1. Perceived Trustworthiness of Knowledge Sources: The Moderating Impact of Relationship Length Daniel Z. Levin, Rutgers U. Ellen M. Whitener, U. of Virginia Rob Cross, U. of Virginia August 2004

2. Trust Literature The literature has documented many benefits of interpersonal trust (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin 2002; Levin & Cross in press; McAllister 1995) –Citizenship behavior –Organizational commitment –Job satisfaction –Cooperation –Learning –Knowledge transfer Several antecedents of trust have been proposed, too, including relationship length

3. Relationship-Length Puzzle Some theorists have suggested that trust grows over the course of a relationship (Blau 1964; Lewicki & Bunker 1996) Yet a recent meta-analysis showed a weighted average correlation of -.01 between relationship length and trust (Dirks & Ferrin 2002) So trust can be high or low at any point, but… …social identity theory (Hogg & Terry 2000) suggests that the bases of trust may differ, depending on the relationship’s length

4. Research Question: How does relationship length affect on what basis people decide to trust others at work?

5. H1: Depersonalized Social Attraction So in newer relationships, trust will be based on: –Same Age (H1a) –Same Gender (H1b) Early on, there is little time to size each other up, so people rely more on social categories.

6. H2: Individualized Social Attraction So in older relationships, trust will be based on shared perspective. Later on, people learn each other’s outlooks, idiosyncrasies, and preferences.

7. H3: Observed Behaviors as a Transition So in intermediate relationships, trust will be based on perceived behaviors (e.g., being discreet, open, available). In-between, people cannot yet verify if they have a shared perspective, so they focus on observing each other’s behavior.

8. Methods Survey of knowledge seeking in supervisor- subordinate relationships (n=88) Same results in three companies: U.S. drug co., Canadian oil & gas co., U.K. bank Controls (respondent’s age, education, gender; direct supervisor; communic. freq.) Statistical tests of interaction terms (H1-H2) and curvilinear interaction term (H3)

9. Regression Results Intercept, controls [not reported]*** Relationship Length (RL).10 RL 2.00 Same Age.20 Same Gender.23 Behaviors.42† Shared Perspective.73*** H1a: Same Age * RL-.09 H1b: Same Gender * RL-.83* H2: Shared Perspective * RL.85** H3: Behaviors * RL -1.00** H3: Behaviors * RL 2 -.68* ΔR 2 =.12** }

10. H1b: Same Gender * RL.00.20.40.60 -.60 -.40 -.20 -.80 -1.20 noyes Same Gender Perceived Trustworthiness Intermediate relationship * New relationship ** Old relationship (ns)

11. .35.55.75.95 -.85 -.65 -.45 -.25 -.05.15 lowhigh Shared Perspective Perceived Trustworthiness Intermediate relationship (ns) New relationship (ns) Old relationship *** H2: Shared Perspective * RL

12. -1.20 -.80 -.60 -.40 -.20.00.20.40.60 lowhigh Perceived Behaviors Perceived Trustworthiness Intermediate relationship ** New relationship (ns) Old relationship (ns) H3: Behaviors * RL 2

13. Conclusion It should not be surprising that people in newer versus older relationships are equally likely to trust each other, because… Trust is affected by how relationship length interacts with different bases of trust. In sum, trust in other people is based on… …first, how they look …then later, how they act …and finally, how they think