Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

Are Trust and Distrust Distinct Constructs? An Empirical Study of the Effects of Trust and Distrust among Online Banking Users
John Skip Benamati Miami University benamajh@muohio.edu Abstract
This study provides insights on the trust-related factors that influence consumer intentions to use online banking. Specifically, the study examines the relationships between trustworthiness, trust, distrust, and user intentions to use online banking services. Over 500 college students located across two different universities completed a survey designed to examine the effects of trustworthiness perceptions on trust and distrust, and the downstream influence of trust and distrust on intention to use. As hypothesized, results indicate that trust and distrust are distinct constructs, and that the established nomological network between trustworthiness, trust, and intention hold in the current context. Also supported is the new contention that trustworthiness is negatively related to distrust, and that distrust has a negative effect on intention to use. Finally, our hypothesis examining the relative contribution of trust and distrust on user intentions was not supported. In the context of this study, trust overwhelmed distrust.

Mark A. Serva University of Delaware servam@lerner.udel.edu

Mark A. Fuller Washington State University mark@wsu.edu

1. Introduction
The Internet and the World Wide Web have revolutionized shopping, financial management, and information gathering choices for consumers. Combined, these media provide a rapidly evolving new mechanism for interaction. Although the changes brought about by these new media have affected industries at various stages of their supply chains, the changes may be most visible to consumers. As a result, companies that interact directly with end consumers scramble to take full advantage of evolving Internet technologies. Simply providing a sound, easy to use site for online consumer interaction is not enough to ensure successful Web investments. For companies to realize the full potential of B2C e-commerce, consumers must also be comfortable transacting over the new medium [13]. The comfort level that influences their decision

to transact is often based on their past experiences and available external information about the online business. It is well established that trust, generally defined as a willingness to be vulnerable to another, plays a strong role in consumers decision to do business online [23]. Hence, in addition to a sound web site, online businesses must strive to establish consumers trust. Recent research into online transactions suggests distrust, which is the unwillingness to become vulnerable to another, also plays a significant role in the decision to transact online [3, 24]. This follows from existing trust research in which trust theorists argue or propose that trust and distrust are not two extremes of the same construct, but instead are correlated but distinct constructs [20, 24, 29]. While trust focuses on more positive emotional reactions (hope, confidence, and assurance) towards another, distrust is based in more negative emotions (suspicion, wariness and fear) [20, 24]. Clearly both positive and negative emotions can exist simultaneously. Lewicki [20] illustrated this well in a discussion of an unmanned roadside vegetable stand. A payment box was left on the table and customers were trusted to do the right thing. However, the box was both locked and bolted to the table indicating distrust and trust simultaneously existed. It is also possible that both trust and distrust in an online business interact to directly influence consumer intentions to transact in B2C ecommerce. One recent study examined consumer disposition to trust and distrust and found significant downstream influences on user intentions to use online legal advice [24]. Aside from that study, there has been no empirical MIS research establishing trust and distrust as distinct constructs. The majority of B2C ecommerce trust research has used online retailers as the focus of consumer trust [4, 11, 16, 19, 26, 32]. Fewer studies have focused on online banks, the specific trustee in this study. As banks increasingly offer online services, trust and distrust in the mind of consumers may play important roles in the use of these services. To motivate

0-7695-2507-5/06/$20.00 (C) 2006 IEEE

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

customers to adopt online banking, banks may need to consider carefully the implications of the roles of trust and distrust, especially in light of the increased interpersonal distance between them and their customers. The purpose of this research is twofold. First, the study examines the nature of trust versus distrust in a specific trustee to determine if they exist as separate but relatedconstructs. This examination is important because no work has examined the effects of trust and distrust in a specific trustee on user intentions. Instead, previous studies have focused on trust and distrust as dispositional constructs, conceptualizing them as a more general faith and suspicion in humanity [24]. Second, this study also explores the nature of trust and distrust so that the relative influence of both constructs on user intentions to transact can be better understood. To date, no empirical studies have investigated the relative influence of trust and distrust within an online banking context The following sections explore the nature of trust and distrust and their proposed relationships, propose research models to apply to study these relationships, discuss the methodology applied in this research, and present the results of the study.

2. The Nature of Trust and Distrust

Trust has been well studied in the B2C e-commerce context and is commonly defined as a willingness to become vulnerable to a trustee after having considered characteristics of that trustee [24]. Much less research has focused on distrust, especially in the B2C context. Distrust is defined as the unwillingness to become vulnerable to a trustee having considered characteristics of that trustee [24]. The trustee in this context is the organization that provides a website for consumers to perform online transactions. Prior B2C research has established trustworthiness (as reflected in user perceptions of ability, integrity and benevolence) as important characteristics of the trustee organization relative to a users eventual intention to use the companys website to transact [23, 28]. Some early researchers viewed trust and distrust as extreme values along the same dimension [27]. Others argue trust and distrust are distinct constructs that coexist [20, 24, 29]. Lewicki et al. [20, p. 444] state that high distrust is not the same thing as low trust and McKnight et al. [24 p. 40] contend distrust is the distinct opposite of trust. Trust focuses on more positive emotional reactions (hope, confidence and assurance) towards another and hence is positivevalent. Distrust is based in more negative emotions (suspicion, wariness and fear) [20 24] and hence is negative-valent. Prior research into other positive-

valent and negative-valent attitudes supports the assertion of the two attitudes as distinct bipolar constructs [6, 34]. If trust and distrust are indeed distinct, then the question of how they co-exist within existing theoretical models requires further clarification. Luhman [21] suggests that trust cannot exist without distrust and that a change in either without a corresponding change in the other can be harmful. In combination, trust and distrust simplify our decision making processes. Trust reduces complexity by compelling a person to take action that exposes him or her to risk; distrust reduces complexity by compelling a person to take protective action to reduce risk [21]. Lewicki et al. [20] suggest that a productive tension exists between the two constructs that provides a source of stability for relationships. This tension is necessary to keep us functional. In its most extreme forms, blind trust represents a Pollyanna-like attitude [18] that exposes the trustor to unnecessary risk, while blind distrust renders the trustor incapable of completing any task. Lewicki et al. [20] proposed a framework to illustrate how trust and distrust coexist. Figure 1 represents an adaptation of their 2X2 framework. The original framework captures the positive and negative emotions that characterized both constructs and the ability for high and low levels of each to exist. Our adaptation assigns meaningful labels to the quadrants and allows for the extreme possibilities of no trust or no distrust. As illustrated in Figure 1, the quadrant where low (or in the extreme no) trust and low (or no) distrust exists represents consumers that neither trust nor distrust their bank. Such customers are detached from their online bank, indicating that neither a positive nor negative attitude has formed. This lack of an emotional connection may result from a lack of substantial interaction or substantive experiences with the bank. Hence from this quadrant, the nature of consumers relationship is very casual with little interdependence. Relationships where trust or distrust is not balanced by the other can lead to blind trust or blind suspicion. Blind trust is a situation in which the consumer puts complete faith in another party. Such complete faith results, however, in an abdication of responsibility, either consciously or unconsciously. Consumers engaging in blind trust can be especially susceptible to unfair treatment, exploitation, and manipulation. Fraudulent practices on the Internet are on the rise [14] and many instances of online bank fraud have taken place in recent years [5, 31, 33]. Without constant vigilance on the part of the consumer, the inherent

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

Low or No Distrust No fear, Absence of skepticism, Absence of cynicism, No monitoring, No vigilance Detachment Low or No Trust Characterized by No hope, No faith, No confidence. Passivity, Hesitance Casual acquaintances Limited interdependence Arms length transactions Professional courtesy

Distrust Fear, Skepticism, Cynicism, Wariness, Watchfulness, Vigilance Blind Suspicion Undesirable eventualities expected or feared Harmful motives assumed Interdependence carefully managed Preemption: Best offense is a strong defense; Paranoia Interaction occurs only as required Monitoring of behavior Attending to potential vulnerabilities that might be exploited Bounded Trust Trust but verify Relationship Highly Segmented and bounded Relationship limited to aspects of relation where trust is engendered; restricted where distrust is present Opportunities pursued but down-side risks are closely monitored

Blind Trust Trust Characterized by Hope, Faith, Confidence, Assurance, Initiative High-value congruence Interdependence promoted Opportunities pursued New initiatives

Figure 1: Integrating Trust and Distrust: Alternative Social Realities (Adapted from Lewicki et al. 1998) separation that is present with online banking may increase the opportunity for inappropriate behavior. Blind suspicion or blind distrust can be harmful in the other direction. Consumers that have high expectations of negative outcomes will fail to utilize online bill paying, balance transfers, and account maintenance. High levels of suspicion are likely to concern banks, which are encouraging customers to take advantage of such services, which increase customer convenience while reducing costs. It is likely, however, that as customers adopt more banking services (e.g., home equity loan, mortgage, childrens savings accounts, retirement and investment accounts), they will become emotionally involved by forming salient trust and distrust perceptions of the bank.1 The bounded trust quadrant represents those consumers with healthy and multi-segmented relationships with their banks. Trust exists, but is
1

Such perceptions will result from the natural interaction with the positive and negative aspects of a bank. As an example, a customer may prefer a certain teller because they share information about their grandchildren. Such interactions are likely to form positive affect, which may in turn result in increased trust perceptions in the institution. At the same time, a loyal customer may feel slighted when the bank indiscriminately charges a fee for a bounced check.

tempered by distrust. Healthy consumers do not blindly trust. They count on their online bank but monitor its actions, by balancing their check books and diligently reviewing monthly statements, etc. to ensure that the bank is performing as expected. Customers still avoid services that require additional trust or a decline in distrust (e.g., a childs trust fund). Kramer supports this idea of bounded trust by suggesting prudent paranoia tempers the downsides of being too trusting [18]. In spite of the theoretical assertions of trust and distrust as distinct constructs, very little empirical work has been done. One recent study empirically supports the distinctness by establishing disposition to trust and distrust as separate constructs. The constructs were operationalized as faith and suspicion in humanity [24]. In the B2C e-commerce arena, many studies support trust in an online vendor as an important antecedent to user intentions to use a B2C website [4, 11, 16, 19, 26]. Trust as a precursor to intention to use an online bank has also been established [4, 30]. No research, however, has focused on distrust in any online business. Hence, the distinctness of trust and distrust in an online bank is yet to be established.

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

Based on the above discussion and to attempt to accomplish our first research goal (to firmly establish trust and distrust in a specific trustee, as distinct constructs), we hypothesize: H1: Trust and distrust in an online bank are distinct and negatively correlated constructs.

3. Research Models
To accomplish our second research goal of more clearly understanding the relative influence of trust and distrust on user intentions to transact, we test several theoretical models. A description of each and the justification for its application are discussed in the following sections.

The model in Figure 2 more closely aligns with the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [8], and recent trust research grounded in TRA [24, 28]. In TRA beliefs are predicted to affect attitudes which influence intentions. Both previous online banking studies measured trust in terms of the beliefs that are precursors to trust in the more TRA based model. We expect our findings, with online banks as the trustee, to be consistent with past studies that focused on other types of online vendors. Hence, we hypothesize: H2: The established B2C trust nomological network will apply in an online banking context. (All relationships in Figure 2 will be significant)

3.2 Distrust in an Online Bank

If trust and distrust are indeed distinct, bipolar constructs, then it is reasonable to assume that distrust will also influence user intentions to use a website. When faced with expected undesirable eventualities [20] and charged with the negative emotions accompanying distrust [21, 24], consumers will probably use their online bank less or not at all. This is because To be suspicious is also to be in a state of suspended judgment [15, p. 502] and the expectation of negative consequences leads to behavior which is intended to reduce those consequences [7]. As these fears and negative emotions are alleviated, the expectation would be for the opposite effect to happen. Based on these assertions we hypothesize: H3. Distrust in an online bank negatively influences user intentions to use that online bank. Little work has addressed antecedents to distrust. Ability, benevolence and integrity beliefs can lead to positive attitudes such as faith, confidence and assurance about an online bank. Perhaps the same beliefs lead to (or alleviate) fear, cynicism, wariness and vigilance. It has been suggested that violations of both competency (ability) and integrity-based beliefs can raise the shadow of suspicion in the eyes of a trustor [17]. Allen and Wilson [1] proposed a model that suggests competence/ability, benevolence and integrity influence organizational trust and mistrust. Their assertion is that high levels lead to trust and low levels lead to mistrust. Hence, we hypothesize: H4: Consumers' beliefs about the trustworthiness of their online bank negatively influences their distrust of the online bank. Figure 3 illustrates this model and hypotheses.

3.1 Trust in an Online Bank

The context for the current study is a B2C online organization, more specifically an online bank. The model illustrated in Figure 2 is an established model for trust, its antecedents, and its effect on intention to use a website [23, 28]. Trustworthinessa second order factor reflected in consumer beliefs about the ability, benevolence and integrity of an online organizationis an established precursor to trust formation [23, 28]. Ability denotes the perceived skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within a specific domain. Benevolence represents the trustors belief that the trustee wants to do good toward the trustor. Integrity is the belief that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable [22, 23]. Trustworthiness instills trust, which influences intention to use. Though consistent with recent B2C studies, the model in Figure 2 differs slightly from those previously applied to online banks [4, 30]. More recent research into B2C E-commerce has treated trust as an attitude and models trustworthiness as beliefs ability, benevolence and integritywhich are precursors to trust as opposed to measures of trust [28].
Trustworthiness

Trust H2

Intention to use

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Figure 2: Accepted Model of Trust in Online Banks

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

H4
Trustworthiness

H3 Distrust

Intention to Use

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Figure 3: Proposed Model of Distrust in Online Banks

3.3 The Interactions of Trust and Distrust in an Online Bank

The previous two models do not represent the complete picture. As discussed earlier and illustrated in Figure 1, trust and distrust coexist [20, 24, 29]. Hence, models that include one without the other may be incomplete. In essence, the models in Figures 2 and 3 can only represent the extremes of the blind trust and blind suspicion quadrants in the proposed framework. Potential or new online bank customers may have not formed perceptions of trust or distrust in the online bank and regular users will have more mature relationships where trust is bounded by distrust. To correctly model the interaction between trust and distrust to influence user intentions, both must be included in the nomological network. Figure 4 illustrates this model. One additional hypothesis results: H5: In the presence of each other, both trust and distrust are distinct and significant contributors to user intention to use an online bank.
Trust Distrust H5 Ability
Benevolence

western coast of the United States, and 346 (48%) from a university in the Midwestern section of the United States. Because the perception of risk is important in forming trust versus distrust decisions, the survey included the following question: Regarding your online bank account, which statement best describes the money that is in the account? Students response indicated whether they or their parents provided most of the money in the bank account. Because students whose parents provided the money are less likely to perceive ownership of that money and hence less likely to be representative of bank users, we removed those subjects from the sample. After we removed the observations, 513 remained, with 243 from the west coast school and 270 from the Midwest. We adapted established measures of ability, benevolence, integrity, and trust to our specific context [23]. The distrust measures were created by wording the trust questions in a negative manner. This approach is consistent with previous work in the area of distrust [24], and allows the testing of the hypothesis that the negative of a construct falls along a different dimension than its positively-worded counterpart (H1). We developed the intention to use measures by reviewing existing measures and adapting them to our study context [9, 26 30]. Table 1 lists the composite reliabilitiesas measured by Cronbachs alpha. All reliability levels exceed the 0.80 standard [10, 25].
Construct Ability Benevolence Integrity Trust Distrust Use Cronbachs Alpha .92 .83 .93 .91 .90 .93

Trustworthiness

Intention to use

Integrity

Figure 4: Integrated Model of Trust and Distrust in Online Banks

Table 1: Construct Reliabilities We followed an accepted procedure for assessing discriminant validity and construct unidimensionality [2, 10]. The first step of the process is to establish convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs in Figure 4 using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model in which all model constructs were allowed to covary. Some of the modification indices exceeded 5.0, but none of the standardized residuals exceeded the 2.58 standard (maximum was 1.96). Fit statistics were all acceptable (RMSEA=0.05; GFI=0.94; AGFI=0.92; chi-square=287.17; df=120; chisquare/df=2.4; NFI=0.97). Model fit was therefore deemed acceptable.

4. Research Methods
We used a survey methodology to collect data for the study. Data were collected from 714 students across two different universities. The data collection procedure was consistent across the two schools. As part of an introductory level MIS class, the instructor asked the students to participate in a study examining their online banking practices. Participation was voluntary. The sample was evenly divided between the two schools, with 368 (52%) from a university on the

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

5. Results
To test the hypotheses, trustworthiness was modeled as a second-order factor. Ability, benevolence, and integrity were the first-order latent indicators. Trust, distrust, and intention to use were also first-order factors. Each factor had three indicators. To reflect our a priori belief that trust and distrust are related, the error terms for trust and distrust were allowed to covary. All reported path coefficients have been standardized to facilitate comparison. The first hypothesis posits that trust and distrust are separatebut negatively-relatedconstructs. Using a causal model with both trust and distrust related to use, we conducted a chi-square test to determine if the correlation between the two constructs significantly differed from zero. We first allowed the correlation between trust and distrust to remain free. The correlation between trust and distrust was -0.76, which was highly significant (p<0.001), corroborating part of Hypothesis 1. We next fixed the correlation to 1. The difference in the chi-square value between the free model and the fixed model indicates whether the tested correlation is significantly different than 1. Significance is determined using one degree of freedom. The chi-square statistic degraded significantly (2(1)=18.93; p<0.001), indicating that trust and distrust are discriminant constructs. To further support their distinctness we used a second test [12]. Discriminant validity is supported if the average variance explained, (AVE), for a construct exceeds the correlation between the two constructs. The factor loadings for the construct must also exceed any cross loadings. The trust AVE is 0.79, and the distrust AVE is 0.78. All loadings are higher than the cross loadings. Hypothesis 1 is corroborated. Hypothesis 2 posits the established relationships between trustworthiness and trust and between trust and intention to use will hold in an online banking context. We tested the hypothesis by fitting a model that included trustworthiness as a second-order factor, trust, and intention to use (see Figure 2). The path between trustworthiness and trust (=0.67; p<0.001) is significant, as is the path between trust and use (=0.51; p<0.001). Model fit was acceptable: (RMSEA=0.060; GFI=0.94; AGFI=0.91; chisquare=244.24; df=85; chi-square/df=2.9; NFI=0.96). Hypothesis 2 is therefore corroborated. Hypotheses 3 and 4 examine the newly proposed relationships between trustworthiness and distrust and between distrust and intention to use. Hypothesis 3 posits that distrust in an online bank will decrease user intentions to use that online bank in the future. We tested the hypothesis by fitting a model that included trustworthiness as a second-order factor, distrust, and

intention to use (see Figure 3). Model fit was again acceptable: (RMSEA=0.066; GFI=0.93; AGFI=0.91; chi-square=271.98; df=85; chi-square/df=3.2; NFI=0.96). The relationships between distrust and use is significant (=-0.42; p<0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 proposes that trustworthiness is negatively related to distrust. The results again support the hypothesis (=-0.54; p<0.001). Hypothesis 5 examines the relative contribution of trust versus distrust in predicting future use (see Figure 4). We used a hierarchical analysis procedure on multiple models to determine the marginal contribution of each. We first included a causal path between trust and use. The trust to use relationship was significant (=0.46; p<0.001). We next added a path between distrust and use. The trust to use relationship remained significant (=0.51; p<0.001), but the distrust to use path was not (=-0.06; p=0.26). The percent variance explained remained at 26%, indicating that the marginal contribution of distrust is close to zero. We then followed the same procedure to determine the marginal contribution of trust. Without trust in the model, the distrust to use relationship was significant (=-0.43; p<0.001), but the percent variance explained was lower than the trust-only model (19%), indicating that the marginal contribution of trust is 7%. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Perhaps, spite of distrusts significant influence on intentions (as supported by Hypothesis 3), trust overshadows distrust when both exist.

6. Discussion
This study makes two primary contributions to the understanding about the nature of trust and distrust. Although previous conceptual research has proposed that trust and distrust co-exist as distinct constructs, little empirical evidence exists to corroborate this proposition. None examines the distinctness of trust and distrust in a specific trustee. The results indicate that distrust and trust co-exist as separate constructs. This finding suggests that users of online banks can trust an online bank with their money while at the same time distrusting and perhaps cautiously monitoring the banks actions. Our findings support Lewickis contention that the co-existence of trust and distrust reflects a more developed (or multi-segmented) relationship, in that the online consumer understands and accepts both the positive and negative attributes of the bank. Second, this research makes a contribution by examining the relative importance of trust versus distrust within the same nomological network. We established that each construct separately acts as a

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

significant consequence of trustworthiness and as a significant predictor for intention to use. When both are included, however, trust overwhelmed distrust in importance in predicting user intentions. In fact distrust became insignificant in the presence of trust. This finding was further corroborated in the hierarchical analysis, which found that when trust was in the model, adding distrust resulted in no additional variance explained for intention to use. A secondary finding was further support for a TRA-based model of trust formation in an alternative context, online banking. This further establishes trustworthiness as a second order antecedent representing beliefs that lead to the formation of a trusting attitude [28]. The results also provide support for a similar conceptualization for the formation of distrusting beliefs.

trust in online transactions is well established. The assertion that both trust and distrust must coexist at some level to form healthy ongoing relationships however, has practical importance. Customers who distrust will take actions intended to monitor or alleviate the downside risks of trusting or becoming vulnerable to the online bank. To the extent possible, online banks should embrace distrust and provide mechanisms for customers to take actions to closely monitor the banks activities and disperse distrust related fear and wariness. At the same time, trust can not be overlooked. Our findings indicate that, in this context, trust is more influential on user intentions to use and online bank. Hence, online banks should continue to strive to build trusting relationships, but perhaps the banks that embrace and best provide for customer distrust will be more successful.

7. Suggestions for Future Research

This is an initial study into the nature of trust and distrust of an online business. Much more research is left to be done. This study examined only common antecedents and consequences of consumer trust and distrust in online banks. Lewicki et al. [20] suggest that trust and distrust will have different antecedents and perhaps consequences. Some evidence of this exists in our study. Trustworthiness accounted for 45% of the variance in trust, but only 29% percent in distrust. Perhaps this difference is indeed due to antecedents not included in our model. Likewise, both were demonstrated to affect trust, but no work in this study investigated other consequences of trust or distrust. This remains as important future work. Our findings suggest that while both trust and distrust play a role in user intentions for online banks, trust is more important. We also find that including trust with distrust is important when interpreting results. Studies that include only distrust may conclude that distrust can be a significant predictor of use. Our results suggest otherwise, given the presence of trust. Further empirical research is necessary to corroborate this finding in other contexts. It is possible, of course, that distrust could have a stronger effect than trust in different contexts [24]. We encourage other researchers to clarify the nature of these two important constructs across different contexts.

9. Limitations
This study collected data from college students. While certainly viable online banking customers, individuals of this age do not have the financial issues of older individuals well into careers, raising families etc. The results could vary with a more random sample of the population. We leave this also as future research.

10. Conclusion
Trust is well accepted as necessary for consumers to accept and use the Web to interact with their bank. This study establishes distrust and a separate construct worthy of consideration in the online strategies for banks. More research is needed to better understand the interactions between trust and distrust in this and other online contexts. As online banking usage continues to grow, however, distrust will play a role.

References
[1] Allen D. and Wilson, T. (2003). Vertical trust/mistrust during information strategy formation. International Journal of Information Management, 23, pp. 223-237. [2] Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, pp. 411-423. [3] Benamati, J. and Serva, M., Trust and Distrust in Online Banking. Information Technology for Development, forthcoming. [4] Bhattacherjee, A., (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), pp. 211-241.

8. Practical Implications
The primary practical implication of this study is that online bankers should be cognizant of the existence of both trust and distrust. The importance of

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

[5] Bob, K., (2001). Ensuring it's really your member online, Credit Union Executive Journal. 41(5). [6] Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P., George, J.M., Robertson, L. and Webster, J. (1989). Measuring affect at work: confirmatory analyses of competing mood structures with conceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75, pp. 1091-1102. [7] Deutsch, M., (1958). Trust and suspicion, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, pp. 265-279. [8] Fishbein, M. and Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [9] Gefen, D. (2002). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33(3), 3853. [10] Gefen, D. (2003). Assessing unidimensionality through LISREL: an explanation and example, CAIS, 12, pp. 2347. [11] Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D.W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), p51, 40p. [12] Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W., and Boudreau, M.C., (2000). "Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research and Practice," CAIS, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 1-70. [13] Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W., (2003). Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services. e-Service Journal, 2(2), 7-24. [14] Grazioli, S. and Jarvenpaa, S.L., (2003). Consumer and business deception on the internet: content analysis of documentary evidence, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(4), pp. 93-118. [15] Hilton, J.L., Fein, S., and Miller, D.T., Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social. Psychology Bulletin, 19(5) (1993). 501-512. [16] Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M., (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store, Information Technology and Management, 1, pp. 45-71. [17] Kim, P.H., Ferrin, D.L., Cooper, C.D. and Dirks K.T.. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competenceversus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), pp. 104-118. [18] Kramer, R.M., (July 2002). When paranoia makes sense. Harvard Business Review, 80(7). pp. 62-69. [19] Lee, K.O. and Turban, E., A trust model for consumer internet shopping, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1) (2001). pp. 75-91.

[20] Lewicki, R., McAllister, D.J., and Bies, R., Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3) (1998). pp. 438-458. [21] Luhmann, N., (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester, England: Wiley, [22] Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D., (1995) An Integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,. 20(3). [23] McKnight, H., Choudhury, V., and Kacmar, C. (2002). "Developing and validating trust measures for ecommerce: an integrative typology", Information Systems Research (13) 3, pp. 334-359. [24] McKnight D. H., Kacmar , C.J., and Choudhury, V., (2004). Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. e-Service Journal, 3(2), pp. 35-58. [25] Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. [26] Pavlou, P.A., (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), pp. 101-134. [27] Rotter, J., A (1967). New scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4),. [28] Serva, M., Benamati, J. and Fuller, M. (2005). Trustworthiness in B2C e-commerce: An examination of alternative models. DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 36(3), pp. 89-108.. [29] Sitkin, S.B., and Roth, N.L., (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic 'remedies' for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4. [30] Suh, B., and Han, I., (2003). The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3), pp. 135-161. [31] Thompson, L.K., (2003). California group joins web system to monitor fraud, robberies. American Banker. 168(162). [32] Torkzadeh, G. and Dhillon, G., (2002). Measuring factors that influence the success of internet commerce, Information Systems Research, 13(2), pp. 187-204. [33] Trombly, M., (2000). Bankers group pushes its seal of approval. Computerworld, 34(33). [34] Watson, T. and Tellegen, A, (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood, Psychological Bulletin, 98, pp. 219-235.