The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains

Results from confirmatory factor analyses

Lisa M. Pytlikzillig, Joseph A. Hamm, Ellie Shockley, Mitchel N. Herian, Tess Neal, Christopher D. Kimbrough, Alan J. Tomkins, Brian H. Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above.9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above.8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-150
Number of pages40
JournalJournal of Trust Research
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Statistical Factor Analysis
Semaphorin-3A
Illegitimacy
Police
Budgets
Students

Keywords

  • Confidence
  • Dispositional trust
  • Fairness
  • Justice
  • Legitimacy
  • Trust in institutions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains : Results from confirmatory factor analyses. / Pytlikzillig, Lisa M.; Hamm, Joseph A.; Shockley, Ellie; Herian, Mitchel N.; Neal, Tess; Kimbrough, Christopher D.; Tomkins, Alan J.; Bornstein, Brian H.

In: Journal of Trust Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, 01.01.2016, p. 111-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pytlikzillig, LM, Hamm, JA, Shockley, E, Herian, MN, Neal, T, Kimbrough, CD, Tomkins, AJ & Bornstein, BH 2016, 'The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses', Journal of Trust Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 111-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359
Pytlikzillig, Lisa M. ; Hamm, Joseph A. ; Shockley, Ellie ; Herian, Mitchel N. ; Neal, Tess ; Kimbrough, Christopher D. ; Tomkins, Alan J. ; Bornstein, Brian H. / The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains : Results from confirmatory factor analyses. In: Journal of Trust Research. 2016 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 111-150.
@article{18a34320fcc6476782c048e2524ad5a1,
title = "The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses",
abstract = "Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above.9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above.8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.",
keywords = "Confidence, Dispositional trust, Fairness, Justice, Legitimacy, Trust in institutions",
author = "Pytlikzillig, {Lisa M.} and Hamm, {Joseph A.} and Ellie Shockley and Herian, {Mitchel N.} and Tess Neal and Kimbrough, {Christopher D.} and Tomkins, {Alan J.} and Bornstein, {Brian H.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "111--150",
journal = "Journal of Trust Research",
issn = "2151-5581",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains

T2 - Results from confirmatory factor analyses

AU - Pytlikzillig, Lisa M.

AU - Hamm, Joseph A.

AU - Shockley, Ellie

AU - Herian, Mitchel N.

AU - Neal, Tess

AU - Kimbrough, Christopher D.

AU - Tomkins, Alan J.

AU - Bornstein, Brian H.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above.9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above.8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.

AB - Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to 12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g. 12 inter-factor correlations above.9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g. only three correlations above.8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.

KW - Confidence

KW - Dispositional trust

KW - Fairness

KW - Justice

KW - Legitimacy

KW - Trust in institutions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017592612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017592612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359

DO - 10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 111

EP - 150

JO - Journal of Trust Research

JF - Journal of Trust Research

SN - 2151-5581

IS - 2

ER -