Trust makes consumers comfortable sharing personal information, making purchases, and acting on Web vendor advicebehaviors essential to widespread adoption of e-commerce. nancial information stolen by hackers (OBrien 2000) can deter Web site use. We apply an initial trust model because Web vendors need to engender suf? We further posit institution-based trust and disposition to trust as antecedents to trusting beliefs/intentions. Institution-based trust is the belief that needed structural conditions are present (e.g., in the Internet) to enhance the probability of achieving a successful outcome in an endeavor like e-commerce.

Relationships Among Trust Constructs Figure 2 depicts the subconstructs of, and linkages among, the trust constructs. uence trusting beliefs because it tends to color interpretations of the interpersonal relationship at hand. The direct effect of disposition to trust on trusting beliefs is likely to be strongest when both the institutional context and the speci?

c trustee are unfamiliar to the truster (Bigley and Pierce 1998, Rotter 1971). uence on trusting beliefs, instead of dispositional or institution-based trust.

These perceptions may be especially salient when interacting with an unfamiliar vendor. 1998) refers to trust in an unfamiliar trustee, a relationship in which the actors do not yet have credible, meaningful information about, or affective bonds with, each other (Bigley and Pierce 1998). cant number in e-commerce research (Mc Knight et al. The confusing proliferation of trust types has prompted some researchers to develop composite trust de? This model was also chosen because it includes measurement-level subconstructs. (1998), we integrate these trust constructs within the broad framework of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) (Figure 1). We also excluded predictability because it has to do with consistency, which is more relevant to an ongoing trust model than to an initial trust model. Consider an e-vendor of music CDs versus a Web provider of medical information.

Theory Trust is important because it helps consumers overcome perceptions of uncertainty and risk and engage in trust-related behaviors with Web-based vendors, such as sharing personal information or making purchases. ne trust as a tendency to trust others (Rotter 1971). ne trust as a cognition about the trustee (Rempel et al. Many variants of the above types exist, including a signi? (1998), because it includes institution-based trust as well as the more common trust typestrusting intentions, trusting beliefs, and disposition to trust. Openness, carefulness, and attractiveness were excluded from the model because few instances (Columns 13C15) were found. Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons.

1985 Ring and Van de Ven 1994 Sato 1988 Sitkin and Roth 1993 Solomon 1960 Thorslund 1976 Worchel 1979 Yamagishi and Yamagishi 1994 Zaheer and Venkatraman 1993 Zaltman and Moorman 1988 Column Totals % of TOTAL [86]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Compe- Expert- Dyna- Good- Benev- Respons- Integ- Moral- Cred- Reli- Depend- Predict- Open- Care- Attractence ness mism will olence iveness rity ity ibility ability ability ability ness fulness tion X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 11 13 3 3 3 3 10 12 16 19 X 4 5 8 9 X X X 6 7 1 1 7 8 X 5 6 X 6 7 3 4 2 2 1 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX X X X X XXNotes: Benevolence includes favorable motives and not acting opportunistically or manipulatively. Trust-building strategies may be different for individuals with low versus high disposition to trust.

For instance, links to well-known corporate sites may enhance trusting beliefs in the eyes of a consumer with high disposition to trust, but may alienate one with low disposition to trust (who may be suspicious of any trust-building attempts). Similarly, disposition to trust should positively in? Figure 2 also shows disposition to trust impacting trusting intentions directly, but this relation should be weak because it is largely mediated by trusting beliefs. This is not uncommon in TRA-based studies of technology acceptance (e.g., Agarwal and Prasad 1998, Karahanna et al. Trusting intentions means the truster is securely willing to depend, or intends to depend, on the trustee. Although many types exist in the literature (e.g., Butler 1991), three trusting beliefs are utilized most often (Bhattacherjee 2002, Gefen 1997, Mayer et al. Situational normality means one believes that the environment is in proper order and success is likely because the situation is normal or favorable (Baier 1986, Gar? A consumer who perceives high situational normality would believe the Internet environment is appropriate, well ordered, and favorable for doing personal business. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Willingness to depend (volitional preparedness to make oneself vulnerable to the trustee) and subjective probability of depending (the perceived likelihood that one will depend on the other) form two distinct subconstructs of trusting intentions. ning trust as a subjective probability of depending, measured the probability that one would Information Systems Research Vol. 3, September 2002share information with the other person. dent truster perception that the trusteein this context, a speci? 1995): competence (ability of the trustee to do what the truster needs), benevolence (trustee caring and motivation to act in the trusters interests), and integrity (trustee honesty and promise keeping). They would believe that, in general, vendors in the environment have the attributes: competence, benevolence, and integrity. The results show that trust is indeed a multidimensional concept. uence trusting beliefs and trusting intentions towards a speci? uence an individuals beliefs and intentions towards a Web-based vendor and is, therefore, important to include in the model. We view institution-based trust largely in perceptual terms, because we believe that, on the Web, perceptions ultimately determine trusting beliefs and trusting with the structures (e.g., legal protections) that make an environment feel trustworthy (e.g., the United States immigrant culture of the 1800s, Zucker 1986). Proposed relationships among the trust constructs are tested (for internal nomological validity), as are relationships between the trust constructs and three other e-commerce constructs (for external nomological validity)Web experience, personal innovativeness, and Web site quality. We discuss individual elements of the model in greater detail below. Trust-related behaviors are actions that demonstrate dependence on a Web vendor, that make one vulnerable to the vendor, or increase ones risk (Mayer et al. Numerous researchers have conceptualized trust as a Information Systems Research Vol. 3, September 2002336 Mc KNIGHT, CHOUDHURY, AND KACMAR Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce Figure 1Web Trust Model Overviewbehavior (e.g., Anderson and Narus 1990, Deutsch 1973, Fox 1974). Just as legal systems of justice and protection took time to set up in the wild, wild west of 19th-century America, so procedures and structures of security and protection are now being established in the wild, wild Web of the 21st century. This lack of clarity is also seen in research on Web trust, in which diverse and inconsistent de? Therefore, it is important to distinguish among the multiple dimensions of trust. ne trust as a characteristic of the institutional environment. In this paper, we build on the integrative model proposed by Mc Knight et al. Integrity, implying one is ethical, overlaps conceptually with morality and credibility, and with reliability and dependability to the extent that they have ethical overtones (Columns 7C 11). 1995), whereas integrity refers to keeping commitments and not lying (implying reliability), traits that may be held for utilitarian, rather than altruistic, reasons.