Trust Development Models

This section reviews trust development mod­els to illustrate components needed for trust growth and decline. There are three models most salient in the literature: (1) trust devel­opment in romantic relationships, (2) trust development in interpersonal business rela­tionships, and (3) the three-stage trust devel­opment model for organizations.

Boon and Holmes (1991) identified three phases of trust in romantic relationships: (1) romantic love stage, (2) evaluation stage, and

(3) accommodation stage. They described the romantic stage as early in the relationship and characterized by emotion that idealizes the flood of positive feeling for another per­son. As interdependence grows, the evaluative stage begins and true colors begin to emerge. Less charming behaviors are evaluated, yet, because of interdependence, the risk of dissolv­ing the relationship has increased, as was seen in the relational trust type. The final stage, accom­modation stage, creates a “need for further compromise and adjustment” (p. 203). This stage identifies a necessity to actively “fit” into a partner’s needs and preferences. This model uniquely offers an evaluative component of trust development that is absent from other models.

To understand development and interper­sonal functioning among managers and pro­fessionals within organizations, McAllister (1995) proposed two types of trust: (1) com­petency-based trust (cognitive) and (2) an emotion-based trust (affective). Although cog­nitive trust and affective trust are distinct types, McAllister posits that affective trust can be an advancement of cognitive trust. In other words, competency-based trust over time can develop into affective trust, making it a model of development. Cognitive trust is grounded in individual beliefs and subsequent observa­tion about the reliability, dependability, and consistency of personal actions and behavior.

To advance the understanding of how trust develops in organizations, Lewicki and Bunker (1995) developed a three-stage model for orga­nizations based on the work of D. L. Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin (1992). These stages, called calculus-based trust (CBT), knowledge­based trust (KBT), and identification-based trust (IBT), are useful when looking at aca­demic-community collaborations because, for each stage, the authors articulate clear conditions and factors necessary for creating and sustaining trust. The conditions are situ­ational, relational, and risk related.

CBT develops when potential loss of busi­ness outweighs the profit potential that results from distrustful behavior. Translating this to community-academic relationships, con­sider research as an economic opportunity. A researcher secures a grant, completes the aims and scope of work, but does not build trust with community partners. There is a risk that the community will not want to partner in the future, and the researcher is back to finding another community partner (loss of business), rather than continuing the research trajectory by building on past accomplishments (profit potential). CBT also functions when each party understands the repercussions if harm is done, including that the trustor (person who is trusting) would withdraw benefits and intro­duce potential harms, including gossip and “bad mouthing,” if his or her trust is betrayed. From this angle, McAllister’s (1995) compe­tency-based trust is incorporated because all parties must be competent about the repercus­sions as well as the benefits.

KBT is based on the belief that partner’s dispositions are known enough for behavior to be predicted. Two additional factors help gain predictability: (1) regular communica­tion and (2) being attentive so as to assess “interpersonal fit” (D. L. Shapiro et al., 1992, p. 370). Fit was also found in Boon and Holmes’s (1991) model for romantic relation­ships. They made the point that fit is an active adjustment and compromise. For example, in community-academic partnerships, under­standing partners’ core values would determine whether a fit exists. In the opening scenario of this chapter, the community partners were concerned with actions that fit their current work situation as well as cultural appropriate­ness, whereas academics were concerned with fitting existing evidence-based curriculum into the work context. Adapting the curriculum that met the needs of both the community and academic team fit better with the partnership. Trust is harder at this stage and is directly proportional to the level of communication. Communication creates understanding of the other parties’ needs and aligning of actions necessary for continued partnering.

IBT is where each party understands and agrees with the other’s values often because of a relationship history. This level of trust is achieved by creation of joint products and goals, shared values, proximity, and shared identity. Shared identity can be created during the partnership, but it can also exist indepen­dent of the partnership, for example, partners who share particular views, share particu­lar histories, and/or provide similar types of service (Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). One could argue that this stage includes ele­ments of McAllister’s (1995) affective trust— grounded in reciprocated interpersonal care and interdependence.

This section attempted to illustrate similari­ties between interpersonal and organizational trust developmental models. Rotter (1967) brought forth the notion of trust as a key ele­ment in social organizations by stating,

One of the most salient factors in the effec­tiveness of our present complex social orga­nization is the willingness of one or more individuals in a social unit to trust others. The efficiency, adjustment, and even survival of any social group depends on the presence or absence of such trust. (p. 651)

As outlined in previous sections, there are many sources of conflict and risk present in community-academic relationships; therefore, the willingness to trust requires conscious negotiation of several factors: governance, decision making, risk and vulnerability, his­torical relationship with research, and rela­tionship parameters.

A promising trust-building and negotia­tion approach is CBPR, a specific strand of community-academic partnerships. Because Lewicki and Bunker’s (1995) model of trust development (CBT, KBT, and IBT) remains the most comprehensive explanation of trust development to date, the next section provides an overview of CBPR’s guiding principles and aligns them with the stages of this trust model to determine the model’s applicabil­ity to understanding trust development in community-academic research partnerships.