Skip to main content

Table 6 Findings for outcomes pertaining to trust

From: Conceptualising, operationalising, and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review

Outcomes: What were the outcomes of the study?
Themes and sub-themes Description  
Theme R1 Context specific This theme describes outcomes of trust that are influenced by given context. Specifically, outcomes that describe how/if context varies depending on the traits that exist within an individual as a kind of precondition to trust, as well as the context surrounding an individual, such as individuals in their network.
ST R1.1 Within individuals This sub-theme describes outcomes that explore how an individual within a context, and thus the traits that exist within the individual can impact trust. Specifically, trust is discussed as dependent on the individuals personality and experience which can alter their disposition to trust. For example, trust can be influenced by their past experiences with trust (or mistrust) in others (i.e. groups, individuals, organisations etc.). “Although we were not able to assess the impact of a trustor’s propensity to trust as part of our net logit model, a careful analysis of the difference between the actual and predicted values suggests that propensity to trust is another key variable influencing interpersonal trust in networks.” [39]
ST R1.2 Surrounding individuals This sub-theme describes outcomes that explore how the context surrounding an individual can influence trust. For instance, the norms, values, setting, institutional barriers, and level of support from others surrounding the individual in a given environment can influence trust. “A third finding relates to the notion that some universal dimensions of trust are important in the classroom, as well as in the field-based setting, while other domains may be more distinctive for residential, field-based experiences...This finding suggests that these may be distinct notions of trust particularly pertinent to this field-based setting.” [34]
Theme R2 Relational This theme focuses on outcomes that speak to the relational aspects of trust and highlight the how trust is fluid from a relational perspective and involves a variety of features that require and depend on another individual (ie., trustor to trustee).
ST R2.1 Trustworthiness This sub-theme explores outcomes of trustworthiness, which has been described as a precursor to trust. “For all three measures of perceived trustworthiness—Expertise, Interest, and Values—a positive and significant relationship exists with Trust.” [39]
“Based on data from community, academic, and bridge partners, I identify four major dimensions of trustworthiness in the community-academic research partnership setting: ethical, competent, caring, and vulnerable. Each dimension has several subthemes, and a cross-cutting theme, respectful” [47]
ST R2.2 Cohesion This sub-theme pertains to outcomes that explore how communication, collaboration, cooperation, and coordination function to create a cohesive partnerships and/or teams where people can work together effectively, thus promoting trust. “Our results suggest that when respondents indicated a high level of trust in their linkages with other organisations, regardless of which sector organisations belonged, they were more likely to collaborate.” [35]
“As a means to create a strategic competitive advantage for CSOs, trust holds promise as a means to enhance administrative coordination in local networks, access resources, and create the means to cooperate with those in the environment in which they are embedded.” [35]
“Collaboration and cooperation among CAB members: Members from different organizations collaborate to solve problems and cooperate to share resources and responsibilities in a manner that encourages trust that tasks will be completed (Trust; Problem assessment; Resources; Group roles)” [46]
ST R2.3 Relationship quality and relationship type This sub-theme pertains to outcomes that explore how the quality of a relationship, and type, whether it be a friend or another type of personal relationship, are correlated with trust. “TRUST: Trust correlates very strongly with the type of relationship the actors have with each other (0.9314), meaning that the better friends they are, the more trust they express.” [31]
“This is not surprising considering the very strong correlation between trust and relationship.” [31]
“It became clear through our comparison that quality of relationship, one measure of trust, varied across the networks.” [40]
ST R2.4 Support This sub-theme reflects outcomes that discuss how support in general, such as moral or social support are correlated with trust. “It is again the emotional input of pepping and moral support that has the highest relative importance for trust by far, but with a smaller gap to report of activities again on second place (Fig. 3).” [31]
“This study demonstrated statistically significant relationships between social support and trust, as well as social support, participatory discussion, and participatory decision-making and coordination. However, unlike previous interorganizational network studies, statistically significant relationships were not found between conflict resolution, participatory discussion, or participatory decision-making and trust. ” [49]
ST R2.5 Reliability This sub-theme pertains to outcomes that discuss how an individual or a group of individual’s are relied on to meet certain demands, perform specific tasks and make decisions is associated with trust. Reliability is reflective of one’s competence from the perspective of the trustor-trustee dynamic. Specifically, it related to the confidence in and extent to which the trustor believes the trustee's will follow-through on commitments, perform a given task, and/or make decisions about something. “my study participants were clear that reliability was necessary for trustworthiness. It holds that if a person cannot be relied upon to keep their word, they cannot be trusted.” [47]
“Question 65, What could be done to improve the trust among movement members?”
“Each person does their own thing in their own way, make sure that you follow-through on your tasks (N = 2)” [49]
“Listening to the community’s priorities, engaging the community in activities and sharing information with the community an NGO help build trust. Doing what is promised substantiates words with actions” [48]
ST R2.6 Ability This sub-theme describes outcomes pertaining to an individual’s (trustee’s) ability to perform a given task or make decisions about something based on their perceived skill set and competence from the perspective of another individual (trustor). “Recognition and sharing of expertise: Expertise is valued as a resource that provides legitimacy to the CAB, influences trust in member abilities, provides confidence in project success, defines group roles and responsibilities, and guides engagement and influence” [46]
“H4: These separate main effects for receiving ties indicate that players high in performance are more likely to be trusted, and also players high in experience are more likely to be trusted by others. (significant)” [50]
ST R2.7 Integrity This sub-theme represents outcomes that pertain to one’s belief that the trustee will follow a set of princples, deemed acceptable by the trustor. For example, questions may ask if an individual is likely to say what is true and share that with the trustor. “Taken together, the results of the foregoing analysis corroborate the idea that trust is associated with deeper hierarchies of coherent level 2 and 3 beliefs. The analysis reveals not only a strong covariation among respondents’ level 2 and 3 beliefs about alters and their trust in the competence and integrity of alters, but also with their knowledge of alters’ level 1 beliefs.” [38]
“There is no formulaic method for gaining community trust. Although participants have outlined major facilitators and barriers to trust, ultimately, relationships of trust with community members evolve when NGOs are respectful, do what they say they will do, and involve community members fully in all processes.” [48]
“.862 My research partner really looks out for what is important to me.#” [47]
ST R2.8 Shared values, visions, and goals This sub-theme reflects outcomes that highlight how having shared visions and goals in partnerships as well as a commitment to these partnerships, can promote trust in relationships. “Commitment to a shared vision: There is a shared understanding of the childhood obesity problem in the region and commitment to finding solutions that encourages trust in following through on tasks and confidence in sustainability of efforts (Problem assessment; Trust; Sustainability)” [46]
“Trust increases through the sharing of common goals and an ongoing commitment between individuals and organizations. Participants emphasized that the community must be ‘behind’ any program or project if it is to succeed.” [48]
“This setting contains particular power dynamics, historical experiences, and differences in values and goals that set this relationship apart from other types of trust relationships. It demands a particular focus on respect as well as an additional dimension, vulnerability, that is often associated with trusting rather than trustworthiness.” [47]
ST R2.9 Problem solving This sub-theme discusses outcomes that identify how problem solving in partnerships can lead to the development of trust in relationships. “Question 65, What could be done to improve the trust among movement members?”
“13. Reflect on new solutions to problems (N = 1)” [49]
“The final five clusters representing factors that contribute to trust in community-academic research partnerships, were named as follows: 1) authentic, effective and transparent communication, 2) mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships, 3) sustainability, 4) committed partnerships and, 5) communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems.” [44]
ST R2.10 Power sharing + co-ownership This sub-theme discusses outcomes that explore how having respect in a partnership, sharing power, and fostering co-ownership can promote trust. For example, including partners in decision-making, taking their perspectives into account throughout all stages of the research process, and sharing ownership of project tasks are essential for showing respect to partners, thus promoting trust in the relationship. “This setting contains particular power dynamics, historical experiences, and differences in values and goals that set this relationship apart from other types of trust relationships. It demands a particular focus on respect as well as an additional dimension, vulnerability, that is often associated with trusting rather than trustworthiness.” [47]
“The trusting environment was also associated in interviews with country ownership, which was in contrast to the rushed process and lack of ownership in the subsequent IPV application process.” [36]
“Three main barriers to trust that can be addressed internally by an NGO were identified by participants: 1) NGO arrogance and assumptions; 2) Not obtaining community support for NGO activities; and 3) NGO activities and or research that benefits outsiders rather than the community. NGO arrogance and assumptions refer to a power differential whereby the NGO perceives itself as the expert and dismisses, denigrates or ignores community knowledge and expertise.” [48]
ST R2.11 Sustainability This sub-theme discusses outcomes that pertain to the sustainability of partnerships or specific outcomes (such as a program) beyond project or funding end date. “This relationship may also proceed in the inverse direction, such that increased sustainability will lead to increased trust and more collective learning” [43]
“Barriers and facilitators to community trust were identified by participants and included respect for cultural norms, listening to community members and asking them about their priorities and involving community members in any project or research activity if sustainability is a goal.” [48]
ST R2.12 Vulnerability This sub-theme speaks to outcomes of trust that focus on the willingness of an actor (trustor) to be vulnerable to the actions of another actor (trustee). The trustor does not have complete control over how the trustee will behave and is thus, uncertain about how the individual will act, which also implies that there is something of importance to be lost, and in turn, risk and uncertainty involved. This setting contains particular power dynamics, historical experiences, and differences in values and goals that set this relationship apart from other types of trust relationships. It demands a particular focus on respect as well as an additional dimension, vulnerability, that is often associated with trusting rather than trustworthiness [47].
Theme R3 Complex concept This theme explores outcomes of trust that speak to trust as a complex concept. Specifically, this includes outcomes that relate to the multidirectional nature of trust, including the multiple types of trust.
ST R3.1 Multiplicities of trust This sub-theme represents outcomes that explore trust not as a binary concept (presence/absence of trust), but in terms of types of trust. Depending on the type of trust present, the strength of trust will vary. For example, trust types can expand from (low) no trust, neutral trust, to (high) critical reflexive trust. [“Both the qualitative and quantitative outcomes indicate that trust types do exist in practice. Data provided evidence that many partnerships began in mistrust/suspicion or proxy trust, and over time those same partnerships shifted to functional or critical reflective trust. In terms of unique contributions the qualitative data provided information about what contributed to the process of trust development”
“Qualitative data elaborated on how and why types of trust developed over time, which showcased the transformative nature of CBPR. Third, through these data we see trust functioning at the local levels, with emerging patterns that can be transferable to other contexts.”] [45]
Theme R4 Features of social network analysis This theme explores outcomes where social network analysis techniques were used to describe trust or how techniques are correlated with trust.
ST R4.1 Individual level   
ST R4.1.1 Constraint This sub-theme explores outcomes related to constraint. Constraint occurs when alters are connected to each other and can keep information from the ego and can therefore control ego’s actions and perceptions.
Specifically, constraint measures the connections between alters from each of the alter's perspective.
“Among the network measures, each respondent’s constraint is positively correlated with her or his own level 2 belief strength, consistent with the idea that the density of relationships promotes interpersonal cohesion and formation of norms (e.g., Coleman 1988, 1990).” [38]
“The final model shows that, again, structural hole theory seems to be the best predictor of the evolution of the trust network: individuals will not intensify their ties to persons who exert little structural constraint on them, and they will tend to initiate more trust relations the more efficient their network is. In sum, it seems that people strive after reciprocal trust relationships, and try to optimize their position within the network (i.e. search for the right mix of strong and weak ties).” [53]
ST R4.1.2 Reciprocal trust Outcomes where the direction of tie goes both ways. For example, reciprocal trust is present if the trustor chooses to trust the trustee and the trustee also trusts the trustor. [“The final five clusters representing factors that contribute to trust in community-academic research partnerships, were named as follows: 1) authentic, effective and transparent communication, 2) mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships, 3) sustainability, 4) committed partnerships and, 5) communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems.” [44]
[“The reciprocity effect shows that there is a strong tendency to establish reciprocal trust relationships (t = 1.15/0.22 = 5.23; p < .001).” [53]
“In all clubs, there is support for reciprocity of trust relations, and thus H1 relating to trust-generating mechanisms. It is no surprise that we found the significant presence of mutual trust ties in all three clubs, especially given that the reciprocal nature of trust is seen as fundamental to the definition of trust itself. Indeed, reciprocity can almost be seen as the fundamental structure for trust relations, and the absence of such patterns from a network of trust would indicate an incredible lack of trust within the network.” [50]
ST R4.1.3 Asymmetry Outcomes where there is a “one-way” directional relationship between two individuals in a network. So the trustor may have a relationship with the trustee, but not the trustee with the trustor (or in the same capacity). “Since more aging-in-place service transaction information is available and accessible by the public after desensitization, it could help eliminate the information asymmetry between older people and aging-in-place service centers, which could contribute to increasing the trust in service providers.” [30]
ST R4.1.4 Centrality Outcomes pertaining to the extent to which a person inhabits a prestigious or critical position in a network. “More strikingly, however, respondents’ strength of trust in and level 2 and 3 beliefs about alter j are negatively and significantly correlated with alter j’s betweenness centrality. These negative correlations are consistent with the idea that network centrality fosters a competitive orientation among actors as they attempt take advantage of opportunities for information brokerage and control to increase their autonomy and others’ dependence on them (Burt 1992, Moldoveanu et al. 2003).” [38]
“H3: This is support for the third structure of trust (H3) and indicates that some highly popular teammates do not trust one another. (Significant for club A and B)” [50]
ST R4.1.5 Transferability Outcomes exploring the number of third parties who trust the trustee and are also trusted by the trustor. “Also contrary to our expectations, trust transferability is not a significant predictor of any of the three measures of a trustee’s perceived trustworthiness. However, Transferability is a positive and significant predictor of Trust directly.” [39]
“We found that OCBIs and trust transferability had direct relationships with trust (Hypotheses 1 and 4)” [42]
ST R4.1.6 Nodes-network members Outcomes pertaining to individual network members, representing the nodes in the network. “Network members are highly trusted classmates and the ones with whom students actually do or would team up given the opportunity to self-select their team.” [32]
“Two findings stand out: First, the connection between trust and social network is robust to most differences between individuals, especially business and political differences. Trust variance is 60% network context, and 10% individual differences” [33]
“As the number of positive relationships between individuals from the community and NGOs increase, a ‘web of trust’ is developed.” [48]
“It is important to note that the process of gaining community trust is built on individual dyads between an NGO staff member and a community member.” [48]
ST R4.2 Group level   
ST R4.2.1 Cliques Outcomes that found a set of points all directly connected to each other “The results (not shown) support Simmelian tie theory: the more cliques ego belongs to, the less likely it is that ego will initiate trust relationships to new alters, unless ego and alter are strongly tied to each other by both being member of the same cliques” [53]
ST R4.2.2 Fragmentation Outcomes that found the proportion of pairs of nodes that cannot reach each other. “With this study, fragmentation scores were relatively low meaning that many ties were realised, suggesting that the “coordinator” role has facilitated the development of many ties between organisations in the network.” [35]
ST R4.2.3 Structural equivalence Outcomes where the grouping of nodes in a network are based on patterns of their connections to others in the network. “Furthermore, our analysis suggests that although we did not find empirical evidence supporting Hypotheses 4, 8, and 9, frequency of interactions, structural equivalence, and trust transferability do influence the development of interpersonal trust. These variables just do not affect the development of interpersonal trust through the pathways that we originally hypothesized. Instead of influencing a trustee’s perceived trustworthiness, frequency of interactions between the trustor and trustee has a direct, positive impact on whether the trustor trusts the trustee.” [39]
“But unlike network closure, Equivalence has a stronger direct effect on the three trustworthiness variables than on successful past cooperation. Based on these results, past cooperation does not mediate the relationship between structural equivalence and perceived trustworthiness. Instead, structural equivalence appears to have a direct, positive impact on whether a trustor perceives a trustee as trustworthy.” [39]
“We found that structural equivalence predicted trust indirectly via OCBIs.” [42] [interpersonal organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBIs)]
ST R4.2.4 Third party relationships This sub-theme discusses outcomes that show how trust was correlated with third-party relationships. Third-party relationships refer to when an actor in a dyad (two actors) goes outside the dyad to an additional third-party that is thus outside of the dyad to make decisions about trust pertaining to the other actor in the dyad. “In other words, as the number of third parties who trust the trustee and are also trusted by the trustor increases, the likelihood that the trustor will trust the trustee increases.” [39]
“Third-party relationships as a force that influences trust by shaping interpersonal behavior.” [42]
ST R4.3 Network level   
ST R4.3.1 Network size This sub-theme pertains to outcomes that looked at the size of the network, such as how many actors/individuals make up the given network. “The results show that guanxi ties are less distinct in larger, more open networks. With respect to network size, trust is higher in bridge relations with nonevent contacts (4.67 t-test in Table 4), and less increased for event contacts (− 4.27 t-test). There is no change in the closure-trust association.” [33]
ST R4.3.2 Structural holes Outcomes pertaining to structural holes, which is where a lack of direct contact or ties between two or more entities (Burt, 1992). “The final model shows that, again, structural hole theory seems to be the best predictor of the evolution of the trust network” [53]
ST R4.3.3 Closure Outcomes pertaining to the number of third parties to a relationship (i.e. dense clusters of strong connections). “Trust increases within a relationship as network closure increases around the relationship, but some relationships mature into guanxi ties within which trust is high and relatively independent of the surrounding social structure.” [33]
[“H2: Second, concerning the functional equivalence perspective, network closure was positively related to network trust in both countries. Specifically, all three indicators of network closure were related to network trust in SC-China, while two of them (i.e. proportion of family ties and average closeness) were associated in SC-USA. These results support H2.
H3 + H4: H3 that predicted a negative relationship between network closure and generalized trust is thus rejected [51].
Third, in regard to the mutual independence perspective, the single factor of individual network diversity and resources is negatively related to network trust in both nations as supposed by H4.” [51]
ST R4.3.4 Homophily This sub-theme explores research outcomes where the study found that trust was stronger when people were interacting with those who were similar to them (e.g., had similar networks to them, or were from the same organisation or sector) when compared to those who were dissimilar to them (e.g., from different organisations of sectors, or had different networks). “Interestingly, the results do not support the notion of homophily in this study as organisations were not likely to seek out collaborations with only those organisations in the same sector.” [35]
“This suggests that individuals are more likely to perceive individuals who have similar social networks as trustworthy regardless of whether they have successfully cooperated in the past.” [39]
Trust relations will be afforded to other team members of similar experience and performance. For Club A there is a significant and positive homophily effect for experience [.006 (.002)*], indicating that players trust others of a similar level of experience to themselves (supporting H5a) [50].
ST R4.3.5 Density Outcomes that are based on the number of connections in a network. “Density is the opposite: Trust is lower in bridge relations with nonevent contacts (− 8.23 t-test in Table 4), and increased for bridge relations with event contacts (9.33 t-test).” [33]
“The high level of trust within the HIPMC coalition represents a critical strategic asset for network success. Trust can be challenging to build within a network. In its absence, efforts to optimize density and centralization may face meaningful barriers. Sustaining high levels of trust should become a key priority for coalition leaders moving forward.” [37]
“Among the network measures, each respondent’s constraint is positively correlated with her or his own level 2 belief strength, consistent with the idea that the density of relationships promotes interpersonal cohesion and formation of norms (e.g., Coleman 1988, 1990).” [38]
ST R4.3.6 Centralisation Outcomes looking at the degree to which network ties are focused on one individual, or a set of individuals. “The results include a degree centralisation measure of 0.76 for collaborative ties and 0.77 for trust, suggesting that centrality and power are concentrated among a few organisations rather than dispersed across several organisations in both matrices.” [35]
[The high level of trust within the HIPMC coalition represents a critical strategic asset for network success. Trust can be challenging to build within a network. In its absence, efforts to optimize density and centralization may face meaningful barriers. Sustaining high levels of trust should become a key priority for coalition leaders moving forward.” [37]
  1. Legend: ST sub-theme, R(#) outcome pertaining to trust