses proposing that combinations of trust and verification may enhance or detract exchange performance-depending on the specific verification strategy. The hypotheses are tested on a sample of 230 buyer-supplier relationships. Results of the research provide some support for the proposed relationships and yield implications for the management of cooperative exchange relationships.

show abstract

Social Exchange and Behavioral Interdependence

Cited by 219 publications

References 13 publications

Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships

Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships

Consumers' trust of salesperson and manufacturer: an empirical study

“Trust but verify”? The performance implications of verification strategies in trusting relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About