Permanent Link Feedback

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


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 to12) 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 inv... (more)
Created Date 2016-03-31
Contributor PytlikZillig, Lisa M. (Corresponding Author) / Hamm, Joseph A. / Shockley, Ellie / Herian, Mitchell N. / Neal, Tess M.S. / Kimbrough, Christopher D. / Tomkins, Alan J. / Bornstein, Brian H.
Subject Trust in institutions / dispositional trust / confidence / legitimacy / justice / fairness
Type Text
Language English
Identifier DOI: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
Rights All Rights Reserved
Citation PytlikZillig, L.M., Hamm, J.A., Shockley, E., Herian, M., Neal, T.M.S., Kimbrough, C., Tomkins, A.J., Bornstein, B.H. (2016). The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Trust Research, 6, 111-150.
doi: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
Note This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Numbers DGE-1154855, DGE-0903469, SES-1061635, SES- 1228559, SES-1353980, SBE-0965465, and SBES-1228937. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Note This is a pre-print version of the paper t published in the Taylor & Francis journal. This version may not exactly replicate the final version published in the Taylor & Francis journal. It is not the copy of record. Please visit the journal’s website for more information: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
Collaborating Institutions New College of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences
Additional Formats MODS / OAI Dublin Core / RIS


  FOR POSTING_CFA trust paper.pdf
869.8 KB application/pdf
Download Count: 354