1

It is T-time! The Role and Development of Trust in VirtualCommunities

Miia KosonenLappeenranta University of Technology, miia.kosonen@lut.fi

AbstractThe existence of virtual communities fundamentally depends on the level of memberinvolvement in knowledge-sharing activities. Here, trust is found an important precondition togenerate positive community-level outcomes. Trust can be understood at three levels: generalwillingness to trust or dispositional trust, referring to the general trusting attitude,interpersonal trust between members who know each other, and impersonal trust, which refersto trust relationships that are indirect in nature, i.e. are not based on direct personal contact.This paper further discusses the role of trust by asking how trust develops in virtualcommunities, and how trust affects knowledge sharing in them. Based on an analysis of priorresearch work, trust is argued to develop from impersonal forms towards more interpersonalforms. Secondly, the importance of trust in virtual communities seems contingent to theirdegree of virtuality. Overall, trust was found to explain member involvement in knowledge-sharing activities, particularly in terms of identification- and knowledge-based trust aboutother members. However, it was also pointed out that trust does not explain the positiveknowledge-sharing outcomes in every type of virtual community, which may rely on types ofcontrol mechanisms instead.

KeywordsTrust, interpersonal trust, impersonal trust, virtual community, knowledge sharing

Introduction

Trust is seen as critical in the knowledge-based network economy, especially as businessesneed to collaborate and co-create value with partners outside traditional firm boundaries.Trust is seen as a lubricant in managing uncertainty, complexity, and the related risks (Arrow,1974; Luhmann, 1979). There has been a growing interest towards understanding the types,dimensions and roles of trust and reaching out towards a more comprehensive theoreticalground, particularly as networked organizations cannot operate based on direct interpersonalknowledge but increasingly on institutions and social categories (see Kramer et al., 1996;Adler, 2001; Lahno, 2002; Blomqvist, 2005).

Internet technologies have enabled novel forms of collective action, such as online networksand communities. They represent a fundamental change regarding the logic of socialorganizing. These collectives are characterized by voluntary interactions and a shared interest,conjoining people from different positions and background. From business viewpoint,

2

increasing attention has been given to virtual communities as they are seen to supportcustomer relationships (Moon & Sproull, 2001), product development (Nambisan, 2002;Füller et al., 2006) and brand building (McWilliam, 2000). Virtual communities of practice, inturn, extend traditional communities by allowing members to engage in different types ofonline knowledge exchange (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Usoro et al., 2007). In any type ofcommunity, the existence of virtual communities fundamentally depends on the level ofmember involvement in knowledge-sharing activities. Without active members contributingto the community and debating issues around the underlying shared interest, virtualcommunities become ‘ghost towns’ of no practical value; the greatest challenge in fosteringvirtual communities is the willingness to share knowledge (Hsu et al., 2007).

According to Handy (1995), virtuality requires trust to make it work. From knowledgesharing viewpoint, trust is found particularly important in virtual communities, as the sociallyacceptable (i.e. norm-accordant) behaviour of others is essential for the continuity of thecommunity, particularly in groups aiming at deepening knowledge and exchanginginformation about certain practice (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Ridings et al., 2002; Usoro et al.,2007). Yet trust remains a controversial issue: for instance, its criticality for successfulfunctioning of virtual organizations has been both underlined (Handy, 1995) and questioned(Gallivan, 2001), and examining the role of trust is challenging, as it represents both anantecedent and an outcome of communication and knowledge-sharing activities.

Thus far, prior research on virtual communities in terms of knowledge sharing and trust isscarce. These studies emphasize the role of trust in explaining cooperation and knowledgesharing, both in organizational virtual communities of practice (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Usoroet al., 2007) and interest-based virtual communities (Ridings et al., 2002; Hsu et al., 2006, seealso Radin, 2006). To establish ground for further research in different types of virtualcommunities, this paper discusses the role of trust in explaining knowledge sharing behaviourin virtual communities. Methodologically, this paper represents a content analysis of priorresearch articles published in scientific journals and explicitly concerning trust andknowledge/information sharing on virtual communities, and relates the findings to generaltheoretical debate on trust.

The study particularly aims at identifying facets based on which trust develops in virtualcommunities, hence preparing ground for empirically evaluating the relationship betweentrust and knowledge-sharing outcomes. Two research questions are proposed, namely, howtrust develops in virtual communities, and how trust affects knowledge sharing in them? Thelevel of analysis is a community formed by individual members. In addition, studies wheretrustors are technological systems or institutions are excluded, as trust only “exists betweenentities able to experience good will, extend good will towards others, feel vulnerable, andexperience betrayal” (Friedman et al., 2000, 36) thus depending on human consciousness andagency.

Conceptual background

A virtual community is a specific organisational form, an online social network in whichpeople who share an interest in a certain subject or practice interact repeatedly inside certainboundaries, and which relies on communication technologies at least to a certain degree

3

(Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Porter, 2004; Chiu et al., 2006). The fundamental unit of suchcollective is “not the corporation but the individual” (Malone & Laubacher, 1998, 146) whojoin together into fluid and temporary networks, organized around shared practices andprinciples giving structure and form to the collective.

Knowledge sharing presumes a two-way relation between at least two parties or agentscapable of knowing, either individuals or collectives. As distinct from information,knowledge sharing involves interpretation and sense-making (Hendriks, 1999). Knowledgesharing and community need and breed each other (Wenger, 1998).

Trust can be defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of anotherparty based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to thetrustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995;712). According to Blau (1964), there are two factors that initially account for the basis oftrust: relationships have a repetitive character, and achievements increase in importance in thecourse of time. Moreover, there has to be dependency about the other party, meaning thatone’s outcomes are contingent on the behaviour of another and furthered only by relianceupon the other one (ibid.; Mayer et al., 1995). Respectively, placing trust means suspendingthe risk involved in such situation, being either economic or social in nature (Kipnis, 1996;Blomqvist, 1997).

Trust is seen to generate positive community-level outcomes in virtual communities (Ridingset al., 2002). Here, trust can be understood at three levels: general willingness to trust ordispositional trust, referring to the general trusting attitude (McKnight et al., 1998; Ridings etal., 2002), interpersonal trust between members who know each other, and impersonal trust,which refers to trust relationships that are indirect in nature, i.e. are not based on directpersonal contact. Impersonal trust can be mediated e.g. by organizations or institutions, socialcategories, or information technology (Shapiro, 1987; Calhoun, 1992). Kosonen et al. (2008)discuss three forms of impersonal trust identified in online interactions: institutional third-party trust such as reputation systems or trusted third parties, institutional bilateral trust suchas secure communication and common standards, and trust that is at collective level (seeKramer et al., 1996; Ba, 2001; Pavlou et al., 2003).

According to Järvenpää & Leidner (1998), virtual organizing in general promises flexibility,responsiveness, cost savings and improved resource utilization, while also raising somedysfunctions such as low individual commitment, role overload and ambiguity, absenteeismand social loafing. In a similar vein, Sainsbury & Baskerville (2006) note how relationshipsmediated by communication technology tend to exaggerate human characteristics – eithernegative or positive – and also become more instrumental than face-to-face interactions.People are more prone to shirk responsibility and yet magnify the positive self-impressions toothers, which for its part adds more challenges to communication and cooperation. In otherwords, visual anonymity related to many ‘de-facto’ channels of online communicationenhances a positive social impression, while it may deteriorate the willingness to commitoneself to the task at hand; a characteristic of online cooperation to which Kollock (1999)refers to as picking the “lowest hanging fruit”.

Consequently, online relationships carry two important implications in terms of trust. On theone hand, the development of trust may be delayed due to the lack of physical cues, which is

4

typical in text-only communication (Bos et al., 2002). When comparing face-to-face andvirtual teams, Wilson et al. (2006) found support to the argument that trust starts lower inonline interactions but over time results to levels comparable to face-to-face ones. On theother hand, trust may also develop too easily, resulting in so-called hyperpersonalizedrelationships (Walther, 1996; Preece, 2004). Hyperpersonal trust refers to a situation wheretrusting decisions are made based on over-relied perceptions and “imagined” characteristics ofthe trustee, which the trustee may exaggerate by emphasizing positive self-impressions andaiming at presenting him- or herself as a kind of ideal self.

Having presented general perceptions on trust in online environment, the next chapter reviewsliterature on trust in virtual communities in more detail, in order to answer the first researchquestion concerning how trust develops in virtual communities.

The development of trust in virtual communities

The level of trustworthiness in a social environment is dependent on the level of reciprocity(Coleman, 1990), in other words, one’s obligations need to be repaid for trust to develop. Thisis closely related to communication, a key process also in virtual communities. In onlineinteractions, communication is yet coloured with possible effects of anonymity, multipleidentities, deception, flaming, spamming, and threat of hacking confidential information.Taking the nature of communication environment into account, Radin (2006, 593) notes how“it is difficult to imagine how trust can be engendered among members of an onlinecommunity; yet, it seems to thrive”. Thus trust is a paradoxical issue in virtual communities:it seems to be essential for facilitating social interaction, but at the same time, it is difficult toestablish trust.

However, it seems that when a community is formed, the challenges related to onlinecommunication are more easily overcome. In other words, if we only focus on the “virtual”,then the development of trust seems challenging; if we, however, add the “community”, trustis less threatened and its outcomes much about the same than in traditional communities. Letus elaborate this argument more in detail.

When communication technology is analysed in rational terms, i.e. its bandwidth andinformation-processing capability, it is considered less rich than face-to-face interaction (Daft& Lengel, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) implying lower levels of social presence andimmediate feedback. Respectively, the lack of trust in online interactions is seen to resultfrom the lack of face-to-face contact and visual cues (Ridings et al., 2002). The rational viewencompassing the lower social bandwidth of communication media thus represents a focus on“the virtual”.

A different focus can be seen in those studies that examine the social processes underlyingonline interactions and the formation of communities (e.g., Walther, 1996; Wellman & Gulia,1999). The existence of community – both online and offline – is contingent on a group ofindividuals capable to create a shared context within which to interact, manifesting a corepurpose for the community to exist (Preece, 2004). A strong mutual interest may foster thedevelopment of collective trust, as such shared intention serves as a cognitive frame that

5

encourages members to contribute and share knowledge. The more a person perceivessimilarity with others, the more likely he or she is to trust others (Blanchard & Horan, 1998).

Williams (2001, 380) discusses the effects of social categorization on interpersonal trust morein detail; based on Turner (1987), she notes how membership in a social group influencestrust development through stereotyping, “a cognitive shortcut that allows people to rely onpreviously held beliefs rather than incoming information about specific group members”. Avirtual community thus favors the development of “thin trust” (Putnam, 2000) or swift trust(Järvenpää & Leidner, 1998) in generalized others, relying on implicit backgroundinformation and expectations of reciprocity instead of direct knowledge. In addition, a singleact of giving/reciprocating is relatively easy to produce and openly accessible for the onlinecollective (Blanchard & Horan, 1998).

Categorization and the related social identification is also the core idea underlying the SIDE(Social Identity and De-Individuation effect) theory (Lea & Spears, 1991), arguing thatimpression formation in online communication derives from categorical and stereotypicalcues of others. In other words, in the absence of other cues, social categories form the basis ofthe development of group-level norms to which members adhere, resulting in “de-individuation” effect and less salient personal identities.

Current research also points out how general willingness to trust, or dispositional trust, plays arole in virtual communities (e.g., Ridings et al., 2002). In conditions of general trustingattitude, there is no specific object to be trusted. Experiences, personality types and culturalbackground affect the individual’s willingness to trust (Hofstede, 1980). Respectively,members’ attitudes in terms of engaging to virtual-community interactions vary based on theirfamiliarity with online communication, confidence about sharing with unknown others,communicative preferences, and culture, among others.

Thus far the establishment of impersonal and generalized forms of trust have been discussed.Nevertheless, interpersonal trust is not an oddity in online interactions, either. Prior researchindicates trust in virtual communities yet takes a longer time to develop than in face-to-facesettings (Feng et al., 2004). Also ‘thick trust’ is promoted in virtual communities, as identifiedby e.g. Radin (2006) who investigated peer-to-peer medical communication within an onlinepatient support group. Thick trust (Putnam, 2000) is situated within dense networks and basedon personal experience or up-to-date information on the other’s trustworthiness. In virtualcommunities, its development is typically associated with repeated interactions with others(Feng et al., 2004) and relationships that also migrate to offline context (Blanchard & Markus,2004). Ellonen et al. (2007) note how the processes of identification and identifying othersparticularly in smaller sub-groups precede the development of interpersonal trust, which inturn enhances sense of belonging to the virtual community. Radin (2006) points out how trustdevelops from initial forms of ‘thin trust’ (based on impressions derived from virtualcommunity site attributes and general atmosphere) towards more thick forms. This is enabledboth by self-disclosure and the vivid shared episodes combining with each other,demonstrating a circle of care and concern.

Naturally, no two virtual communities are the same: the purpose of the community and natureof interactions affect the underlying trust development mechanisms – based on direct orindirect relationships. For instance, when the community allows members to exchange

6

anonymously or to create multiple identities, there is both less reason and less need forinterpersonal trust to develop (Ellonen et al., 2007). In other words, one’s personal position isat lower risk due to anonymity. Hostile and distrusting behaviour may even form the‘invisible code’ that give form and structure to socio-emotional online groups (Franco et al.,2000; Ellonen, & Kosonen, 2006). Interactions could thus be mobilized by impersonal formsof trust, such as trust towards the community, the hosting organization and the related brand.

Figure 1 illustrates the development of trust in virtual communities.

Figure 1. The development of trust in virtual communities

To summarize the discussions so far, shared context basically enables interactions in virtualcommunities but relational facets such as trust are needed to facilitate knowledge sharing.Initially, trust develops based on expected reciprocity and category-related perceptions ofothers, resulting in forms of collective trust. Over time - along repeated interactions - trustdevelops towards more interpersonal forms based on direct knowledge, relying on knowledgeabout others, self-disclosure (disclosing personal information and experience), and sharedepisodes which convey care and concern among members, manifesting the benevolence-component of trust. This leads to the following proposition.

Proposition 1: Over time, trust in virtual communities develops from impersonal formstowards more interpersonal forms.

Having illustrated how trust develops in virtual communities, the discussion now moves on toits role in achieving knowledge-sharing outcomes.

General willingness to trustRepeatedsocialinteraction

Interpersonaltrust

Needs (relationships,support, access to valuableinformation)

Impersonal trust- third parties- bilateral institutional trust- collective trust

Shared context – a virtual community

TIME

7

Knowledge sharing in virtual communities and the role of trust

This chapter begins with reviewing prior studies on the relationship between trust andknowledge sharing in virtual communities. Ridings et al. (2002) adopted the dimensions oftrust introduced by Mayer et al. (1995), namely, ability (skills and competencies enablingindividuals to have influence in a certain area), benevolence (expectation that a trusted partywill have a positive orientation or a desire to do good to the trustee), and integrity(expectation that a trusted party will act in accordance with socially accepted standards orprinciples). Trust scales were adopted by Järvenpää et al.’s (1998) study on virtual teams.Ridings et al. conducted a web-based survey resulting in 663 usable responses from 36 virtualcommunities representing different types of interests. As a result, trust – particularly in theability and benevolence of other members in this case – significantly predicted members’desire to share, above all to get information. In addition, sharing was encouraged by thegeneralized trust in the community.

Hsu et al. (2007), in turn, built a model where trust was hypothesized to directly affectknowledge-sharing behaviour of members, and indirectly by increasing knowledge-sharingself-efficacy. The latter represents “a form of self-evaluation that influences decisions aboutwhat behaviours to undertake, the amount of effort and persistence to put forth when facedwith obstacles, and finally, the mastery of the behaviour” (p. 155). Hsu et al. exploredeconomy-based trust (i.e. calculative process trust, deterrence-based trust, or calculus-basedtrust) which is based on economic benefit and fear of punishment for violating trust (e.g.,Lewicki & Bunker, 1996), information-based trust based on familiarity of the other partyresulting in reduced risk, and finally, identification-based trust, which exists because membersunderstand and appreciate each other’s needs and act for each other.

Hsu et al. (2007) conducted a web-based survey, sampling 39 virtual communities, dedicatedto different types of interests, and resulting in 273 responses. They found identification-basedtrust critical in terms of knowledge sharing, referring to emotional bonds between people whounderstand each other and appreciate each other’s needs; hence, in virtual communities trustis seen to result from emotionally-laden interactions and expressing care and concern for eachother. In a similar vein, Ellonen et al. (2007) found identification a key process preceding thedevelopment of interpersonal trust and sense of community, and Radin (2006) highlighted theeffect of shared episodes which convey mutual caring among members.

However, Hsu et al. (2007) also point out how economy-based and information-based trusthas to be established first. In other words, the expected rewards are critical in initially enticingmembers to participate, and the related uncertainty can be managed by establishinginformation-based trust (e.g., familiar and secure communication environment, well-knownbrand, clear policies about how to act within the community). Over time, members of thecommunity develop shared values and establish emotionally-laden relationships, manifestingidentification-based trust. It also affects the perceived knowledge sharing self-efficacy, thushaving indirect effect on knowledge-sharing behaviour. Trust in virtual communities is acomplex concept, as are the trust-building processes.

Usoro et al. (2007) investigated one virtual community of practice, namely, Systems ThinkingCommunity, which is a global group of over 400 members within the CSC organization. Theyadopted the Trusting Beliefs Scale from McKnight et al. (2002). Usable responses were

8

received from 75 members of the community. Usoro et al. (2007) emphasize the role ofintegrity-based trust rooted in past behaviour among the community. In virtual community,integrity-based trust is manifested in the compatibility of the community’s cultural valueswith those of the trusting members, the credibility of the community’s reputation, and theconsistency in the behaviour of members.

Finally, Ardichvili et al. (2003) note how knowledge-based trust is essentially critical for anorganizational virtual community of practice: members contribute knowledge when theyknow what to expect from other members. In other words, they need not fear others willridicule them in public or take undue advantage of what is being given to them. Institution-based trust (e.g., roles), in turn, provides members with a reasonable assurance that othershave expertise in a certain area and they can be relied on. As an implication, prior knowledgeon others seems vital for the community, and there should be – at least partially – existingcommunity or informal group underlying when aiming at developing intra-organizationalvirtual communities.

In sum, current studies vary in how trust is approached; yet their findings emphasize the roleof prior knowledge about members (knowledge- and identification-based trust), a favourablehistory of community interactions (integrity-based trust, benevolence), as well as members’skills and competencies (ability) in terms of having expertise within certain domain.

However, also opposite views on the role of trust have been presented. According to Gallivan(2001) who content-analysed a set of case studies on open source software (OSS)communities, a set of practices that ensure control lead to positive outcomes in the absence oftrust. In other words, these collectives rely on forms of social control and self-control foreffective performance. By controlling the conditions and norms of behaviour, members canhave confidence in other members, hence obviating the need for trust. Bakker et al. (2006)argue that trust is highly overrated as a driver of knowledge sharing: for instance, individualsare less motivated to share when they believe others are capable of already holding therelevant know-how.

Generally, there are two intertwined but yet separate routes to reduce risk within arelationship: trust and control. Neither of them can fully ensure the desired outcome, but theydetermine the total perceived risk (e.g., Das & Teng, 2001). Control can be seen as a processof regulation and monitoring in order to achieve organizational goals; it could be defined as“a regulatory process by which the elements of a system are made more predictable throughthe establishment of standards in the pursuit of some desired objective or state” (Leifer &Mills, 1996, 117). Rousseau et al. (1998) note how control comes into play where adequatelevels of trust are absent; in this sense, they could be seen as the two sides of the same coin.

Figure 2 provides a framework on the options virtual communities have in terms of reducingrisk in order to achieve positive knowledge-sharing outcomes, depending on the degree ofvirtuality.

9

Figure 2. Trust and control in virtual communities: three basic options

In other words, in highly virtual communities instrumental mechanisms to establish controlmay explain the positive knowledge-sharing outcomes even in the absence of trust (Gallivan,2001). Sources of impersonal trust (trusted third parties, bilateral institutional trust such assecure communication, and community-level trust based e.g. on social categories) also serveas a means to reduce uncertainty and risk. However, when the level of virtuality is lower,virtual community members establish more close and intimate relationships and alsointerpersonal trust. Finally, when the perceived risk to engage in community interactions islow, general willingness to trust or dispositional trust may be enough to facilitate knowledge-sharing activities.

Proposition 2: The importance of trust in virtual communities is contingent to the virtualcommunity’s degree of virtuality.

Discussion

In this paper, current research on trust and knowledge sharing in virtual communities wasdiscussed. Two research questions were posited: how trust develops in virtual communities,and how trust affects knowledge sharing in them. As a result, two propositions wereformulated: over time, trust develops from impersonal forms towards more interpersonalforms, and the importance of trust in virtual communities is contingent to their degree ofvirtuality. Overall, trust was seen to explain member involvement in knowledge-sharingactivities, particularly in terms of identification- and knowledge-based trust about othermembers. However, it was also pointed out that trust does not explain the positive knowledge-sharing outcomes in every type of virtual community, which may rely on types of controlmechanisms instead.

LEVEL OFVIRTUALITY

LEVEL OF RISK

HighLow

High

Low

INTERPERSONAL TRUST

IMPERSONAL TRUSTthird parties, bilateralinstitutional trust, collectivetrust

CONTROLLack of trust

GENERAL WILLINGNESS TO TRUST

10

Firstly, this paper contributed by identifying how trust develops from initial impersonal formstowards more interpersonal forms in virtual communities. Also Lewicki & Bunker (1996)note how trust not only grows stronger along repeated interactions, but the general framewithin which trust is considered also develops over time. In other words, the issues faced at anearly stage are different from those in a long-established relationship. In virtual communities,it is thus of essence to identify how trust evolves over time and to understand the ‘whole’ ofcommunity relationships within which members engage.

Secondly, this paper contributed by highlighting how risk and degree of virtuality areinvolved in trust-building mechanisms within virtual communities, which is a largelyneglected issue in current studies. It is suggested that further investigations on the relationshipbetween trust and knowledge sharing in virtual communities should pay attention to howmembers perceive the actual risks, social or economic, while engaging in communityinteractions. Trust in virtual communities is not an issue that should be examined for its ownsake; rather, its role and overall need to trust in different types of communities should becritically investigated. Virtual-community research would also benefit from interlinking trustwith the nature of interactions, both online and offline.

As interpersonal trust often is delayed in online interactions, managerial attention should bepaid to establishing routes to impersonal trust. Intuitively, when members of virtualcommunity share a similar interest and engage in repeated interactions, they also buildinterpersonal trust as a natural “by-product” of being in touch with others and learning fromthem. However, a more challenging issue is how initially get people to attach to a community.The means for building impersonal trust depend on the nature and purpose of interaction: inbusiness communities, reputation-based monitoring and trusted third parties seem mostapplicable, while interest-based communities may use member monitoring systems(presenting member history, ranking the content of messages). Different forms andcomponents of trust may complement each other. Moreover, high levels of trust are notnecessarily significant for any virtual community. Rather the question is, which forms of trustor control a community needs to succeed in its overall mission – gathering people together toengage in conversations across time and space.

References

Adler, P. 2001. Market, hierarchy and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism.Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, 215-234.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V. & Wentling, T. 2003. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtualknowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No.1, 64-77.

Arrow, K. 1974. Limits of Economic Organization. New York: Norton.Ba, S. 2001. Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decision Support

Systems, Vol. 31, 323-336.Bakker, M., Leenders, R., Gabbay, S., Kratzer, J. & Van Engelen, J. 2006. Is trust really social

capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning Organization,Vol. 13 No. 6, 594-605.

11

Blanchard, A. & Horan, T. 1998. Virtual communities and social capital. Social Science ComputerReview, Vol. 16 No. 3, 293-307.

Blanchard, A. & Markus, M.L. 2004. The Experienced “Sense” of a Virtual Community:Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol.35 No. 1, 65-79.

Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.Blomqvist K. 1997. The Many Faces of Trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,

271-286.Blomqvist, K. 2005. Trust in a dynamic environment – Fast trust as a threshold condition for

asymmetric technology partnership formation in the ICT sector. In R. KelinWoolthuis and K.Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Trust under pressure, empirical investigations of trust and trustbuilding in uncertain circumstances, pp. 127-147. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G. & Wright, Z. 2002. Effects of four computer-mediatedcommunication channels on trust development. CHI Letters, Vol. 4. No. 1.

Calhoun, C. 1992. The infrastructure of modernity: Indirect social relationships, informationtechnology, and social integration. In H. Haferkamp and N. Smelser (Eds.), Social change andmodernity, pp. 205-236. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chiu, C-M., Hsu, M-H. & Wang, E. 2006. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities:an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, Vol.42, 1872-88.

Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Daft, R. & Lengel, R. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural

design. Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, 554-571.Das, T.K., Teng, B-S. 2001. Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework.

Organization Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, 251-283.Ellonen, H-K. & Kosonen, M. 2006. Exploring the business perspective of hostility in virtual

communities. In Proceedings of the 7th IBIMA Conference, Brescia, Italy 14-16 December,2006, pp. 340-348.

Ellonen, H-K., Kosonen, M. & Henttonen, K. 2007. The development of a sense of virtual community.International Journal of Web Based Communities, Vol. 3 No. 1, 114-130.

Feng, J., Lazar, J. & Preece, J. 2004. Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile relationship.Behavior and Information Technology (in press).

Franco, V., Hu, H-Y., Lewenstein, B.V., Piirto, R. Underwood, R. & Vidal, N. 2000. Anatomy of aFlame: Conflict and Community Building on the Internet. In E. Lesser, M. Fontaine and J.Slusher (Eds.), Knowledge and Communities, pp. 209-224. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H. & Howe, D.C. 2000. Trust Online. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43No. 12, 34-40.

Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H. & Mühlbacher, H. 2006. Community based innovation: How to integratemembers of virtual communities into new product development. Electronic CommerceResearch, Vol. 6, 57-73.

Gallivan, M. 2001. Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a contentanalysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11, 277-304.

Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1995, 40-50.Hendriks, P. 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge

sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, 91-100.Hofstede, G. 1980. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9 No. 1, 42-63.Hsu, M-H., Ju, T., Yen, C-H. & Chang, C-M. 2007. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual

communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 65, 153-169.

Järvenpää, S.L., Knoll, K. & Leidner, D.E. 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in globalvirtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, 29-64.

12

Järvenpää, S.L. & Leidner, D. 1999. Communication an Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3 No. 4.<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4.jarvenpaa.html>

Kipnis, D. 1996. Trust and Technology. In R. Kramer and T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organisations:Frontiers of theory and research, pp. 39-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kollock, P. 1999. The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In M.Smith and P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 220-242. New York:Routledge.

Kosonen, M., Blomqvist, K. & Ellonen R. 2008. Trust and its impersonal nature. In G. Putnik and M.Cunha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations, pp. 769-776. IdeaGroup.

Kramer, R., Brewer, M. & Hanna, B. 1996. Collective trust and collective action: the decision to trustas a social decision. In R. Kramer and T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers ofTheory and Research, pp. 357-389. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lahno, B. 2002. Institutional trust: A less demanding form of trust?. Originally in RevistaLatinoamericana de Estudios Avanzados (RELEA), Caracas, 16.

Lea, M. & Spears, R. 1991. Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and GroupDecision-Making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 34, 283-301.

Leifer, R. & Mills, P.K. 1996. An information processing approach for deciding upon controlstrategies and reducing control loss in emerging organizations. Journal of Management, Vol.22, 113-137.

Lewicki, R.J. & Bunker, B.B. 1996. Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. In R.Kramer and T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, pp. 114-139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley.Malone, T.W. & Laubacher, R.J. 1998. The dawn of the E-lance economy. Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 76, 144-152.Mayer, R., Davis, J. & Schoorman, D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, 473-490.McKnight, D., Cummings, L. & Chervany, N. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational

relationships. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, 473-490.McWilliam, G. 2000. Building stronger brands through online communities. Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, 43-55.Moon, J.Y. & Sproull, L. 2001. Turning love into money: How some firms may profit from voluntary

electronic customer communities. In P. Lowry, J. Cherrington and R. Watson (Eds.),Electronic Commerce Handbook: Issues, Technology and Society. Portland: CRC Press.

Nambisan, S. 2002. Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward atheory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, 392-413.

Pavlou, P., Tan, Y. & Gefen, D. 2003. The transitional role of institutional trust in online inter-organizational relationships. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference onSystems Sciences (HICSS’03).

Porter, C.E. 2004. A typology of virtual communities: a multi-disciplinary foundation for futureresearch. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 10 No. 1, article 3,<http://ascusc.org/jcmc/vol10/issue1/porter.html>

Preece, J. 2004. Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice: Stepping-stones to socialcapital. Working paper. <http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/Tacit_Know_COPs.pdf>

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. New York: Simon & Schuster.Radin, P. 2006. ‘To me, it’s my life’: Medical communication, trust, and activism in cyberspace.

Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 62, 591-601.Ridings, C., Gefen, D. & Arinze, B. 2002. Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual

communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11, 271-295.Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different at all: A cross-

discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, 393-404.

13

Sainsbury, D. & Baskerville, R. 2006. Distrusting Online: Social Deviance in Virtual Teamwork. InProceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06).

Shapiro, S. 1987. The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93 No.3, 623-658.

Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizationalcommunication. Management Science, Vol. 32, 1492-1512.

Turner, J.C. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Usoro, A., Sharratt, M.W., Tsui, E. & Shekhar, S. 2007. Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing

in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5, 199-212.

Walther, J.B. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonalinteraction. Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, 3-43.

Wasko, M. & Faraj, S. 2000. ‘It is what one does’: Why people participate and help others inelectronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9, 155-173.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. 1999. Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities.In M. Smith and P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 167-194. New York:Routledge.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Williams, M. 2001. In whom we trust: group membership as an affective context for trustdevelopment. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, 377-396.

Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G. & McEvily, B. 2006. All in due time: The development of trust incomputer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 99, 16-33.