Abstract
Objective and Method: This review unravels the complexity of trust in home–school contexts across the globe by drawing on 79 peer-reviewed quantitative empirical studies spanning over two decades (2000–2020). The goal is to refocus attention on how trust has been defined and operationalized in recent scholarship.Findings: The findings reveal four essential pillars in the conceptualization of trust: the trustor’s propensity to trust, shared goals, the trustor–trustee relationship, and the trustee’s trustworthiness. However, the operationalization of trust in existing measures does not fully capture these essential pillars, as it is mainly based on trustee characteristics of benevolence, reliability, openness, competence, and honesty rather than on the trustor’s actual trust behavior.Conclusion: Most “trust studies” are essentially measuring trustworthiness and not the purported trust. Therefore, a shift in the conceptualization and measurement of trust is proposed. The review contributes to the understanding and assessment of home–school and workplace relationships.
Highlights
Trust is a crucial component of any active relationship, be it interpersonal (Rempel et al, 1985; Moye et al, 2005; Forsyth et al, 2011), relational (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Zahra et al, 2006; Kwan, 2016), or organizational (Erden and Erden, 2009; Zafer-Gunes, 2016)
This paper presents the review of 79 articles in two parts: (1) conceptualization of trust, to analyze how the concept of trust has been defined in extant literature; and (2) measurement of trust, to analyze how the concept has been measured, as well as how its measurement relates to its conceptualization
Scrutinizing the trustee’s role – trustor’s confidence that the trustee will be benevolent, competent, honest, open, and reliable – we found that most definitions clearly state that the trustor’s confidence is built on the perception that the trustee is capable and possesses caring and trustworthiness traits
Summary
Trust is a crucial component of any active relationship, be it interpersonal (Rempel et al, 1985; Moye et al, 2005; Forsyth et al, 2011), relational (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Zahra et al, 2006; Kwan, 2016), or organizational (Erden and Erden, 2009; Zafer-Gunes, 2016). It assesses how the measurement of trust reflects its conceptualization
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
