One of the theoretical contributions in relation to the impact of culture on trust is that made by Doney, Cannon and Mullen (1998). Doney et al. (1998) examined the extent to which Hofstede’s (see Hofstede, 1983) four dimensions of national culture facilitate or inhibit the use of different cognitive processes of interpersonal trust development.
50 Hofstede (1983) provided a useful taxonomy to describe and identify the norms and values of national cultures by proposing four different cultural dimensions: 1) individualism versus collectivism; 2) large or small power distance; 3) strong or weak uncertainty avoidance; and 4) masculinity versus femininity.
In their paper, Doney et al. (1998) outlined and described five cognitive trust-building processes as follow: 1) a calculative process (whereby trust is established based on the assessment that the costs of opportunistic behaviour exhibited by the trustee exceed the benefits of such behaviour), 2) a prediction process (whereby trust is established when the trustor -based on past experiences with the trustee- judges the behaviour of the trustee to be consistent and predictable and is confident that this judgment is accurate), 3) an intentionality process (whereby trust is established when the trustor has decided the trustee’s intentions in an exchange are benevolent), 4) a capability process (whereby trust is established when the trustor has determined the trustee is capable of meeting his/her own obligations and the trustor’s expectations), and 5) a transference process (whereby trust is established when the trustor establishes a link between someone the trustor knows and trusts and someone unknown by the trustor, and this allows the transference of trust from the known trustee to the unknown trustee).
Doney et al. (1998) then provided a number of research propositions that illustrates which cognitive trust building processes is most likely to be used by trustors (to establish trust) within the domain of each of the four cultural dimensions. In general, they posited that calculative and capability processes are more likely to be used by individuals in cultures characterised by one or more of the following cultural dimensions: individualism, masculinity and high power distance. However, in relation to the impact of the ‘uncertainty avoidance’ cultural dimension on the likelihood of using the calculative and capability processes to form trust, they theorised that individuals in cultures scoring low on uncertainty avoidance, are more likely to use a calculative process, while individuals in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, are more likely to form trust via a capability process.
As for the prediction, intentionality and transference processes, Doney et al. (1998) theorised that these processes are more likely to be used by individuals in cultures characterised by one or more of the following dimensions: collectivism, femininity and high uncertainty avoidance. In addition to these propositions, they proposed that in low
51 power distance cultures, trust is more likely to be established via Intentionality and transference processes, while in high power distance cultures trust is more likely to be formed via a prediction process.
As indicated earlier in the introduction of this chapter, Jordan has a collectivist culture (Alkailani et al., 2012). Thus, Doney et al.’s (1995) propositions about the impact of individualist vs collectivist cultures on trust building processes is discussed in more detail.
Hofstede (1991, p.51) notes that “Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”. Collectivism is also defined as “giving priority to the goals of one’s groups (often one’s extended family or work group) and defining one’s identity accordingly.”
(Myers, 2005, p.46).
In relation to the calculative process, Doney et al. (1998) proposed that trustors in individualistic cultures are more likely to use a calculative process to form trust than trustors in collectivist cultures. They argue that opportunistic behaviours and self-serving behaviours do not fit the ‘we’ consciousness prevailing in collectivist societies.
However, these authors argue that opportunistic and self-serving behaviours are high and more frequent in individualistic societies since the value placed on personal accomplishment in these societies indicate that little cost is associated with the occurrence of self-serving behaviours.
In relation to the prediction process, Doney et al. (1998) proposed that trustors in collectivist cultures are more likely to use a prediction process to form trust than trustors in individualist cultures. They argue that in individualistic societies, norms support distinctiveness and idiosyncrasy and do not restrict variance in human behaviour while norms in collectivist cultures support behavioural conformity and serve to curb variance in human behaviour.
As for the intentionality process, Doney et al. (1998) argued that relative to individuals in individualist cultures, individuals in collectivist cultures are more likely to form trust
52 based on perceptions of the benevolent motives of the trustee (i.e. intentionality process), since norms in collectivist cultures provide strong evidence for the trustor that the trustee’s intentions are benevolent while in individualistic cultures, there is weak evidence that the trustee will act in the trustor’s best interest. Furthermore, they argue that the predominance of group rewards and the importance of joint efforts in collectivist cultures indicate that the trustee will act in the trustor best interests. This proposition was supported by Wasti et al. (2011) who described Turkey as having a collectivist national culture with high power distance and found that for the Turkish sample, benevolence was the most salient predictor of trust in a peer. Wasti et al. (2011, p.295) further concluded that when “highlighting the relevance of collectivist norms, benevolence emerges as the most significant factor in trust development”.
Doney et al. (1998) also argued that relative to individuals in collectivist cultures, those in individualist cultures are more likely to form trust based on perceptions of the capability of the trustee. Doney et al. (1998, p.611) further explain that “evidence of a target’s capability may not be particularly valuable in collectivist cultures, where group cooperation is the norm and where people work together to accomplish group goals”.
Doney et al. (1998, p.612) also argue that norms and values in individualist societies
“suggest that evidence of a target’s capability is a reasonable basis upon which to form trust”. . These latter arguments suggest that individuals in collectivist cultures may consider the ability of the trustee to be less important than other trustworthiness factors (e.g. benevolence) when forming their trust in a trustee.
Finally, Doney et al. (1998) propose that relative to trustors in individualist cultures, trustors in collectivist cultures are more likely to use a transference process to form trust. They argue that in individualist societies it is difficult for trust to transfer from one person to another while in collectivist societies transfer of trust is easy since within the in-group, members are usually highly trusted, thus, proof sources are easy to identify.
Furthermore, Doney et al. (1998, p.612) argue that “strong interpersonal ties and the we consciousness characteristic of a collectivist society suggest that trustors will judge others to be similar”.
A theoretical contribution was also provided by Chen, Chen and Meindl (1998) who proposed that the cultural dimension ‘collectivism versus individualism’ has an influence on the strength of the positive relationship between each base of trust
53 (cognitive-based trust, affect-based trust) and cooperation by positing that the relationship between cognition-based trust and cooperation is stronger in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures whereas the relationship between affect-based trust and cooperation is stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.
Ferrin and Gillespie (2010) noted some of the limitations of these theoretical frameworks by arguing that these frameworks might have missed many important elements of trust across cultures since their propositions were deduced logically rather than being induced from empirical evidence of trust within different cultures. Similarly, Noorderhaven (1999) notes that many of the arguments presented in Doney et al. (1998) paper to support their proposition appear to be shaky when inspected closely.
Furthermore, Noorderhaven (1999) note that the Doney et al. (1998) paper assumes that the four cultural dimensions will influence the five trust building processes while
‘ceteris paribus’ (e.g. the assumption that the definition or meaning of trust as a psychological state is universal). In sum, these criticisms highlight the need for conducting empirical research to examine the impact of culture on interpersonal trust.