You can have your trust and calculativeness, too: Uncertainty, trustworthiness and the Williamson thesis

References

• Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231–260. doi:10.1086/292745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. A. (2014). Genuine, non-calculative trust with calculative antecedents: Reconsidering Williamson on trust. Journal of Trust Research, 4(1), 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. A., & Dienhart, J. (2013). Moral and amoral conceptions of trust, with an application in organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1218-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85–116. doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040274.23551.1b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, G. (2011). Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other? Journal of Trust Research, 1, 215–222. doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.603514
   Google Scholar
• Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new approach to the firm. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reasons: The strategic role of the emotions. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen, M. (2014). Calculativeness and trust: A view from phenomenology. Journal of Trust Research, 4(1), 34–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–237). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Hendry, J. (2002). The principal's other problems: Honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 98–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holton, R. (1994). Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(1), 63–76. doi:10.1080/00048409412345881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, H. S., Jr. (2002a). The trust paradox: A survey of economic inquiries into the nature of trust and trustworthiness. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 47, 291–307. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00214-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, H. S., Jr. (2002b). On the reliability of trusting. Rationality & Society, 14, 231–258. doi:10.1177/1043463102014002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1), 4–25. doi:10.1086/233694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpik, L. (2014). Trust: Reality or illusion? Journal of Trust Research, 4(1), 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967–985.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (2012). The social dynamics of trust: Theoretical and empirical research, 1985–2012. Social Forces, 91(1), 25–31. doi:10.1093/sf/sos116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35, 403–420. doi:10.1177/S0038038501000190
   Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. (2012). Trusting in art: Calling for empirical trust research in highly creative contexts. Journal of Trust Research, 2, 203–210. doi:10.1080/21515581.2012.708509
   Google Scholar
• Molm, L. D., Schaefer, D. R., & Collett, J. L. (2009). Fragile and resilient trust: Risk and uncertainty in negotiated and reciprocal exchange. Sociological Theory, 27(1), 1–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.00336.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, N. N. (2002). How can I be trusted? A virtue theory of trustworthiness. Oxford: Rowman & Littleford.
   Google Scholar
• Reich-Graefe, R. (2014). Calculative trust: Oxymoron or tautology? Journal of Trust Research, 4(1), 66–82.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, D. C. (2011). The moral foundation of economic behaviour. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1961). Administrative behaviour ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behaviour and morality: Social and personal influences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36, 453–486. doi:10.1086/467284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1998). The institutions of governance. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 88(2), 75–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar