Small Group Research

Volume 39 Number 6
December 2008 746-769
© 2008 Sage Publications
Development of Cognitive 10.1177/1046496408323569
http://sgr.sagepub.com
and Affective Trust in Teams hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

A Longitudinal Study
Sheila Simsarian Webber
Suffolk University

The present research examines the development of two dimensions of trust,

cognitive and affective, in student project teams over the course of a semes-
ter. Empirical examination of the evolution of multidimensional trust and its
unique antecedents was explored. The results show that early trust emerges
as a one-dimensional factor early in the life span of a team; cognitive and
affective trust emerge as separate components over time; unique and distinct
predictors positively and negatively affect early trust, cognitive trust, and
affective trust; and affective trust has a stronger positive relationship with
team performance than cognitive trust.

Keywords: trust; affective trust; cognitive trust; teams; longitudinal

I nterpersonal trust has an important history in the psychology, sociology,

negotiation, strategy, and organizational-behavior disciplines (Cook &
Wall, 1980; Currall & Judge, 1995; Deutsch, 1958; Lewicki & Bunker,
1995; Lewis & Weingert, 1985; Polzner, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006;
Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). More
recently, trust has been identified as an important component of teamwork.
Researchers have proposed the critical role of trust in the development of
effective work team processes and the successful performance of the team
(Dirks, 1999; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluck, & Gibson, 2006; Polzner et al.,
2006). The value of trust has been demonstrated in a variety of important
work relationships. However, typically, a one-dimensional definition and
measure of trust following the research of Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman
(1995) has been used. In fact, Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analysis of
trust in leadership found that 94% of the studies in this area used a one-
dimensional cognitive-based definition and measure of trust.
Examining the development and changing nature of trust over time in
team and interpersonal engagements is missing in the trust research. In gen-
eral, scholarly research on trust has taken a snapshot, static approach to the

746
 Webber / Trust 747

concept (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) in dyadic situations. In

the team literature, team trust is typically examined early in the development
of the work team or in work teams with a short life span (i.e., laboratory
teams). Missing in this research is an empirical examination of how trust
evolves over time and the implications for the effectiveness of the team.
Taking a longitudinal approach to understanding trust by building on the
work of organizational and team researchers as well as interpersonal trust
researchers in the psychology and sociology disciplines, the present research
examines the composition and antecedents of early trust as well as estab-
lished trust (cognitive and affective trust) in student project teams over the
course of a semester. These teams are similar to task forces frequently used
in a variety of organizations because they work interdependently for an
extended time to accomplish a common objective in a limited time span
(Hackman, 2003). Empirical examination of the theoretical arguments pro-
posed in the trust literature for the emergence of cognitive and affective trust
driven by different antecedents was explored. I was interested in extending
the theoretical arguments proposed in the trust literature by examining the
following: (a) Early trust emerges as a one-dimensional factor early in the
life span of a team; (b) cognitive trust and affective trust emerge as separate
components over time; (c) unique and distinct predictors affect early trust,
cognitive trust, and affective trust; and (d) affective trust will have a stronger
significant impact on team performance compared to cognitive trust.

Interpersonal Trust

A variety of researchers have proposed that trust is multidimensional,

consisting of a competency-based trust and an emotional-based trust (Cook
& Wall, 1980; Johnson & Grayson, 2005; Jones & George, 1998; Lewis &
Weingert, 1985; McAllister, 1995; Shapiro, Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992;
Webber & Klimoski, 2004). Cook and Wall (1980) defined these two
dimensions of interpersonal trust as (a) “faith in the trustworthy intentions
of others” and (b) “confidence in the ability of others, yielding ascriptions
of capability and reliability” (p. 40). Multidimensional trust was also devel-
oped through the work of Cummings and Bromiley (1996) who identified
three dimensions of trust; affective, cognitive, and intended behavior. Their
affective and cognitive dimensions are similar to those proposed by Cook
and Wall, whereas behavioral intentions are similar to monitoring behaviors
used as an antecedent of trust in this research. However, much of the mul-
tidimensional trust research has been theoretical or measurement oriented
with only a few empirical tests to validate these ideas.
748 Small Group Research

Following the multidimensional trust research ideas, McAllister (1995)

argued that trust should be defined as both affective and cognitive. Affective
trust, he argued, is grounded in reciprocated interpersonal care and concern
or emotional bonds, whereas cognitive trust is grounded in individual
beliefs about peer reliability and dependability as well as competence.
Similarly, Jones and George (1998) argued for conditional and uncondi-
tional trust. Parallel to the definitions of cognitive and affective trust, con-
ditional trust is based on knowledge and positive expectations of the other
person, and unconditional trust is based on positive affect and mutual iden-
tification. Based on the review of the literature, it is possible to argue that
trust is multifaceted. In addition, based on the above research, two compo-
nents of trust consistently emerge: a cognitive element based on reliability,
dependability, and competence and an affective (emotional) component
based on close interpersonal relationships.
Although conceptual evidence and a few empirical studies show the
components of cognitive and affective trust, a large number of researchers
propose and measure a one-dimensional construct (e.g., Krishnan &
Martin, 2006; Langfred, 2007; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin,
2005). For example, working from the framework of Mayer et al. (1995),
Mayer and Davis (1999) conceptualized trust as one-dimensional. They
measured trust in management using four items but found the measure had
low reliability (α = .60). A number of other researchers have adopted Mayer
and Davis’s (1999) original one-dimensional measure used in a working
paper (Shoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 1996) to measure trust that also showed
unreliability (e.g., Chiaburu & Baker, 2006; Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks,
2007; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006).
These results demonstrate that this one-dimensional measure is an unreli-
able assessment of trust. However, this research also shows that trust has
been conceptualized as a one-dimensional construct.

Team Trust
Dominant in the research on trust is an emphasis on interpersonal trust
and organizational trust. Little research is available that examines trust at
the team level of analysis (Surva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). Prior theoretical
work has offered team trust as a viable and useful construct conceptualized
at the team level of analysis (Dirks, 1999; Mayerson, Weick, & Kramer,
1996). However, empirical research is needed that measures and analyzes
trust at the team level.
Recently, Surva et al. (2005) conceptualized and measured trust at the
team level of analysis; however, their measure assessed the team’s trust
 Webber / Trust 749

in another team, not the team’s trust in their own team. In addition, their
measure treated trust as a one-dimensional construct. Similarly, research by
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) used an adaptation of Schoorman et al.’s
(1996) measure of trust, which is one-dimensional. They had a very small
sample (21 teams) and did not report the reliability of the measure. In another
article, research by Polzner, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, and Kim (2006) examined trust
in geographically dispersed teams also using a one-dimensional measure.
Finally, Prichard and Ashleigh (2007) showed that team building affects team
trust also using a one-dimensional measure of team trust.
Research by Dirks (1999), however, measured trust at the team level of
analysis by adapting the multidimensional measure by McAllister (1995) to
the team level. This research was done in a laboratory setting using a short
team task (tower building with wooden blocks). The result of having a short
time frame for the teams was that all items loaded on one factor rather than
confirming the multidimensional nature of the construct that has been
found to emerge in longer working relationships. Subsequent research by
Ferrin and Dirks (2003) has studied trust in teams also using a laboratory
experiment (wilderness survival) and a one-dimensional measure of trust.
As discussed below, early trust in short-term teams could explain the lack
of multidimensionality obtained in this research. The present research
adopts a different approach by measuring trust over time in student project
teams that work together for 3 months to accomplish a common goal.

Dynamics of Cognitive and Affective Trust

The theoretical arguments regarding the development of cognitive and
affective trust, as well as conditional and unconditional trust, have proposed
that the two dimensions of trust develop and emerge over time (Jones &
George, 1998; McAllister, 1995). According to Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and
Dirks (2004), trust develops over time; however, early high levels of trust
are possible and may be driven by cognitive cues from group membership
and reputation. Affective trust has been thought to develop later in the life
of an interpersonal relationship (Williams, 2001).
I argue that a basic one-dimensional level of trust needs to be present
before a two-dimensional trusting relationship with both cognitive and
affective components can develop. Research has yet to demonstrate that
these two components of trust do differentiate themselves over time.
Research on the cognitive and affective components of trust in teams and
interpersonal relationships often fails to find a two-dimensional construct
(Dirks, 1999) and has not explored the development of trust over time. The
750 Small Group Research

study of trust in interpersonal and team relationships will be advanced by

identifying the nature of trust at different points in the life of a team. Such
knowledge can then be used to more precisely determine the factors that
facilitate and hinder trust at specific times in the interpersonal relationship.
The present research examines trust at two different points in time, early
in the life of the team and at the end of the team’s lifespan. I propose that over
time, the two dimensions of trust will emerge such that early trust will be one
dimension primarily guided by early reactions of general competence and lik-
ability. Established trust, measured at the end of the team’s life span, will be
two dimensions distinguished as cognitive and affective trust, and the two
dimensions will be related but distinct components of trust.

Hypothesis 1: Early trust will be one-dimensional.

Hypothesis 2: Trust measured at the end of the team’s life span, “established”
trust, will be two-dimensional, and cognitive and affective trust will be
related but distinct components.

Escalation of Early Trust and

Cognitive and Affective Trust
Researchers agree that individual ability or competency is a strong predic-
tor of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995). However, in the early stages
of the life of a team, ability is difficult to assess without some prior familiarity
with the individuals of the team. Therefore, the early formation of trust is pro-
posed by McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998) to be affected by cate-
gorization processes based on early knowledge. Such early knowledge about
other team members could be obtained from prior familiarity with the team
member or knowledge about the team member’s reputation. In the project team
context, early knowledge of other team members could be easily gained from
any prior experiences working together and/or from other people’s prior expe-
riences with the team member. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Familiarity with team members will be positively related to

early trust.

Differentiating the antecedents of cognitive and affective trust in estab-

lished interpersonal relationships resulted in McAllister (1995) proposing
that reliable role performance would be positively associated with cognitive
trust and that citizenship behavior and interaction frequency would be pos-
itively associated with affective trust. Interaction frequency is described as
the frequency of interaction between two individuals. Citizenship behaviors
 Webber / Trust 751

include behaviors that are personally chosen rather than role-prescribed,

serve legitimate needs, and demonstrate interpersonal care and concern.
These behaviors correspond to organizational citizenship behavior (Organ,
1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), which is defined as behavior intended
to provide help and assistance, but outside the individual’s work role and
not directly rewarded. Reliable role behavior is described as success of past
role-related duties. Consistent with his prediction, McAllister found that
interaction frequency and the demonstration of citizenship behaviors led to
affective trust. He uncovered less support for the impact of reliable role
behavior on cognitive trust. However, building on McAllister’s research,
Johnson and Grayson (2005) found that service delivery performance is
positively related to cognitive trust and not related to affective trust.
The research examining interpersonal trust demonstrates that different
behaviors affect each aspect of trust offering additional support for the two
components of trust. However, to the author’s knowledge, no research
exists of a longitudinal nature examining the impact of such behaviors on
cognitive and affective trust after controlling for prior levels of trust. This
additional control of prior trust is critical for determining the stability of
early trust as research has proposed that early trust has a positive impact on
trust developed later in interpersonal or team relationships (McKnight
et al., 1998). In addition, by controlling for early trust, it is possible to
demonstrate the primary behavioral antecedents of established trust.
Interacting frequently with the members of a team is considered an
important element of team effectiveness (Ashleigh & Nandakhumar, 2007;
Hackman, 2003). When teams are communicating, they are sharing impor-
tant information about the nature of the team task, the team’s progress in
completing the task, and any challenges the team is facing. Frequent inter-
action also enables team members to build a relationship with the other
members of the team. In other words, teams with frequent interaction are
more likely to develop a strong relationship and rapport among the team
members, resulting in greater affective trust.
Citizenship behaviors, on the other hand, involve team members helping
other team members and the team as a whole to be successful. Going above
and beyond to ensure that the team is a success is a key part of citizenship
behaviors (Organ, 1988). Typically, citizenship behaviors are considered
extra role behaviors and are not specifically part of an individual’s tasks in
a team environment. However, performing extra role behaviors such as
helping other team members or working longer hours to ensure a success-
ful project facilitate a stronger relationship and emotional bond among the
members of the team. Organizational citizenship behavior is similar to
benevolence, which has been linked to trust in organizations (Mayer et al.,
752 Small Group Research

1995). This type of relationship should result in greater affective trust or

trust based on care and concern for the team and its members.
Controlling for familiarity and early trust, the research question remain-
ing is (a) if interaction frequency and citizenship behaviors will be posi-
tively related to affective trust and (b) that these behaviors will not be
related to cognitive trust.

Hypothesis 4a: Interaction frequency will be positively and significantly related

to affective trust after controlling familiarity, and early trust and interaction
frequency will not be positively and significantly related to cognitive trust.
Hypothesis 4b: Citizenship behaviors will be positively and significantly
related to affective trust after controlling for familiarity, and early trust
and citizenship behaviors will not be positively and significantly related
to cognitive trust.

Second, after controlling for familiarity and early trust, the research ques-
tion is whether certain behaviors have an impact on determining cognitive
trust. Cognitive trust is typically developed through demonstrations of com-
petence, reliability, and dependability. In other words, teams that reliably per-
form their tasks such that they are done on time and according to the
requirements will have more cognitive trust. Reliable performance also
involves behaviors that demonstrate competence and dependability. These
behaviors are proposed to be positively related to cognitive trust, after con-
trolling for familiarity and early trust, and will not be related to affective trust.

Hypothesis 5: Reliable performance will be positively and significantly related

to cognitive trust after controlling for familiarity and early trust, and reliable
performance will not be positively and significantly related to affective trust.

Deterioration of Cognitive and Affective Trust

Taking a different approach to understanding trust, a group of
researchers has examined the impact of behaviors or actions that operate as
substitutes for trust (i.e., formal mechanisms; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Zucker,
1986). However, research in this area has suggested that formal mecha-
nisms such as contracts can actually reduce trust, rather than serve to effec-
tively remedy trust. In fact, in some cases, such behavior/actions can result
in greater formality or rigid procedures and policies along with increasing
the distance and coldness between the individuals (Zucker, 1986). The pre-
sent research extends earlier work on interpersonal trust and proposes that
monitoring behaviors by team members become formal mechanisms that
negatively affect the development of cognitive and affective trust in teams.
 Webber / Trust 753

Monitoring behavior includes tracking the work of others, creating backup

plans, and working around team members to get tasks done. Specifically, I
propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Monitoring behaviors will be negatively and significantly

related to cognitive and affective trust after controlling for familiarity and
early trust.

Interaction of Early Trust and Behaviors

Affecting Cognitive and Affective Trust
Prior early trust along with the team behaviors described above (i.e.,
reliable performance, interaction frequency, citizenship behavior, and mon-
itoring) are thought to positively affect cognitive and affective trust. In
addition, the prior early trust will moderate the relationship between team
behaviors and the development of cognitive and affective trust. In other
words, having a trusting foundation within the team will facilitate the pos-
itive impact of reliable team performance behaviors on cognitive trust and
will enhance the impact of interaction frequency and citizenship behavior
on affective trust. Therefore, the following interactions are offered:

Hypothesis 7a: The relationship between reliable performance and cognitive

trust is moderated by early trust such that reliable performance will be
more strongly related to cognitive trust when early trust is high.
Hypothesis 7b: The relationship between interaction frequency and affective
trust will be moderated by early trust such that interaction frequency will
be more strongly related to affective trust when early trust is high.
Hypothesis 7c: The relationship between citizenship behaviors and affective
trust will be moderated by early trust such that citizenship behaviors will
be more strongly related to affective trust when early trust is high.

Cognitive and Affective Trust

and Team Performance
Trust has consistently been linked to effective performance (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995). However, differentiating between
the impact of cognitive and affective trust on team performance has yet to be
done. Theoretically, cognitive trust has been argued to be more challenging to
sustain once it is developed compared to affective trust (McAllister, 1995).
Specifically, a team could have high levels of cognitive trust then experience a
problem completing a task on time, resulting in a decrease in cognitive trust.
754 Small Group Research

On the other hand, affective trust is thought to persist even under these types
of situations (McAllister, 1995). Affective trust is argued to withstand chal-
lenges in the interpersonal relationship and requires more persistent emotional
problems to decrease (Williams, 2001). Therefore, researchers have argued
that affective trust is particularly important for interpersonal relationships
because once it is developed, it persists in the long term, something not
achieved by cognitive trust. Furthermore, achieving affective trust allows for
short-term behavioral problems to occur and be forgiven (Jones & George,
1998; McAllister, 1995). In addition, affective trust is driven by behaviors that
extend beyond task-related competency to include extra role behaviors deliv-
ered during the life of the team. Therefore, affective trust, once it is developed
in a relationship, should be a more powerful and longer term type of trust
(McAllister, 1995; Williams, 2001). The performance of a work team should
be positively affected by both cognitive and affective trust; however, affective
trust, because of its deep-rooted nature should have a more positive relation-
ship with team performance.

Hypothesis 8: Cognitive and affective trust will have a positive significant

relationship with team performance; however, the relationship with affec-
tive trust will be stronger.

Method

Participants
Participants were recruited from Organizational Behavior classes in a
large Canadian university. The author approached class instructors and
asked for their class participation. The class was asked to form teams of
three (N = 9) to four (N = 69) students to complete the same team project.
The same undergraduate classes (i.e., Organizational Behavior) were used
for two semesters. Nine professors were approached to participate, and four
agreed including the author, resulting in nine classes with an average of 40
students in each class. The teams worked over the course of the semester to
complete a team tutorial project designed by the author. Team tutorial topics
were assigned by the author and included tasks such as teaching the class
how to successfully manage a cross-functional team or how to complete a
performance appraisal. Each team in a class was given a different topic.
Teams were required to research the topic area and prepare a how-to presen-
tation and paper on their assigned topic. A total of 378 students participated
at Time 1 resulting in 106 teams, 338 of the same students participated at
 Webber / Trust 755

Time 2 resulting in 98 teams, and a total of 294 of the same students

participated at Time 3 resulting in a total of 78 teams. The 78 teams resulted
in data for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 and were therefore used for all the
analyses. All teams had either three or four members, and all team members
needed to complete the survey at each time to be included in the final 78
teams for the analysis.

Team Instructions
Teams were given the following instructions for completing the team
tutorial:

The objective of the team tutorial sessions is to supplement the text with
“need-to-know” management activities. Ten teams of four students will be
formed. Each team will be given one tutorial topic. Teams can use any
number of approaches (interviews, books, articles, Internet, magazines, etc.)
to prepare for the tutorial. Each team needs to submit an outline of their team
tutorial in the middle of the semester (please see course outline for the date)
and a five-page summary of their tutorial when they make their presentation.
The presentations will be for 10 minutes per team. Teams need to monitor
their own time to complete the presentation within the 10-minute time slot.
Individually, each team member needs to submit a one-page self- and peer
evaluation. You are to assess your contribution to your team and each of your
team members’ contributions in paragraph format. You are also asked to eval-
uate yourself and your team members by giving each either the same grade
as the team or a grade lower than the team grade. Your evaluations will be
25% of the grade each team member receives on the team tutorial. The other
75% of your grade will be the grade given to the team for the tutorial.

Procedure
The author and a research assistant attended each class at the 2nd week
of the semester to inform the students about the research and obtain their
consent to participate in the research. The author also provided a detailed
introduction about the team tutorial project and answered any questions
from the students. Students formed their teams during this class and were
given the first survey. Students were given 15 minutes at the end of class to
complete the survey and return it to the author. Three weeks later, the
student teams turned in an outline of their proposed project to their profes-
sor. The author or the research assistant returned to each class at this time
and gave the students the second survey to complete. Again, the students
completed the survey during class time. Five weeks later (Week 10 of the
756 Small Group Research

semester), the student teams gave a 10-minute presentation and turned in a

team paper. The author or the research assistant returned at this time to each
class and gave the students the third survey to complete during class time.

Measures

Familiarity. Familiarity was assessed at Time 1 by adapting a measure

used by Webber, Chen, Marsh, and Payne (1999) to the student project team
context. The measure consisted of four questions that asked the team
members to evaluate their prior familiarity with each of their team members
(e.g., “How familiar are you with the strengths and weaknesses of this team
member?” using 1 (I am not familiar) to 5 (I am very familiar) with a reli-
ability of .84. Average scores were then generated across team members to
obtain a team score. See the appendix for the list of the items.

Team trust. Team trust was measured at Time 2 and Time 3 by using a
measure of interpersonal trust by McAllister (1995) taken to the team level of
analysis. The same measure was used by Dirks (1999) to measure team trust.
The Time 2 measure was taken after the team had been formed for 3 weeks,
and the Time 3 measure was taken at the end of semester after the team had
been working together for 8 weeks. Trust was not measured at Time 1 when
the teams were first formed as many of the team members had no informa-
tion about their team and its members to evaluate their trust. Scanzoni (1979)
as well as Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985) argued that trust is not likely
to appear at the beginning of a relationship that has no past experience. Three
items assessed cognitive trust, and three items assessed affective trust. Factor
analysis using principal components with varimax rotation was used at Time
2 and demonstrated a one-factor solution with an eigenvalue of 2.66 with
Items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a good fit
for a one-factor solution, χ2(5, N = 276) = 27.98, p < .00, Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) = .97, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .97, and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) = .14. At Time 3, factor analysis demonstrated a
two-factor solution with eigenvalues of 2.21 and 2.18. Confirmatory factor
analysis showed that a two-factor solution was a good fit, χ2(8, N = 276) =
30.99, p < .00, CFI = .98, NFI = .98, and RMSEA = .11. The factor structure
showed affective trust as a distinct component of trust, and the relationship
between cognitive and affective trust was r = .64, p < .05. For Time 3, cogni-
tive trust was assessed with Items 1, 2, and 3 and had a reliability of .84.
Affective trust was assessed with Items 4, 5, and 6 and had a reliability of .88.
See Table 1 for results of the two factor analyses.
 Webber / Trust 757

Table 1
Factor Analysis Results—Early Trust and Established Trust
Established Trust

Item Early Trust Cognitive Affective

The members of my team approach .72 .82

the team project with professionalism
and dedication.
Given the track record of my team .80 .83
members, I see no reason to doubt
their competence and preparation for
the upcoming presentation.
I can rely on the members of my team .69 .78
not to make my job more difficult by
careless work.
We (the team) have a sharing relationship. .10 .96 .86
We can openly share our ideas and
feelings.
We can talk freely to each other about .64 .86
difficulties we are having in
completing the project and know that
each other will listen.
If I shared my ideas and project-related .78 .39 .72
problems with the members of my
team, I know they would respond
constructively and caringly.

Interaction frequency. Interaction frequency was assessed at Time 2 by

adapting a measure of interaction frequency from McAllister (1995) to the
team level of analysis. Three questions were asked about the frequency of
interaction (e.g., “How frequently do members of your team initiate team-
related interactions with you?” using a scale of 1 (once every 2 months) to
5 (daily). The scale reliability was .80.

Citizenship behaviors. Citizenship behaviors were assessed at Time 2 by

adopting a measure of peer affiliative citizenship behavior from McAllister
(1995) to the team level of analysis. Seven items assessed behaviors that are
personally chosen and demonstrate care and concern (e.g., “My team
members willingly help each other, even at some cost to personal produc-
tivity”). Items were assessed using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Scale reliability was .85.
758 Small Group Research

Reliable performance. Reliable performance was assessed at Time 2 by

adopting a measure of reliable performance from McAllister (1995) to the
team level of analysis. Three items were used to measure the team’s perfor-
mance (e.g., “My team performs all tasks that are expected of them”) on a
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Scale reliability was .91.

Monitoring behavior. Monitoring behavior was assessed at Time 2 by

adopting a measure by McAllister (1995) to the team level of analysis. Four
items were measured addressing the team’s need to monitor team members
(e.g., “I have sometimes found it necessary to work around team members
to get things done the way that I would like them done”) and assessed using
a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scale reliability was
.85. The appendix lists the items for familiarity, interaction frequency, citi-
zenship behaviors, reliable performance, and monitoring.

Team performance. Team performance was assessed by the author for

each class. All team projects were graded by the author on the basis of the
same criteria and were given a grade from 0 to 100 points. The average
team grade was 79. There were 54 teams with performance information.
Final project scores could not be obtained for 24 of the teams in the sam-
ple because of one professor was not willing to have the author make copies
of the papers to evaluate for this research.

Data aggregation. The unit of analysis for the hypotheses is the work
team. For the 78 teams, within-team and between-team analysis was con-
ducted on each of the variables tested. The results of this analysis showed
that for all variables, the mean Rwg(j) was .80 or greater (Rwg(j) = .79-.99) (see
James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). In addition, intraclass correlations ICC(1)
and ICC(2) were examined. The results show significant ICC(1) = .25-.47
and ICC(2) = .53-.67 values, Fs = 1.38-2.23, p < .05. ICC(1) demonstrates
variability between groups, and ICC(2) shows reliability of the group mean.
Based on these results and because of the research questions and hypothe-
ses being drawn at the team level, the data were aggregated to the team level
for the remaining analyses. Individual responses to the items composing the
variables were averaged across all team members. Table 2 shows the means,
standard deviations, and correlations at the team level of analysis.

Results

The results of the factor analysis demonstrate support for Hypotheses 1

and 2. At Time 2, trust was found to be one-dimensional. At Time 3, affective
 Webber / Trust 759

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Familiarity (Time 1) 1.89 .82

2. Early trust (Time 2) 4.00 .45 .24*
3. Cognitive trust (Time 3) 4.00 .51 .16 .13
4. Affective trust (Time 3) 4.14 .50 .17 .15 .64**
5. Reliable performance 4.35 .66 .19† .43** .06 .21
(Time 2)
6. Citizenship behavior 3.77 .51 .37** .77** .14 .23* .44**
(Time 2)
7. Interaction frequency 3.63 .41 .28* .37** .03 .09 .43** .43**
(Time 2)
8. Monitoring (Time 2) 2.78 .52 –.05 .05 –.30** –.17 –.13 –.34** –.24*
9. Team Performance 79.06 8.43 –.01 .15 .22† .27* .01 .09 –.06 –.11

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p < .10.

trust clearly emerges as a distinct component of trust, and the relationship

between cognitive and affective trust is r = .64, p < .05. See Table 1 for the
results of the two factor analyses. These findings are the first, to the author’s
knowledge, that demonstrate empirically that the two components of trust
emerge over time. Furthermore, the results show that teams with a short life
span may never have the time to distinguish between these two components.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that familiarity will be positively and signifi-
cantly related to early trust. The results show support for this hypothesis
(R2 = .06, β = .24, p = .03) such that the more familiar the team members
are, the greater the early trust within the team. Hypothesis 4a proposed that
interaction frequency would be positively and significantly related to affec-
tive trust after controlling for familiarity and early trust. The results show
that familiarity (R2 = .03, β = .17, p = .14) and early trust (R2 = .02, β = .15,
p = .19) are not significantly related to affective trust; therefore, because of
the lack of relationship and the sample size, they were not controlled in the
analyses. No support for the relationship between interaction frequency and
affective trust was found (R2 = .01, β = .09, p = .46). Interaction frequency
does not measure the nature of the interaction that may explain the lack of
relationship. The results also show that interaction frequency is not related
to cognitive trust (R2 = .00, β = .03, p = .79). Hypothesis 4b proposed that
citizenship behavior, measured at Time 2, would be significantly and posi-
tively related to affective trust, measured at Time 3. The results show sup-
port for this hypothesis (R2 = .05, β = .23, p = .04) such that the more
citizenship behaviors demonstrated by team members at Time 2, the greater
760 Small Group Research

the affective trust at Time 3. Citizenship behavior is not related to cognitive

trust (R2 = .02, β = .14, p = .23).
Hypothesis 5 proposed that reliable project performance, measured at
Time 2, is significantly and positively related to cognitive trust measured at
Time 3 (the end of the teams’ life span) after controlling for familiarity and
early trust. The results show no relationship between cognitive trust mea-
sured at Time 3 and familiarity (R2 = .03, β = .16, p = .17) and early trust
(R2 = .02, β = .13, p = .26); therefore, they were not controlled in the analy-
ses. The results show no support for Hypothesis 4 (R2 = .00, β = .06, p = .60).
Hypothesis 6 proposed that monitoring behavior would be negatively
and significantly related to cognitive and affective trust after controlling for
early trust and familiarity. Because of the lack of significant relationships
between cognitive and affective trust and early trust and familiarity, these
variables were not controlled for in the analyses. The results show some
support for this hypothesis such that monitoring behavior is significantly
and negatively related to cognitive trust (R2 = .08, β = –.30, p = .01), but not
affective trust (R2 = .03, β = –.17, p = .13). Table 3 shows the results of the
regression analyses.
The results show support for Hypothesis 7a such that early trust does
moderate the relationship between reliable performance and cognitive trust.
Specifically, when early trust and reliable performance are both high, cog-
nitive trust is significantly higher (ΔR2 = .06, β = 3.36, p = .04) (Figure 1).
No significant interactions were found for early trust moderating the rela-
tionships between interaction frequency and citizenship behaviors with
affective trust.
Hypothesis 8 proposed a positive relationship between cognitive and
affective trust and team performance with affective trust having a stronger
relationship. The results show that cognitive trust is not significantly related
to team performance (R2 = .05, β = .22, p = .10) and that affective trust is
significantly and positively related to team performance (R2 = .07, β = .27,
p = .05).

Discussion

The present research extends the trust literature to examine four impor-
tant propositions: (a) Early trust emerges as a one-dimensional factor early
in the life span of a team; (b) cognitive and affective trust emerge as sepa-
rate components over time; (c) unique and distinct predictors affect early
trust, cognitive trust, and affective trust; and (d) cognitive and affective trust
 Webber / Trust 761

Table 3
Regression Results Hypotheses 5-8
Step and Variable B SE B β R2

Affective trust (Time 3)

Step 1: interaction frequency (Time 2) .11 .14 .09 .01
Step 1: citizenship behavior (Time 2) .23 .11 .23 .05*
Step 1: monitoring behaviors (Time 2) –.17 .11 –.17 .03
Cognitive trust (Time 3)
Step 1: reliable project performance (Time 2) .05 .09 .06 .00
Step 1: monitoring behavior (Time 2) –.30 .12 –.31 .09
Step 1:
Early trust (Time 2) .14 .14 .13 .02
Reliable project performance (Time 2) .01 .10 .01
Step 2: Early Trust × Reliable Performance .46* .22 3.36* .07
ΔR2 = .06*
Team performance
Step 1: cognitive trust (Time 3) 3.93 2.39 .22 .05†
Step 1: affective trust (Time 3) 5.12 2.56 .27 .07*

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. †p < .10.

Figure 1
Early Trust Moderating the Relationship Between Reliable
Performance and Cognitive Trust

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2
Cognitive Trust

4.1
Low Initial Trust (-1SD)
4 Mean Initial Trust
High Initial Trust (+1SD)
3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5
Low (–1SD) Mean High (+1SD)
Reliable Performance
762 Small Group Research

do differentially affect team performance. These propositions were tested

with a longitudinal examination of trust in student project teams.
The results show that in Week 8 of working together as a team, affective
and cognitive trust emerged as separate, yet related components. Prior to
this, during early team formation, only one component of trust emerged.
This finding highlights that those researchers examining trust in a static
moment in time may be capturing only that particular phase of the team or
interpersonal relationship and should consider interpreting their results
with caution to the particular time period.
Second, I was particularly interested in the unique antecedents affecting
each aspect of trust (early trust, cognitive trust, and affective trust). This
research shows that early trust is developed through prior familiarity, con-
sistent with the theoretical arguments by McKnight et al. (1998). However,
familiarity does not significantly affect cognitive and affective trust later in
the life of the team. In other words, familiarity only affects trust when other
behaviors are not available (i.e., at the beginning of the life of the team) to
determine trust within a team. Trust developed later in the project team is
affected by its own unique antecedents driven by the actual behaviors of
team members during the life of the team. Specifically, affective trust is
developed through citizenship behaviors, which include doing extra things
for team members, willingly helping each other, and taking a personal
interest in the team.
Differing from affective trust, this research shows that cognitive trust is
affected by the interaction of early trust and reliable performance such that
in high early trust situations, the addition of reliable performance signifi-
cantly increased cognitive trust. Therefore, having high early trust appears
to be a necessary platform for reliable performance to affect cognitive trust
later in the life of the team. Independently, neither early trust nor reliable
performance significantly affected cognitive trust. The lack of a direct rela-
tionship between early trust and reliable performance demonstrates that par-
ticular conditions are necessary for these variables to affect cognitive trust.
Finally, monitoring behaviors were found to significantly and negatively
affect the development of cognitive trust. Monitoring behaviors include
diligently tracking the work progress of others, creating backup plans in
anticipation of late work, and working around team members to get the
tasks completed. Such behaviors resulted in a significant decrease in cog-
nitive trust, but not affective trust. These results offer further evidence for
the unique antecedents of cognitive and affective trust. Both cognitive trust
and affective trust also were positively related to the performance of the
team. Consistent with the theoretical ideas that affective trust is more
 Webber / Trust 763

durable and may be a more powerful form of trust in interpersonal and team
relationships, this research shows that affective trust has a stronger signifi-
cant relationship with team performance compared to cognitive trust. These
results offer further evidence of the importance of trust and the distinct
nature of cognitive and affective trust in team environments.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretically, the findings show that researchers studying trust in inter-
personal and team relationships should consider the life span of the rela-
tionships. Specifically, early in the life of a team, early trust is likely to
emerge; however, later in the life of the team, both cognitive and affective
trust will be established. Prior research has shown mixed support for the
emergence of cognitive and affective trust (Dirks, 1999); however, this
appears to be largely due to the life span of the team and the time of trust
assessment. The present study demonstrates that there are two distinct
forms of trust that emerge as a relationship develops; therefore, future
theories and models should consider incorporating both the cognitive and
the affective components of trust.
Second, the present research provides early empirical demonstration for
the unique antecedents of early trust as well as cognitive and affective trust.
These findings demonstrate that early trust is driven by previous history and
familiarity, affective trust is driven by extra role behaviors, and cognitive
trust is driven by in-role behaviors. Furthermore, the results show that mon-
itoring behaviors have no impact on the decline of the affective component
of trust but do reduce cognitive trust. These findings support the idea that
affective trust is more enduring and plays a considerable role in the sustain-
ability of interpersonal and team relationships in the workplace, parti-
cularly if an invalidation of the cognitive counterpart occurs. These findings
are further substantiated by the significant positive relationship between
affective trust and team performance.
In addition, this research finds that cognitive trust operates very differ-
ently. The findings show that early trust is a necessary condition for reliable
performance to positively affect the development of cognitive trust. Without
early trust, reliable performance has no relationship with cognitive trust. In
addition, the present research shows that monitoring behaviors negatively
affect the development of cognitive trust. Finally, cognitive trust does not
have a significant relationship with performance. Trust researchers need to
give particular attention to the development and impact of cognitive trust,
particularly in long-term teams.
764 Small Group Research

Practically, this research provides organizations, managers, and team

leaders a better understanding of how trust develops over time. First, this
research demonstrates that the two components of trust only emerge after
a team has been working together for some time. The affective component
of trust has been argued to be particularly important for cooperation
and communication within teams (Williams, 2001). Therefore, in practice,
organizations, managers, and team leaders could provide longer team
engagements or accelerate the development of affective trust through team-
building activities. Teams that never have the opportunity to distinguish affec-
tive from cognitive trust may have more difficulty successfully coordinating
and communicating.
Second, organizations, managers, and team leaders should provide
opportunities to help teams obtain early trust as it appears to be an impor-
tant contributor to future trust. In addition, teams need the opportunity to
progress from early trust to established trust quickly. Incorporating team-
building activities into the team experience, as well as providing social
gatherings to facilitate the formation of close relationships among the team
members, may result in the quick development of affective trust. Research
by Prichard and Ashleigh (2007) found that team training resulted in
greater trust compared to teams with no training. Certainly, I would argue
that those teams that form together, and need to perform to meet tight
deadlines, are less likely to have the opportunity or the desire to obtain
established trust.

Limitations and Future Directions

First, the sample was undergraduate student teams from a large univer-
sity. This limits the generalizability of the research to real teams in organi-
zations. However, because the purpose of this research was to isolate the
development of trust in team relationships, I believe the results offer impor-
tant information regarding the development of trust in a longitudinal team.
More research is necessary to further generalize these findings. Second, I
did not examine the development of distrust in these work teams. Some
researchers have argued that distrust is another component of trust in work-
ing relationships and should be considered along with the positive forms of
trust, modeled in theories and examined empirically (Jones & George,
1998; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). In addition, this research approaches trust as a
multidimensional construct focusing on two dimensions. Some researchers
take a different perspective and believe that trust is a one-dimensional con-
struct (Mayer & Davis, 1999) or a three-dimensional construct (Cummings
 Webber / Trust 765

& Bromiley, 1996). This research shows support for the idea that a two-
dimensional trust emerges over time.
Another limitation of this study was that students were able to select
their own teams, which may have caused a self-selection bias for the
research data. Similarly, each team typically had four members, which was
a general requirement for the project. Having a set number of people for
each team may not be realistic to how teams function in their natural orga-
nizational context. In addition, the performance of a team was assessed
only by the author. Ideally, the team’s performance would have been
assessed by multiple people, and interrater reliability would have been cal-
culated to ensure consistency across evaluations. A final limitation to this
research is in the measurement of familiarity. It is possible that a team
member could be familiar with another team member from a problematic
prior class encounter. In other words, prior familiarity with someone could
represent knowledge of a negative reputation, which would hinder the
development of trust. This aspect of familiarity was not measured in the
research. Similarly, the measure of interaction frequency does not capture
the nature of the interactions. It is possible that teams had a lot of interac-
tion but that it was not helpful for completing the task.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research demonstrates that trust has two compo-

nents, one that is based on reliability, dependability, and competence, and
a second component that is based on care, concern, and emotional bonds.
I show that these two components of trust only emerge after the team has
worked together for 8 weeks. In addition, I provide early evidence to the
argument that early trust, cognitive trust, and affective trust are different
aspects of trust that emerge at different points in time during interpersonal
and team relationships. Researchers examining trust in interpersonal and
team relationships should design and interpret their trust research with
regard to the particular development time of the interpersonal or team
relationship. Furthermore, researchers should include the two compo-
nents of affective and cognitive trust in their research as they are distinct
aspects of trust with unique antecedents and differing impacts on effective-
ness. Researchers who continue to measure and theorize a one-dimensional
trust are missing an important aspect of their research of interpersonal
relationships.
766 Small Group Research

Appendix
Items for Interaction Frequency, Citizenship Behavior,
Reliable Performance, and Monitoring
Item

Familiarity
How well do you know the academic reputation of this team member?
How well do you know this team member personally?
How well do you know the strengths and weaknesses of this team member?
How familiar are you with the way this team member works?
Citizenship behavior
My team members have taken a personal interest in the team.
My team members willingly help each other, even at some cost to personal productivity.
When making decisions in class that affect the team, my team members try to take
each other’s needs and feelings into account.
My team members frequently do extra things they know they will not be rewarded for,
but which makes our work with the team more productive.
My team members take time to listen to each other’s problems and worries.
My team members try not to make things more difficult for each other by their careless
actions.
My team members pass on new information that is useful to the team.
Reliable performance
My team fulfills responsibilities specified in the project description.
My team performs all tasks that are expected of them.
My team meets formal performance requirements of the project.
Interaction frequency
How frequently do you initiate team-related interaction with members of your team?
How frequently do members of your team initiate team-related interaction with you?
How frequently does your team interact for project purposes?
Monitoring
I have sometimes found it necessary to work around team members to get things done
the way that I would like them done.
I keep a close track of my interactions with team members, keeping track of instances
when they do keep track of their end of the bargain.
The quality of work I receive from members of this team is only maintained by my
diligent monitoring of members.
Rather than just depending on some team members to come through, I try to have a backup
plan ready.

References
Ashleigh, M. J., & Nandakhumar, J. (2007). Trust and technologies: Implications for organi-
zational work practices. Decision Support Systems, 43, 607-617.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Baker, V. L. (2006). Extra-role behaviors challenging the status-quo:
Validity and antecedents of taking charge behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21, 620-637.
 Webber / Trust 767

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment,
and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI):
Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 68-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role
persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 151-170.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.
Dirks, K. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.
Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust:
Mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14, 18-31.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The
effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-
and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893-908.
Hackman, R. J. (2003). Leading teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with
and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service delivery. Journal
of Business Research, 58, 500-507.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better
than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after
a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 99, 49-65.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of sus-
picion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-
based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104-118.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluck, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancing the transfer of
computer assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 706-716.
Krishnan, R., & Martin, X. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 894-917.
Langfred, C. W. (2007) The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects
of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 885-900.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Developing and maintaining trust in work relation-
ships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory
and research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis, J. D., & Weingert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust
for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.
768 Small Group Research

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrated model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-739.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the
shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.
Mayerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Early trust and temporary groups. In R.
M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Early trust formations in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473-490.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The “good soldier” syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Polzner, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline
model to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679-692.
Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive
memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38, 696-726.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
Ring, S. M., & Van de Ven, A. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organi-
zations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483-498.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioural interdependence. In R. L. Burgess &
T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 61-98). New York:
Academic Press.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996, April). Empowerment in veterinary
clinics: The role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake.
Negotiation Journal, 8, 365-377.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “reme-
dies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Surva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitu-
dinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625-648.
Webber, S. S., Chen, G., Marsh, S., & Payne, S. (1999). Performance appraisal research con-
tributes to team mental model measurement. In S. J. Zaccaro (Chair) & D. A. Hofmann
(Discussant), Breaking barriers in team research: New methodologies and applications for
team research and practice. Symposium conducted at the 1998 annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Client-project manager engagements, trust, and loy-
alty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 997-1013.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust
development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.
 Webber / Trust 769

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interor-
ganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141-159.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-
1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Sheila Simsarian Webber (PhD, George Mason University) is an associate professor of man-
agement in the Sawyer Business School at Suffolk University. Her research focuses on team
composition, trust, and project manager–client engagements.