skip to main content
10.1145/2851581.2892468acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Measuring Trust: The Simpler the Better?

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

To this date the majority of the existing instruments to measure trustworthiness in an online context are based on Likert scaling [1,3,11]. These however are somewhat restricted in applicability. Statements formed in Likert scaling are typically addressing one specific website. Therefore, adjusting these statements for other websites can be accompanied with a loss of validity. To meet these limitations, we propose to use semantic differential. Research has shown that using semantic differential is appropriate to measure multidimensional constructs [8,12] such as trust. Our novel approach in measuring trustworthiness exceeds Likert based scaling in its effortless application in different online context and its better translatability. After one pre-study and two online-studies with a total of 554 participants we achieved to develop a questionnaire with nine items which is comparable to other existing questionnaires in terms of reliability and internal consistency. But it overcomes the limitation of Likert scale based questionnaire.

References

  1. Sandy C. Chen and Gurpreet S. Dhillon. 2003. Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in ecommerce. Information Technology and Management 4, 2--3: 303--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jinsook Cho. 2006. The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of retailing 82, 1: 25--35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretai.2005.11.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Carlos Flavián, Miguel Guinalíu, and Raquel Gurrea. 2006. The influence of familiarity and usability on loyalty to online journalistic services: The role of user experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 5: 363375. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.11.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Oddgeit Friborg, Monica Martinussen, and Jan H. Rosenvinge. 2006. Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual Differences 40, 5: 873--884.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. David Gefen. 2002. Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. SIGMIS Database 33, 3: 3853. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/569905.569910 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. David Gefen, Elena Karahanna, and Detmar W. Straub. 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS quarterly 27, 1: 51--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ilyoo B. Hong and Hwihyung Cho. 2011. The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in B2C emarketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust. International Journal of Information Management 31, 5: 469--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bettina Laugwitz, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. June Lu, Luzhuang Wang, and Linda A. Hayes. 2012. How Do Technology Readiness, Platform Functionality and Trust Influence C2C User Satisfaction? Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 13, 1: 50--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. James C. McCroskey and Jason J. Teven. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs 66, 1: 99--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Harrison D. McKnight, Vivek Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research 13, 3: 334--359. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tibert Verhagen, Bart van den Hooff, and Selmar Meents. 2015. Toward a Better Use of the Semantic Differential in IS Research: An Integrative Framework of Suggested Action. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16, 2: 108--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Measuring Trust: The Simpler the Better?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2016
        3954 pages
        ISBN:9781450340823
        DOI:10.1145/2851581

        Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 May 2016

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI EA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI PLAY '24
        The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
        October 14 - 17, 2024
        Tampere , Finland

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader