Levels of analysis has long been identified as a key feature of trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Trust, as a product and driver of a relationship, by definition involves two or more parties (Ferris et al., 2009). Each party’s trust in another is subject to a host of influences across levels of analysis, ranging from dispositions at the individual level and history at the relationship level to norms at the network level and values at the institutional and societal levels, to name a few. The multilevel complexities only increase when we consider trust beyond interpersonal contexts, such as within a team, between different teams, within an organisation, and between different organisations. Despite this inherently multilevel nature, research on trust incorporating multiple levels of analysis remains limited, while research on trust at different levels of analysis, such as trust in teams and organisations, continues to develop independently with little cross-fertilisation (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). This isolation of trust at a single level of analysis ignoring processes and factors from other levels creates non-trivial gaps in our understanding of trust. As a few recent papers show, without a multilevel perspective, we cannot examine critical trust dynamics such as differences in trust within teams and the relationship between interpersonal trust and interorganisational trust. For instance, in a study of teams, De Jong and Dirks (2012) demonstrated how the effect of intra-team trust on team performance is contingent upon the asymmetry in trust between individual dyads. In a study of interorganisational relationships, Vanneste (2016) showed that indirect reciprocity between boundary spanners, where they give to those who give to others, facilitates interorganisational trust between groups of individuals. In addition to this theoretical imperative, from a practical point of view, a multilevel perspective is necessary to appreciate the role of trust in our changing environment. Individuals and institutions are frequently forced to respond to changes driven by factors at multiple levels. For example, trust in institutions has become more challenging as technology and social media change how people come together and share information. Individuals now have opportunities to engage in both formal and informal relationships through social media, and these relationships can change interpretations of the information from institutions as it shapes the trust that develops. Moreover, individuals and organisations face greater competition, and more rapid change in response to competition, which make trust more difficult to establish and maintain. The need to understand how trust functions in these multilevel frameworks continues to grow as trust holds promise to bridge differences across boundaries and through challenges.

中文翻译：

---

多层次信任：理论和实践的当务之急

长期以来，分析水平一直被认为是信任的关键特征（Rousseau，Sitkin，Burt和Camerer，1998年； Schoorman，Mayer和Davis，2007年）。信任作为关系的产物和驱动力，从定义上讲涉及两个或两个以上的参与方（Ferris等，2009）。各方对另一方的信任在分析的各个级别上会受到多种影响，从个人级别的关系和关系级别的历史到网络级别的规范以及机构和社会级别的价值观，仅举几例。仅当我们考虑超出人际关系的信任时，例如团队内部，不同团队之间，组织内部以及不同组织之间的信任，多层复杂性才会增加。尽管具有固有的多层次性质，结合多种分析级别的信任研究仍然有限，而不同分析级别的信任研究（例如对团队和组织的信任）则继续独立发展，几乎没有相互干扰（Fulmer＆Gelfand，2012）。在单一分析级别上将信任隔离开来，而忽略了其他级别的流程和因素，这在我们对信任的理解中造成了不小的差距。正如最近的几篇论文所显示的，如果没有多层次的观点，我们就无法研究关键的信任动态，例如团队内部信任的差异以及人际信任与组织间信任之间的关系。例如，在对团队的研究中，De Jong和Dirks（2012）证明了团队内部信任对团队绩效的影响如何取决于各个双子之间信任的不对称性。在对组织间关系的研究中，Vanneste（2016）表明，边界扳手之间的间接互惠，即他们给予他人的奉献，促进了个人群体之间的组织间信任。除了这种理论上的必要性之外，从实践的角度来看，还需要多层次的视角来理解信任在我们不断变化的环境中的作用。个人和机构经常被迫应对多层次因素驱动的变化。例如，随着技术和社交媒体改变人们聚会和共享信息的方式，对机构的信任变得更具挑战性。现在，个人有机会通过社交媒体参与正式和非正式的关系，这些关系可以改变机构对信息的解释，因为它塑造了发展的信任。而且，个人和组织面临更大的竞争，并且对竞争做出更迅速的改变，这使得建立和维持信任更加困难。随着信任有望弥合跨越边界和通过挑战的差异，理解这些多层框架中的信任功能的需求不断增长。