IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jtrust/v6y2016i2p111-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa M. PytlikZillig
  • Joseph A. Hamm
  • Ellie Shockley
  • Mitchel N. Herian
  • Tess M.S. Neal
  • Christopher D. Kimbrough
  • Alan J. Tomkins
  • Brian H. Bornstein

Abstract

Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city's budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above .9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above .8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa M. PytlikZillig & Joseph A. Hamm & Ellie Shockley & Mitchel N. Herian & Tess M.S. Neal & Christopher D. Kimbrough & Alan J. Tomkins & Brian H. Bornstein, 2016. "The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 111-150, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jtrust:v:6:y:2016:i:2:p:111-150
    DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Md. Shahzalal & Azizul Hassan, 2019. "Communicating Sustainability: Using Community Media to Influence Rural People’s Intention to Adopt Sustainable Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, February.
    2. Peter Ping Li, 2017. "The time for transition: Future trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Jennifer I. Schmidt & Douglas Clark & Nils Lokken & Jessica Lankshear & Vera Hausner, 2018. "The Role of Trust in Sustainable Management of Land, Fish, and Wildlife Populations in the Arctic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jtrust:v:6:y:2016:i:2:p:111-150. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJTR20 .

    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.