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

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
L. PytlikZillig, Joseph A. Hamm, Ellie Shockley, M. Herian, T. Neal, Christopher D. Kimbrough, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein
{"title":"The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses","authors":"L. PytlikZillig, Joseph A. Hamm, Ellie Shockley, M. Herian, T. Neal, Christopher D. Kimbrough, A. Tomkins, B. Bornstein","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

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.
四个制度领域中信任相关构式的维度:验证性因子分析的结果
利用验证性因子分析和每个结构的多个指标,我们在四种制度背景(警察、地方治理、自然资源、国家治理)和多种参与者类型(通过在线调查的大学生、作为城市预算参与活动一部分的社区居民、农村土地所有者的随机样本)中,检验了与众多信任相关结构(从9到12)相关的理论推导因子结构。以及通过亚马逊土耳其机器人(Amazon Mechanical Turk)研究的全美成年美国人样本)。在各种研究中,出现了一些共同的发现。首先,每个研究中的最佳拟合模型为每个信任相关结构保持了单独的因素。此外,事后分析涉及高阶因素的增加往往比崩溃的因素更适合。第二,性格信任与其他信任相关构念容易区分,积极构念和消极构念往往容易区分。而反映正面信任态度建构或正面信任知觉的项目,其判别效度较低。研究结果之间的差异提出了需要在未来研究中进一步调查的问题,包括潜在构式之间的相关性差异,从非常高的(例如,研究2中有12个因素间相关性高于0.9)到更温和的(例如,研究4中只有3个相关性高于0.8)。此外,一项研究(研究4)的结果表明,合法性、公平性和发言权尤其高度相关,可能形成一个单一的高阶因素。但其他研究没有。未来的研究需要确定何时以及为什么不同的高阶因子结构可能出现在不同的制度背景或不同的样本。
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
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
×
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