Although many information systems (IS) scholars have researched the antecedents and consequences of trust in technology, the sheer amount of work published, authors’ use of inconsistent construct terms, and variations in conceptualization and measurement make it difficult to compare and aggregate findings across studies. To provide scholars with an overview of the literature, we performed a systematic qualitative review of the IS literature. The goal of our review was to identify the antecedents and consequences of trust in technology that have received frequent empirical support, as well as those for which the evidence is not yet conclusive. To that end, we curated a glossary of unique construct terms and summarized the results of 241 relationships tested in 62 empirical research articles (both quantitative and qualitative) from the AIS “Basket of Eight” journals. From these, we identified 62 unique relationships: 22 are well-supported, 6 are supported by suggestive evidence, and 34 have received little support. These relationships summarize what is well-known and less well-known within the literature. By taking stock, we prepare a path for future research on the phenomenon of trust in the context of emerging technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence and blockchain). We conclude the paper with opportunities and directions for future research.
AgarwalRKarahannaE (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly24(4): 665–694.
2.
AgerfalkPJErikssonO (2006) Socio-instrumental usability: IT is all about social action. Journal of Information Technology21(1): 24–39.
3.
AllenDKColliganDFinnieA, et al. (2000) Trust, power and interorganizational information systems: the case of the electronic trading community translease. Information Systems Journal10(1): 21–40.
4.
AngwinJLarsonJMattuS, et al. (2016) Machine bias: there’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica23: 77–91.
AvgerouC (2013) Explaining trust in IT-mediated elections: a case study of e-voting in Brazil. Journal of the Association for Information Systems14(8): 420–451.
7.
AwadNFRagowskyA (2008) Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: an examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 101–121.
8.
BansalGZahediFM (2015) Trust violation and repair: the information privacy perspective. Decision Support Systems71: 62–77.
9.
BansalGZahediFGefenD (2015) The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern. European Journal of Information Systems24(6): 624–644.
10.
BapnaRGuptaARiceS, et al. (2017) Trust and the strength of ties in online social networks: an exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly41(1): 115–130.
11.
BelangerFCarterL (2008) Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(2): 165–176.
12.
BenbasatIZmudRW (2003) The identity crisis within the is discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly27(2): 183–194.
13.
BenjaminDJBergerJOJohannessonM, et al. (2018) Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour2(1): 6–10.
14.
BenlianATitahRHessT (2012) Differential effects of provider recommendations and consumer reviews in e-commerce transactions: an experimental study. Journal of Management Information Systems29(1): 237–272.
15.
BetenskyRA (2019) The p-value requires context, not a threshold. The American Statistician73(Suppl. 1): 115–117.
16.
BhattacherjeeA (2002) Individual trust in online firms: scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems19(1): 211–241.
BrewardMHassaneinKHeadM (2017) Understanding consumers’ attitudes toward controversial information technologies: a contextualization approach. Information Systems Research28(4): 760–774.
19.
BrownSAMasseyAPWardKW (2016) Handle mergers and acquisitions with care: the fragility of trust between the IT-service provider and end-users. European Journal of Information Systems25(2): 170–186.
20.
ButlerJK (1991) Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust - evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management17(3): 643–663.
21.
ChandraSSrivastavaSCThengY-L (2012) Cognitive absorption and trust for workplace collaboration in virtual worlds: an information processing decision making perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(10): 797–835.
22.
ChenYZahediFMAbbasiA, et al. (2021) Trust calibration of automated security IT artifacts: a multi-domain study of phishing-website detection tools. Information & Management58(1): 103394.
ChoiJKJiYG (2015) Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction31(10): 692–702.
25.
ChoiBCFKimSSJiangZ (2016) Influence of firm’s recovery endeavors upon privacy breach on online customer behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems33(3): 904–933.
26.
CooperHHedgesLVValentineJC (2019) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
CrosslerREPoseyC (2017) Robbing peter to pay Paul: surrendering privacy for security’s sake in an identity ecosystem. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(7): 487–515.
28.
CyrD (2008) Modeling web site design across cultures: relationships to trust, satisfaction, and e-loyalty. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 47–72.
29.
CyrDHeadMLariosH, et al. (2009) Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method design. MIS Quarterly33(3): 539–566.
30.
DadgarMJoshiKD (2018) The role of information and communication technology in self-management of chronic diseases: an empirical investigation through value sensitive design. Journal of the Association for Information Systems19(2): 86–112.
31.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
32.
DavisRBuchanan-OliverMBrodieR (1999) Relationship marketing in electronic commerce environments. Journal of Information Technology14(4): 319–331.
33.
DeutschM (1960) The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations13(2): 123–139.
34.
DeutschMJonesMR (1962) Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation1962: 275–319.
35.
DimokaA (2010) What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly34(2): 373–396.
36.
DinevTBellottoMHartP, et al. (2006) Privacy calculus model in e-commerce - a study of Italy and the United States. European Journal of Information Systems15(4): 389–402.
37.
DriscollJW (1978) Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal21(1): 44–56.
38.
D’ArcyJGuptaATarafdarM, et al. (2014) Reflecting on the “dark side” of information technology use. Communications of the Association for Information Systems35(1): 5.
39.
EriksonEH (1950) Growth and crises of the “healthy personality”. Symposium on the Healthy Personality: 91–146.
40.
EverardAGallettaDF (2005) How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems22(3): 56–95.
41.
FanHMLedermanR (2018) Online health communities: how do community members build the trust required to adopt information and form close relationships?European Journal of Information Systems27(1): 62–89.
42.
FangYLQureshiISunHS, et al. (2014) Trust, satisfaction, and online repurchase intention: the moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms. MIS Quarterly38(2): 407–427.
GerlachJPBuxmannPDineyT (2019) “They’re all the same!” Stereotypical thinking and systematic errors in users’ privacy-related judgments about online services. Journal of the Association for Information Systems20(6): 787–823.
45.
GliksonEWoolleyAW (2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: review of empirical research. The Academy of Management Annals14(2): 627–660.
46.
GoelSBellGGPierceJL (2005) The perils of pollyanna: development of the over-trust construct. Journal of Business Ethics58(1): 203–218.
47.
GoodeSHoehleHVenkateshV, et al. (2017) User compensation as data breach recovery action: an investigation of the Sony PlayStation Network breach. MIS Quarterly41(3): 703–727.
48.
GregorS (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly30(3): 611–642.
49.
GreulichMLinsSPientaD, et al. (2024) Exploring contrasting effects of trust in organizational security practices and protective structures on employees’ security-related precaution taking. Information Systems Research.
50.
HedgesLVOlkinI (1980) Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychological Bulletin88(2): 359–369.
51.
HeiskanenANewmanMEklinM (2008) Control, trust, power, and the dynamics of information system outsourcing relationships: a process study of contractual software development. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(4): 268–286.
52.
HenningssonSYettonPWWynnePJ (2018) A review of information system integration in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Information Technology33(4): 255–303.
53.
HoehleHWeiJSchuetzS, et al. (2021) User compensation as a data breach recovery action: a methodological replication and investigation of generalizability based on the home depot breach. Internet Research31(3): 765–781.
54.
HuberTLKudeTDibbernJ (2017) Governance practices in platform ecosystems: navigating tensions between cocreated value and governance costs. Information Systems Research28(3): 563–584.
55.
HunterJESchmidtFL (2004) Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage.
56.
JarvenpaaSLToddPA (1996) Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the world wide web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce1(2): 59–88.
57.
JarvenpaaSLShawTRStaplesDS (2004) Toward contextualized theories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research15(3): 250–267.
58.
JeyarajARottmanJWLacityMC (2006) A review of predictors, linkages, and biases in the IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology21(1): 1–23.
59.
KankanhalliATanBCYWeiKK (2005) Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly29(1): 113–143.
60.
KaranasiosSSlavovaM (2019) How do development actors do “ICT for development”? A strategy-as-practice perspective on emerging practices in ghanaian agriculture. Information Systems Journal29(4): 888–913.
61.
KehrFKowatschTWentzelD, et al. (2015) Blissfully ignorant: the effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal25(6): 607–635.
62.
KimDJ (2008) Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in computer-mediated transactions: a cross-cultural comparison study. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 13–45.
63.
KimGShinBLeeHG (2009) Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Information Systems Journal19(3): 283–311.
KomiakSYXBenbasatI (2006) The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly30(4): 941–960.
66.
LabovitzS (1968) Criteria for selecting a significance level: a note on the sacredness of. 05. The American Sociologist3: 220–222.
67.
LacityMCKhanSAWillcocksLP (2009) A review of the IT outsourcing literature: insights for practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems18: 130–146.
68.
LacityMCWillcocksLPKhanSA (2011) Beyond transaction cost economics: towards an endogenous theory of information technology outsourcing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems20(2): 139–157.
69.
LanktonNMcKnightDHThatcherJB (2014) Incorporating trust-in-technology into expectation disconfirmation theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(2): 128–145.
70.
LanktonNKMcKnightDHTrippJ (2015) Technology, humanness, and trust: rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems16(10): 880–918.
71.
LanktonNMcKnightDHWrightRT, et al. (2016) Research note—using expectation disconfirmation theory and polynomial modeling to understand trust in technology. Information Systems Research27(1): 197–213.
72.
LarocheHSteyerVThéronC (2019) How could you be so gullible? Scams and over-trust in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics160(3): 641–656.
73.
LarsenKRBongCH (2016) A tool for addressing construct identity in literature reviews and meta-analyses. MIS Quarterly40(3): 529–551.
74.
LegoodAWerffLLeeA, et al. (2023) A critical review of the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical literature on cognition‐based and affect‐based trust. Journal of Management Studies60(2): 495–537.
75.
LewickiRJMcAllisterDJBiesRJ (1998) Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review23(3): 438–458.
76.
LewisJDWeigertA (1985) Trust as a social reality. Social Forces63(4): 967–985.
77.
LiXHessTJValacichJS (2008) Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(1): 39–71.
78.
LoomisJL (1959) Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior. Human Relations12(4): 305–315.
79.
LowryPBVanceAMoodyG, et al. (2008) Explaining and predicting the impact of branding alliances and web site quality on initial consumer trust of e-commerce web sites. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 199–224.
80.
LowryPBMoodyGDGallettaDF, et al. (2013) The drivers in the use of online whistle-blowing reporting systems. Journal of Management Information Systems30(1): 153–190.
81.
MarkusMLRoweF (2018) IS IT changing the world? Conceptions of causality for information systems theorizing. MIS Quarterly42(4): 1255–1280.
82.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
83.
McAllisterDJ (1995) Affect-based and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal38(1): 24–59.
84.
McKennaNLiTChengL, et al. (2023) Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks. arXiv preprinthttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14552.
85.
McKnightDHChervanyNL (1996) The Meanings of Trust. Carlson School of Management. Minneapolis, M.N.: University of Minnesota.
86.
McKnightDChervanyNL (2001) While Trust Is Cool and Collected, Distrust Is Fiery and Frenzied: A Model of Distrust Concepts AMCIS Proceedings, 883–888.
87.
McKnightDChoudhuryV (2006) Distrust and trust in b2c e-commerce: do they differ?International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC)104: 482–491.
88.
McKnightDHCummingsLLChervanyNL (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review23(3): 473–490.
89.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC (2002a) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research13(3): 334–359.
90.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC (2002b) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems11(3-4): 297–323.
91.
McKnightDKacmarCChoudhuryV (2004) Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. E-Service Journal3(2): 35–55.
92.
McKnightDHCarterMThatcherJB, et al. (2011) Trust in a specific technology: an investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS)2(2): 1–25.
93.
McKnightDHLanktonNKNicolaouA, et al. (2017) Distinguishing the effects of b2b information quality, system quality, and service outcome quality on trust and distrust. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems26(2): 118–141.
94.
McKnightDHLiuPPentlandBT (2020) Trust change in information technology products. Journal of Management Information Systems37(4): 1015–1046.
95.
MellingerGD (1956) Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology52(3): 304–309.
96.
MertensWReckerJ (2020) New guidelines for null hypothesis significance testing in hypothetico-deductive IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems21(4): 1072–1102.
97.
MeyersonDWeickKEKramerRM (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research166: 195.
MoodyGDLowryPBGallettaDF (2017) It’s complicated: explaining the relationship between trust, distrust, and ambivalence in online transaction relationships using polynomial regression analysis and response surface analysis. European Journal of Information Systems26(4): 379–413.
100.
NakamotoS (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business Review.
101.
NewbertSLDavidRJHanS-K (2014) Rarely pure and never simple: assessing cumulative evidence in strategic management. Strategic Organization12(2): 142–154.
PannielloUGorgoglioneMTuzhilinA (2016) Research note - in CARs we trust: how context-aware recommendations affect customers’ trust and other business performance measures of recommender systems. Information Systems Research27(1): 182–196.
107.
ParasuramanRMolloyRSinghIL (1993) Performance consequences of automation-induced’complacency. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology3(1): 1–23.
108.
ParéGTrudelM-CJaanaM, et al. (2015) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Information & Management52(2): 183–199.
109.
PavlouPA (2002) Institution-based trust in interorganizational exchange relationships: the role of online B2B marketplaces on trust formation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems11(3-4): 215–243.
110.
PavlouPAGefenD (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Information Systems Research15(1): 37–59.
111.
PenningtonRWilcoxHDGroverV (2003) The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions. Journal of Management Information Systems20(3): 197–226.
112.
PirkkalainenHSaloM (2016) Two decades of the dark side in the information systems basket: suggesting five areas for future research. European Conference on Information Systems101.
113.
PopperK (2005) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
114.
QiuLBenbasatI (2009) Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems25(4): 145–182.
115.
QureshiIFangYLRamseyE, et al. (2009) Understanding online customer repurchasing intention and the mediating role of trust - an empirical investigation in two developed countries. European Journal of Information Systems18(3): 205–222.
116.
RobertLPDennisARHungYTC (2009) Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems26(2): 241–279.
117.
RochaYMde MouraGADesidérioGA, et al. (2023) The impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health31(7): 1007–1016.
118.
RoseJSchlichterBR (2013) Decoupling, re-eengaging: managing trust relationships in implementation projects. Information Systems Journal23(1): 5–33.
119.
RotterJB (1967) A new scale for measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality35(4): 651–665.
120.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRS, et al. (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
121.
SangsterA (1994) The adoption of IT in management accounting - the expert-systems experience. Journal of Information Technology9(2): 159–169.
122.
SchlichterBRRoseJ (2013) Trust dynamics in a large system implementation: six theoretical propositions. European Journal of Information Systems22(4): 455–474.
123.
SchneiderSSunyaevA (2016) Determinant factors of cloud-sourcing decisions: reflecting on the IT outsourcing literature in the era of cloud computing. Journal of Information Technology31(1): 1–31.
124.
SchuetzSVenkateshV (2020) The rise of human machines: how cognitive computing systems challenge assumptions of user-system interaction. Journal of the Association for Information Systems21(2): 460–482.
125.
SchuetzSVenkateshVSykesTA (2020) Combating COVID-19 fake news on social media through fact checking: antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Information Systems30(4): 376–388.
126.
SchuetzSWSteelmanZRSylerRA (2022) It’s not just about accuracy: an investigation of the human factors in users’ reliance on anti-phishing tools. Decision Support Systems163: 113846.
127.
SchwabK (2017) Why everyone must get ready for the 4th industrial revolution. Currency.
128.
ShapiroSP (1987) The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology93(3): 623–658.
129.
SiaCLLimKHLeungK, et al. (2009) Web strategies to promote internet shopping: IS cultural-customization needed?MIS Quarterly33(3): 491–512.
130.
SmithHJDinevTXuH (2011) Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly35(4): 989–1015.
131.
SöllnerMLeimeisterJM (2013) What we really know about antecedents of trust: a critical review of the empirical information systems literature on trust. In: GefenD (ed). Psychology of Trust: New Research. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
SöllnerMHoffmannALeimeisterJM (2016a) Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users. European Journal of Information Systems25(3): 274–287.
134.
SrivastavaSCChandraS (2018) Social presence in virtual world collaboration: an uncertainty reduction perspective using a mixed methods approach. MIS Quarterly42(3): 779–803.
135.
StewartKJ (2003) Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organization Science14(1): 5–17.
TianYPeiKJanaS, et al. (2018) Deeptest: automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, 303–314.
138.
VanceAElie-Dit-CosaqueCStraubDW (2008) Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management Information Systems24(4): 73–100.
139.
VenkateshVBalaH (2012) Adoption and impacts of interorganizational business process standards: role of partnering synergy. Information Systems Research23(4): 1131–1157.
140.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
141.
VenkateshVThongJYLChanFKY, et al. (2011) Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal21(6): 527–555.
142.
VenkateshVThongJYLChanFKY, et al. (2016) Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Information Systems Research27(1): 87–111.
143.
WangWBenbasatI (2005) Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems6(3): 72–101.
144.
WangWBenbasatI (2007) Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems23(4): 217–246.
145.
WangWBenbasatI (2016) Empirical assessment of alternative designs for enhancing different types of trusting beliefs in online recommendation agents. Journal of Management Information Systems33(3): 744–775.
146.
WangWQWangM (2019) Effects of sponsorship disclosure on perceived integrity of biased recommendation agents: psychological contract violation and knowledge-based trust perspectives. Information Systems Research30(2): 507–522.
147.
WaskoMMFarajS (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly29(1): 35–57.
148.
XiaoBBenbasatI (2011) Product-related deception in e-commerce: a theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly35(1): 169–195.
149.
XuDJCenfetelliRTAquinoK (2016) Do different kinds of trust matter? An examination of the three trusting beliefs on satisfaction and purchase behavior in the buyer–seller context. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems25(1): 15–31.
150.
ZandDE (1972) Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly17(2): 229–239.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
