IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v23y2012i3-part-2p940-959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Boundaries of Trust and Risk: The Quadratic Moderating Role of Institutional Structures

Author

Listed:
  • David Gefen

    (LeBow School of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • Paul A. Pavlou

    (Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122)

Abstract

A prevalent assumption in the literature is that trust and risk are always relevant in online marketplaces, and that there is always a need to build trust and reduce risk irrespective of context. Challenging this assumption, this study seeks to identify the boundaries of the effects of trust and risk on transaction activity in the context of institutional structures in online marketplaces. The perceived effectiveness of institutional structures (PEIS), defined as the extent buyers believe that appropriate conditions are in place to facilitate transactions with sellers, sets the boundaries of trust and risk by moderating their effects on transaction activity in a quadratic (inverted-U) fashion. Specifically, at the lower boundary condition of PEIS (among buyers who believe institutional structures are ineffective), the high situational uncertainty they perceive should make these buyers unwilling to become vulnerable to sellers, thus rendering trust and risk immaterial to their decision making. Trust and risk should also be immaterial at the higher boundary condition of PEIS (among buyers who believe institutional structures are very effective), because the insufficient situational uncertainty makes trust and risk irrelevant to these buyers' decision making because of a lack of vulnerability. Only between these two boundary conditions (among buyers who perceive moderate levels of PEIS), and thus a moderate degree of situational uncertainty and vulnerability in the marketplace, should trust and risk have a significant effect on transaction activity. Data from 398 buyers on eBay's and Amazon's online marketplaces support the quadratic moderating role of PEIS on the effect of risk on transaction activity, but not on the effect of trust. Theoretical and practical implications on specifying the boundaries of the effects of trust and risk and understanding the direct and moderating role of institutional structures are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • David Gefen & Paul A. Pavlou, 2012. "The Boundaries of Trust and Risk: The Quadratic Moderating Role of Institutional Structures," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 940-959, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:23:y:2012:i:3-part-2:p:940-959
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1110.0395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1110.0395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gefen, David, 2000. "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 725-737, December.
    2. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    3. Paul A. Pavlou & Angelika Dimoka, 2006. "The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller Differentiation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 392-414, December.
    4. Edwards, Jeffrey R., 1994. "The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 51-100, April.
    5. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    6. Paul A. Pavlou & David Gefen, 2005. "Psychological Contract Violation in Online Marketplaces: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderating Role," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 372-399, December.
    7. Daniel Dorn & Paul Sengmueller, 2009. "Trading as Entertainment?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 591-603, April.
    8. Paul A. Pavlou & David Gefen, 2004. "Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 37-59, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gefen, David & Reychav, Iris, 2014. "Why trustworthiness in an IT vendor is important even after the vendor left: IT is accepting the message and not just the messenger that is important," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 111-125.
    2. Meents, S. & Verhagen, T. & Vlaar, P.W.L., 2011. "How sellers can stimulate purchasing in electronic marketplaces: Using information as a risk reduction signal," Serie Research Memoranda 0014, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    3. Judy E. Scott & Dawn G. Gregg & Jae Hoon Choi, 2015. "Lemon complaints: When online auctions go sour," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 177-191, February.
    4. Möhlmann, Mareike, 2021. "Unjustified trust beliefs: Trust conflation on sharing economy platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    5. Baozhou Lu & Rudy Hirschheim & Andrew Schwarz, 2015. "Examining the antecedent factors of online microsourcing," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 601-617, June.
    6. Rajković, Borislav & Đurić, Ivan & Zarić, Vlade & Glauben, Thomas, 2021. "Gaining trust in the digital age: The potential of social media for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(4).
    7. Malhotra, Neeru & Sahadev, Sunil & Purani, Keyoor, 2017. "Psychological contract violation and customer intention to reuse online retailers: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 17-28.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2723 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Chameroy, Fabienne & Salgado, Stéphane & de Barnier, Virginie & Chaney, Damien, 2024. "In platform we trust: How interchangeability affects trust decisions in collaborative consumption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Zhao, Ling & Lu, Yaobin & Wang, Bin & Chau, Patrick Y.K. & Zhang, Long, 2012. "Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 574-588.
    11. Zhijuan Hong & Ruhai Wu & Yan Sun & Kunxiang Dong, 2020. "Buyer preferences for auction pricing rules in online outsourcing markets: fixed price vs. open price," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 163-179, March.
    12. Ahlert, Dieter & Heidebur, S. & Michaelis, Michael, 2007. "Kaufverhaltensrelevante Effekte des Konsumentenvertrauens im Internet: Eine vergleichende Analyse von Online-Händlern," Working Papers 48, University of Münster, Competence Center Internet Economy and Hybrid Systems, European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS).
    13. Sullivan, Yulia W. & Kim, Dan J., 2018. "Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 199-219.
    14. Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & T. Ramayah & Nalini Suppiah & Osama Alfarraj & Nasser Alalwan, 2020. "Modeling Blog Usage From a Developing Country Perspective Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    15. Timm Teubner & Marc T. P. Adam & Florian Hawlitschek, 2020. "Unlocking Online Reputation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 501-513, December.
    16. Chang, Shuchih Ernest & Shen, Wei-Cheng & Liu, Anne Yenching, 2016. "Why mobile users trust smartphone social networking services? A PLS-SEM approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4890-4895.
    17. Xiaojun Wu & Jiabin Shen, 2018. "A Study on Airbnb’s Trust Mechanism and the Effects of Cultural Values—Based on a Survey of Chinese Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Dan J. Kim & Donald L. Ferrin & H. Raghav Rao, 2009. "Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 237-257, June.
    19. Marzieh Soleimani, 2022. "Buyers' trust and mistrust in e-commerce platforms: a synthesizing literature review," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 57-78, March.
    20. Mohammed Alharbey & Stefan Van Hemmen, 2021. "Investor Intention in Equity Crowdfunding. Does Trust Matter?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    21. Paul A. Pavlou & Angelika Dimoka, 2006. "The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller Differentiation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 392-414, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:23:y:2012:i:3-part-2:p:940-959. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.