Perceived Trustworthiness of Knowledge Sources: The Moderating Impact of Relationship Length

1. Perceived Trustworthiness of Knowledge Sources:The Moderating Impact ofRelationship Length Daniel Z. Levin, Rutgers U. Ellen M. Whitener, U. of Virginia Rob Cross, U. of Virginia August 2004

2. Trust Literature • The literature has documented many benefits of interpersonal trust (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin 2002; Levin & Cross in press; McAllister 1995) • Citizenship behavior • Organizational commitment • Job satisfaction • Cooperation • Learning • Knowledge transfer • Several antecedents of trust have been proposed, too, including relationship length

3. Relationship-Length Puzzle • Some theorists have suggested that trust grows over the course of a relationship (Blau 1964; Lewicki & Bunker 1996) • Yet a recent meta-analysis showed a weighted average correlation of -.01 between relationship length and trust (Dirks & Ferrin 2002) • So trust can be high or low at any point, but… …social identity theory (Hogg & Terry 2000) suggests that the bases of trust may differ, depending on the relationship’s length

4. Research Question:How does relationship length affect on what basis people decide to trust others at work?

5. H1:Depersonalized Social Attraction • Early on, there is little time to size each other up, so people rely more on social categories. • So in newer relationships, trust will be based on: • Same Age (H1a) • Same Gender (H1b)

6. H2:Individualized Social Attraction • Later on, people learn each other’s outlooks, idiosyncrasies, and preferences. • So in older relationships, trust will be based on shared perspective.

7. H3:Observed Behaviorsas a Transition • In-between, people cannot yet verify if they have a shared perspective, so they focus on observing each other’s behavior. • So in intermediate relationships, trust will be based on perceived behaviors (e.g., being discreet, open, available).

8. Methods • Survey of knowledge seeking in supervisor-subordinate relationships (n=88) • Same results in three companies: U.S. drug co., Canadian oil & gas co., U.K. bank • Controls (respondent’s age, education, gender; direct supervisor; communic. freq.) • Statistical tests of interaction terms (H1-H2) and curvilinear interaction term (H3)

9. Regression Results Intercept, controls [not reported]*** Relationship Length (RL) .10 RL2 .00 Same Age .20 Same Gender .23 Behaviors .42† Shared Perspective .73*** H1a: Same Age * RL -.09 H1b: Same Gender * RL -.83* H2: Shared Perspective * RL .85** H3: Behaviors * RL -1.00** H3: Behaviors * RL2 -.68* } ΔR2 = .12**

10. .60 .40 New relationship** .20 Intermediate relationship* .00 Old relationship(ns) -.20 Perceived Trustworthiness -.40 -.60 -.80 -1.00 -1.20 no yes Same Gender H1b: Same Gender * RL

11. H2: Shared Perspective * RL Old relationship*** .95 .75 .55 .35 .15 Perceived Trustworthiness Intermediate relationship(ns) -.05 -.25 New relationship(ns) -.45 -.65 -.85 low high Shared Perspective

12. H3: Behaviors * RL2 .60 Intermediate relationship** .40 New relationship(ns) .20 .00 -.20 Perceived Trustworthiness Old relationship(ns) -.40 -.60 -.80 -1.00 -1.20 low high Perceived Behaviors

13. Conclusion • It should not be surprising that people in newer versus older relationships are equally likely to trust each other, because… • Trust is affected by how relationship length interacts with different bases of trust. • In sum, trust in other people is based on… …first, how they look …then later, how they act …and finally, how they think