Resilience or decline of informal networks? Examining the role of trust context in network societies

IF 5.9 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Sven Horak , Andreas Klein , David Ahlstrom , Xiaomei Li
{"title":"Resilience or decline of informal networks? Examining the role of trust context in network societies","authors":"Sven Horak ,&nbsp;Andreas Klein ,&nbsp;David Ahlstrom ,&nbsp;Xiaomei Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The nature of informal networks in various societies, and particularly whether they recede or tend to persist over time, has long been a subject of discussion in international business studies. However, empirical research on trust in network-oriented societies, where individuals typically maintain somewhat different relationships with their in-group, out-group, and non-specified others, remains limited. Drawing on insights from informal network research and intergroup contact theory to model trust relationships in network societies, 882 respondents from three network societies -- China, Russia, and South Korea -- were surveyed, and confirmatory factor and path analyses applied. The results suggest that as network importance increases, both in-group trust and out-group trust also increase. Individuals who more commonly draw upon out-group trust ties attach less importance to in-group trust ties. Increases in non-specific trust, however, are associated with increases in both in-group and out-group trust, pointing towards the boundary spanning function of non-specific trust. Consequently, rather than finding a clear indication of whether informal networks persist or recede, ambivalent trust relationships were observed. This calls for a reexamination of the conventional ‘either/or’ perspective on the nature of informal networks. This network heterogeneity can be attributed to individuals, especially in developing network societies, utilizing a ‘both/and’ approach to trust and networking, and yielding more economic opportunities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51352,"journal":{"name":"International Business Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969593124000489","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The nature of informal networks in various societies, and particularly whether they recede or tend to persist over time, has long been a subject of discussion in international business studies. However, empirical research on trust in network-oriented societies, where individuals typically maintain somewhat different relationships with their in-group, out-group, and non-specified others, remains limited. Drawing on insights from informal network research and intergroup contact theory to model trust relationships in network societies, 882 respondents from three network societies -- China, Russia, and South Korea -- were surveyed, and confirmatory factor and path analyses applied. The results suggest that as network importance increases, both in-group trust and out-group trust also increase. Individuals who more commonly draw upon out-group trust ties attach less importance to in-group trust ties. Increases in non-specific trust, however, are associated with increases in both in-group and out-group trust, pointing towards the boundary spanning function of non-specific trust. Consequently, rather than finding a clear indication of whether informal networks persist or recede, ambivalent trust relationships were observed. This calls for a reexamination of the conventional ‘either/or’ perspective on the nature of informal networks. This network heterogeneity can be attributed to individuals, especially in developing network societies, utilizing a ‘both/and’ approach to trust and networking, and yielding more economic opportunities.

非正式网络的恢复力还是衰退?考察信任环境在网络社会中的作用
长期以来,各种社会中非正式网络的性质,特别是随着时间的推移,非正式网络是逐渐消退还是趋于持续,一直是国际商业研究中的一个讨论主题。然而,在以网络为导向的社会中,个人与其群体内、群体外和非特定他人通常保持着不同的关系,因此有关信任的实证研究仍然有限。本文借鉴非正式网络研究和群体间接触理论的观点,对来自中国、俄罗斯和韩国这三个网络社会的 882 名受访者进行了调查,并应用了确认性因子和路径分析来模拟网络社会中的信任关系。结果表明,随着网络重要性的增加,群内信任和群外信任也会增加。更常利用群体外信任关系的个体对群体内信任关系的重视程度较低。然而,非特定信任的增加与组内信任和组外信任的增加都有关联,这表明非特定信任具有跨越边界的功能。因此,我们并没有发现非正式网络是持续存在还是消退的明确迹象,而是观察到了矛盾的信任关系。这就要求我们重新审视关于非正式网络性质的传统 "非此即彼 "观点。这种网络异质性可归因于个人,尤其是发展中网络社会的个人,对信任和网络采用 "兼而有之 "的方法,从而获得更多的经济机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The International Business Review (IBR) stands as a premier international journal within the realm of international business and proudly serves as the official publication of the European International Business Academy (EIBA). This esteemed journal publishes original and insightful papers addressing the theory and practice of international business, encompassing a broad spectrum of topics such as firms' internationalization strategies, cross-border management of operations, and comparative studies of business environments across different countries. In essence, IBR is dedicated to disseminating research that informs the international operations of firms, whether they are SMEs or large MNEs, and guides the actions of policymakers in both home and host countries. The journal warmly welcomes conceptual papers, empirical studies, and review articles, fostering contributions from various disciplines including strategy, finance, management, marketing, economics, HRM, and organizational studies. IBR embraces methodological diversity, with equal openness to papers utilizing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信