Conceptualizations of Trust: Can We Trust Them?

• Author: Stanley E. Griffis,Judith M. Whipple,Patricia J. Daugherty
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12014
• Date: 01 June 2013

Conceptualizations of Trust: Can We Trust Them?

Judith M. Whipple, Stanley E. Griffis, and Patricia J. Daugherty

Michigan State University

Although logistics and supply chain management research efforts have continued to become more sophisticated, opportunities still exist for

further advancement. One critical area needing improvement is enhanced scale development and validation. This study provides insights

into the strengths and weaknesses of one specific construct, trust, by examining how trust has been measured in our literature. A methodology

for improving scale development, the Q-sort procedure, is used to demonstrate a need for better measurement scales. Our findings suggest that

numerous measures of trust have been used for logistics and supply chain research—most of which have been borrowed from other disciplines

—without significant replication. More importantly, the results illustrate that all too often content validity is less than adequate. It appears as

though we are not always measuring what we want to. Greater focus is recommended for future research that examines theory-based scale

development, purification of measures, and replication of scales to further refine and improve construct measurement for enhanced survey

research.

Keywords: Q-sort; scale development; scale validity; trust

INTRODUCTION

Logistics/supply chain management (SCM) research has evolved

significantly since the first issue of the Journal of Business

Logistics appeared in 1978. As an example of this evolution,

Georgi et al. (2010) summarize how the intellectual foundation

of the journal has changed since its inception, shifting from

predominantly operationally focused research to more strategic-

oriented research. Perhaps much of this evolution is a result of,

or was at least partially motivated by, calls from within the

field for more rigorous theoretical and methodological focus.

For example, Stock (1990, 1996, 2002) calls for the logistics

discipline to broaden its perspectives on logistics and its role

within the corporate landscape by not only delving into research

in nontraditional areas but also including other disciplinary

approaches, such as psychology and organizational behavior, in

our research. In 1994, Dunn et al. discuss the need for greater

scale development and validation in logistics research as the

field was embarking on research that involved more latent vari-

ables. Scale development and validation was critical to move

logistics research from purely descriptive to a more theoretically

driven approach (Dunn et al. 1994). Furthermore, as research in

logistics began focusing on more behavioral approaches, scale

development and validation were considered more critical for

advancing logistics theory (Keller et al. 2002).

Despite such evolution, recent research has indicated that more

work is needed. Sanders and Wagner (2011) propose that “multi-

disciplinary and/or multimethod research can provide greater

insight into today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and opportuni-

ties”(p. 317). In addition, Goldsby and Autry (2011, 324) sug-

gest “despite the acceleration of SCM research, many critical

topics remain understudied,”and indicate that research is war-

ranted to enhance the theoretical foundations in logistics and

SCM research.

In particular, behavioral-based research offers a critical area

for further study not only in terms of theoretical development

but also with respect to construct definitions, scale development,

and validation. This is particularly important given the rise in

behavioral-based research in the field. Recent research illustrated

that one of the key emerging themes in logistics research has

been a greater focus on interorganizational relationships (Georgi

et al. 2010). Research examining the intellectual structure of

SCM found interorganizational research to be one of three main

streams of research (Charvet et al. 2008).

Our study focuses specifically on evaluating the use of trust as

a key construct in interorganizational research within logistics/

SCM literature. Results of a literature review indicate that

although trust has been examined in a large number of studies,

the construct does not have an accepted definition, and inconsis-

tencies in scale development exist. Trust is a broad term that

encompasses a great deal of complexity and, potentially, misun-

derstanding. As such, the standard trust scales used in logistics/

SCM research may not be broad enough to truly capture the

essence of such a complex construct. For example, trust may be

conceptualized based on what trust entails (e.g., what the trustor

examines with respect to the trustee), where trust resides (e.g., at

the individual or interorganizational level), and, even, how trust

develops (e.g., longitudinal aspects of trust, including the loss

and potential recovery of trust).

Furthermore, as a field, we have predominantly relied on other

disciplines for scale development and validation with respect to

trust (e.g., psychology, organizational behavior, marketing) while

often ignoring the potential for content validity issues that may

result from contextual modifications. Content validity “refers to

the adequacy with which a measure assesses the domain of inter-

est”(Hinkin 1995, 968). As such, trust scales that were devel-

oped to understand interpersonal trust in the context of a spousal

relationship may not be valid when applied to interpersonal trust

between a buyer and a sales representative. Confidence in con-

tent validity of a measure does not automatically transfer as a

singular property of that measure—rather, content validity should

Corresponding author:

Judith M. Whipple, Department of Supply Chain Management, The

Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, 632

Bogue Street, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; E-mail: whipple@bus.

msu.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2013, 34(2): 117–130

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals