The meaning of trust

Trust is a complex construct that has been conceptualized in multiple ways. It is commonly agreed that it refers to a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions and behavior of others (Rotter, Reference Rotter1980). Rousseau, Silkin, Burt, and Camerer (Reference Rousseau, Silkin, Burt and Camerer2011) define trust as a ‘psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon a positive expectation of the intentions or behavior of another’ (2011: 395). Trust involves an ongoing process of relationship building, communication, and action (Misztal, Reference Misztal1996).

However, over the years, the concept of trust has been subjected to differing theoretical perspectives which have been subjected to a great deal of controversies and much debates in the literature. Colquitt, Lepine, Zapata, and Wild (Reference Colquitt, Brent, Scott and LePine2011) showed that different types of trust can be distinguished from each other and suggested that the literature dealing with the concept of trust entails two distinct streams. The first stream is the one exemplified by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (Reference Mayer and Davis1995) view which emphasizes the vulnerability aspect of trust. The other stream, captured in the arguments put forth by Rousseau et al. (Reference Rousseau, Silkin, Burt and Camerer2011) emphasizes the expectations aspect of trust.

The trust literature also distinguishes trustworthiness (the ability, benevolence, and integrity of a trustee) and trust propensity (a dispositional willingness to rely on others). This perspective is generally endorsed by researchers who think of trust as a personality characteristic often use an individual’s general disposition or propensity to trust to predict trust behavior (Chopra & Wallace, Reference Chopra and Wallace2003). In other words, individuals’ propensity to trust refers to their dispositional willingness to rely on others (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Lepine, Zapata and Wild2007). It is an expression of their readiness and confidence that they will not be harmed or put at risk by the actions of other people. When individuals are predisposed to trust other people, they are accepting that while it is possible these people could act to their disadvantage, yet they believe they are not likely to do so (Das & Teng, Reference Das and Teng2004; Ferguson & Peterson Reference Ferguson and Peterson2015). In this study, we focus on the notion and concept of propensity to trust.

Gender and trust

The existence of gender differences in trust behavior has important implications for economic behavior (Croson & Gneezy, Reference Croson and Gneezy2009; Chang, O’Neill, & Travaglione, Reference Chang, O’Neill and Travaglione2016). Yet, the empirical research to-date remains mixed, in terms of demonstrating which gender group may be more trusting in given economic situations [Croson & Buchan, Reference Croson and Buchan1999; Buchan, Croson, & Scinick, Reference Buchan, Croson and Scinick2008; Schwierena & Sutterb, Reference Shin and Park2008]). More specifically, survey evidence on which gender is more trusting is deeply divided. While some studies emphasize significant differences between males and females on their propensity to trust; other studies show no differences, or even the opposite.

Sheehan (Reference Schoorman, Mayer and Davis1999) found that female consumers have greater trust concerns than men and are less likely to engage in purchasing over the web. Spector and Gwene (Reference Spector and Gwene2004) reported a significant interaction effect between respondent gender and initial trust. Specifically, they found that initial trust level was much lower among female employees. They justify their findings by arguing that females tend to exhibit lesser ‘trusting stance’ (i.e., the degree to which an individual consistently deals with people as if they are well-meaning and reliable across situations and persons). In other words, female are less likely to make a conscious choice to trust people until they prove untrustworthy. In a study of the effects of gender on trust and trustworthiness, Buchan, Croson, and Scinik (Reference Buchan, Croson and Scinick2008) examined the effects of gender on trust and trustworthiness. They compared choices by men and women in a laboratory-controlled game supplemented by survey data aimed at understanding the motivations for the behavioral differences between men and women. Their findings revealed that men tend to trust more than women do, and that women are more trustworthy than men.

While the above studies point to a lesser degree of trust among females, other studies do not support this contention. Feingold (Reference Feingold1994) meta-analysis of gender and scales of personality inventories shows that females scored slightly but consistently higher than males on scales of trust (Feingold, Reference Feingold1994). Similarly, in a study of gender impacts in virtual teams, Furumo and Pearson (Reference Furumo and Pearson2007) reported that females displayed higher trust than males.

Dreber and Johannesson (Reference Dreber and Johannesson2008) conducted a series of experiments to test for a difference in lying and trusting behavior between men and women. In particular, they tested whether there was a difference in the extent to which men and women trusted the contents of different types of messages. They found no significant gender differences in this regard. Similarly, in an analysis of gender differences on a trust game, Vyrastekova and Onderstal (Reference Wagner and Moch2005) observed that, on average, men and women did not differ on trust and that women are slightly more trustworthy than men. In a comprehensive study of e-government services in the Romanian context, Colesca (Reference Colesca2009) found that gender did not influence trust and that women did not necessarily trust more than men.

Given the above research evidence, it would be plausible to assume that women in the United Arab Emirates would be less trusting than their male counterparts.

The role of entrepreneurial experience

A large body of research on trust, crossing many disciplines, assumes that the willingness to trust is closely associated with the willingness to take risk and thus associate trust with entrepreneurship and risk taking (Steensma, Marino, & Weaver, Reference Steensma, Marino and Weaver2000; Kwon & Arenius, Reference Kwon and Arenius2010). The main argument here is that entrepreneurs need to network with others and trust them in order to form and grow their organizations. Yet, some researcher still persist and argue that by comparison to other social groups, entrepreneurs are generally more cautious and less trusting (e.g., Brodsky, Reference Brodsky1993; Goel & Karri, Reference Goel and Karri2006). This view relies on the assumption that if/when entrepreneurs are over-trusting, they expose themselves to greater vulnerability and risk.

Yet, in contrast, several studies do not support the above claim. They argue that entrepreneurs need to be more trusting because this is part of their predisposition to take risk which is embedded in the profiles/personalities of successful entrepreneurs (Steensma, Marino, & Weaver, Reference Steensma, Marino and Weaver2000; Kwon & Arenius, Reference Kwon and Arenius2010). In fact, trusting and readiness to engage in trusting relationships that involve risk are some of key ingredients of successful entrepreneurs. In other words, trust and risk are closely linked (Das & Teng, Reference Das and Teng2004). In contrast, individuals (e.g., nascent entrepreneurs) who were presented with business/entrepreneurial opportunities and did not take them at a given time (because of lack of trust) blame themselves for the missed opportunities.

Trust, as it relates to entrepreneurship, may also be contextual. For instance, individuals from countries with higher propensity to trust and breadth of memberships to groups (collectivism) may perceive more entrepreneurial opportunities and therefore take more risks (Steensma, Marino, & Weaver, Reference Steensma, Marino and Weaver2000; Kwon & Arenius, Reference Kwon and Arenius2010). In recent years, this tendency has been more common and is clearly demonstrated by the huge and growing international business ventures (and investments) of Middle-East entrepreneurs (more specifically those from the Gulf region) despite current socio-political unrest. For the success of their ventures, entrepreneurs need to develop network and nurture trusting relationships within these. When members of their networks trust each other, they are more willing to engage in cooperative activity through which further trust may be generated. Trust and risk are also closely interrelated (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer and Davis1995). Consequently, trust is a critical ingredient for the success of entrepreneurs willing to take risks. It is often the key to establishing long-term viable business relations. It is therefore essential for entrepreneurship as it can reduce some risks inherent within entrepreneurial activities as well as act as a governing mechanism for various entrepreneurial relationships (Welter, Reference Wheeler, Reis and Bond2012).

Hence, the predisposition to trust becomes almost a necessity for individuals engaged in small business/entrepreneurial activities, particularly those business experience.

Individualism–collectivism and propensity to trust

Individualism/collectivism describes the relationship between the individual and the prevailing collectivity in a given society. Individualism implies a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only, while collectivism is characterized by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups; they expect their in-group to look after them, and in exchange they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1980). Much of the research on individualism and collectivism has tended to focus more on these dimensions as aspects of national cultures rather than as personality traits (Gunther, McGrath, MacMillan, & Scheinberg, Reference Gunther, McGrath, MacMillan and Scheinberg1992). However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the cultural syndromes of individualism/collectivism and personality are tightly related (Triandis, Reference Triandis and Gelfand2001). Hence, there is a great degree of overlap between individualism and collectivism as personal traits and as cultural dimensions. People in collectivist cultures, compared with people in individualist cultures, are likely to define themselves as aspects of groups, to give priority to in-group goals, to focus on context more than the content in making attributions and in communicating, to pay less attention to internal than to external processes as determinants of social behavior, to define most relationships with in group members as communal, to make more situational attributions, and tend to be self-effacing (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1980; Spence, Reference Spence1985; Wagner & Moch, Reference Welter1986; Hui, Reference Hui1988; Sampson, Reference Sampson1988; Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, Reference Wheeler, Reis and Bond1989; Schwartz, Reference Sheehan1990; Triandis & Gelfand, Reference Triandis1998; Triandis, Reference Triandis and Gelfand2001; Finkelstein, Reference Finkelstein2010).

Propensity to trust refers to the dispositional willingness to rely on others (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Lepine, Zapata and Wild2007). It is a stable individual difference that represents an individual’s dispositional tendency to trust or distrust (be suspicious of) other individuals (Rotter, Reference Rotter1980; Bernerth & Walker, Reference Bernerth and Walker2009). It refers to a generalized expectancy to attribute benevolent intent to others and rely on information received from others. Those who characteristically trust others believe that they will be treated fairly and that over time their good acts will be reciprocated in some manner (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, & Kostova, Reference Van Dyne, Vandewalle and Kostova2000). Thus they are more likely to get involved in collective work and try to benefit from positive experiences as group members. In fact Rotter (Reference Rotter1980) demonstrated that trusting individuals respected the rights of others and were liked by others and were sought out as friends. Extending this logic, we would assume that trusting individuals would value relationships with others and would more likely value collectivism. This may explain why much of the literature emphasizes a strong positive relationship between trust and collectivism, and a negative relationship between trust and individualism (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, & Kostova, Reference Van Dyne, Vandewalle and Kostova2000; Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, Reference Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery2003). It would seem that collectivists tend to place more importance on relationships and nurture them with more care than individualists. For instance, Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery (Reference Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery2003) found that trust enhances the predisposition to work in a collective manner such as teamwork. More specifically, their research indicated that trust was a strong predictor of an employee’s preference for teamwork. Overall, it is assumed that collectivism is linked with hierarchical and engulfed social bonds that impede the formation of trust in society (Shin & Park, Reference Schwartz2005).

Based on the above views, it would be more logical to assume that propensity to trust will be higher among collectivists than individualists.

Data and sample

The data reported here targeted three sets of populations. The first target population is a convenience sample of business students attending courses in a University in the United Arab Emirates. The second target population is a convenience sample of small business owners/operators. The third target population is a convenience sample of non-business owners employees from a variety of public/private institutions. The questionnaire instrument was piloted randomly before final delivery and the scales and associated items were all borrowed from previous validated research (see measures section below). The questionnaire was in English. All respondents were informed beforehand that the survey was delivered in English. Hence, those with language difficulties were not expected to (and did not) participate in the survey.

Sub-sample 3 – employees

Here, we targeted employees from various institutions in proximity of the university. This was a convenient sample as the participants were approached directly. In some cases we approached the HR manager and left the questionnaires with him/her to distribute to members, for us to collect the following day. Of the total 500 questionnaires distributed, 376 completed surveys were received, for a 74% response rate. This response rate is quite satisfactory and is deemed acceptable in empirical research of this type of research as a 50% response rate (and above) is generally considered as acceptable (Baruch, Reference Baruch1999).

The response rates for all three target populations are satisfactory and are generally deemed to be acceptable in empirical research. Table 1 shows the sample distribution by gender and respondent types. The distribution reveals fewer females (25%) among the small business owners and more females (60%) among the student population. This reflects the realities of entrepreneurial activities and studentship in the United Arab Emirates, and indeed other countries in the region, where (currently) business courses are attended by a much larger proportion of females (compared with males). At the same time, small business owners/operators are dominated by males. The sample of working individuals follows the same pattern as that of the small business owners/operators, the majority are males.

Table 1

Sample distribution by gender and respondent type

The sample distribution by gender groups, across the three samples is shown in Table 1.

Demographic variables

Gender (as dummy variables) was attributed ordinal values: Male=1; Female=2. Age was measured by asking respondents to report their age group based to which the following values were given: 18 years or less=1; 19–25=2; 26–35=3; 36–45=4; 46–55=5; over 55=6. Education was assessed on the following basic scale: high school or below=1, higher education (technical/university)=2; postgraduate (Master/PhD)=3. Work experience was based on full-time work and was assessed as follows: 5 years or less=1; 6–10 years=2; 11–20 years=3; over 20 years=4. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not they are currently working full-time or part-time.

Propensity to trust

The propensity to trust scale used in the present study was the eight-item measure used by Mayer and Davis (Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1999). Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). A sample item is ‘Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do.’ Cronbach α for this scale is moderate (0.67), but acceptable and consistent with past studies (see Appendix 1).

Individualism–collectivism

The concept and measures of individualism and collectivism as cultural dimensions were borrowed from Triandis and Gelfand (Reference Triandis1998). The instrument comprises 16 items, broken down into four sub-categories relating to horizontal and vertical individualism (two separate sub-dimensions), horizontal and vertical collectivism. Horizontal orientation emphasizes equality while vertical orientation emphasizes hierarchy. Individualism emphasizes independent exchange relationships, attitudes, and personal goals. By contrast, collectivism emphasizes interdependent relationships, norms, and in-group goals. More specifically, horizontal individualism assesses the extent to which individuals strive to be distinct without desiring special status. Horizontal collectivism assesses the extent to which individuals emphasize interdependence but ‘do not submit easily to authority.’ Vertical individualism assesses the extent to which individuals strive to be distinct and desire special status. Vertical collectivism assesses the extent to which individuals emphasize interdependence and competition with out-groups (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, Reference Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand1995; Triandis & Gelfand, Reference Triandis1998). More details are provided in Appendices 2–6.