Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Trust asymmetry referes to two related phenomena: the relative ease with which trust can be lost compared to how it is gained, and the imbalance in trust levels between interacting parties. However, existing research has seldom integrated these perspectives, leading to fragmented findings and the absence of a unified theoretical framework. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review to clarify the antecedents, processses, and consequences of trust asymmetry. Using data retrieved from Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), we analyzed 41 articles published between 1993 and 2024 through bibliometric methods. The results indicate that: (a) the antecedents of trust asymmetry can be grouped into threee categories—individual (e.g., personality, emotions), external (e.g., power dynamics, task dependence), and contextual (e.g., national institutions, cultural settings, and information presentation); (b) the outcomes of trust asymmetry demonstrate both positive and negative effects; and (c) the development of trust asymmetry follows dynamic, rather than static, patterns. This review synthesizes existing research perspectives, refines the conceptual definition of trust asymmetry, summarizes measurement and manipulation methods, and proposes a theoretical framework linking antecedents to outcomes. Additionally, we highlight opportunities for future research, including the need for improved measurements tools, more rigorous research designs, and deeper examination of behavioral implications. By positioning trust asymmetry as an independent construct, this review provides a foundation for advancing empirical inquiry and theory development in this domain.

Keywords

trust trust asymmetry asymmetric trust risk recognition systematic review bibliometric method

Introduction

Trust is widely recognized as a critical foundation for effective collaboration in both organizational practice and academic research. Yet, in real-world settings, trust between partners is rarely equal—asymmetric trust is often the norm rather than the exception (Weiss et al., 2021). This asymmetry shapes how individuals and organizations interact, influencing the efficiency of cooperation, the stability of relationships, and the long-term dynamics of teams (Y. Li et al., 2021). While high, mutual trust can enhance collective performance, imbalanced trust can weaken cooperation, suppress performance gains, and generate relational uncertainty (X. Li et al., 2024). At the same time, moderate trust asymmetry may also generate beneficial effects, such as heightened vigilance, constructive monitoring, and increased motivation to perform (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012; Y. Wang et al., 2023). Thus, trust asymmetry is not merely a relational deficit—it is a dynamic condition that either undermine or strengthen collaboration.

Despite its importance, the core concept of trust asymmetry remains insufficiently integrated and inconsistently defined. From an information preference perspective, trust asymmetry refers to the phenomenon that trust deteriorates more rapidly than it is bulit (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012). From a dyadic perspective, it reflects a discrepancy in trust levels between two interacting parties (Graebner, 2009). At the organizational level, it includes differences in trust among internal members and imbalances in interorganizational trust during collaboration or exchange (Graebner et al., 2020). However, these perspectives have developed largely in parallel, resulting in fragmented conceptualizations, heterogeneous measurement approaches, and limited theoretical consolidation. Without a unified framework, research findings remain difficult to integrate or extend.

Moreover, most existing studies emphasize interpersonal trust asymmetry, while offering limited explanation of how trust asymmetry forms, evolves, and influences outcomes in interorganizational contexts—where strategic stakes, power imbalances, and uncertainty are particularly salient. In addition, the rise of digital collaboration has further complicated the manifestation of trust asymmetry, yet current frameworks have not kept pace with these developments. Although reesarch attention to trust asymmetry has increased since 2010, this growth has led to conceptual ambiguity and methodological inconsistency. At present, there is no consensus on how to define, measure, or model the developmental dynamics and behavioral consequences of trust asymmetry.

To address these gaps, this study conducts a systematic review of empirical and theoretical research on trust asymmetry. Specifically, we (a) clarify its conceptual definition and measurement approaches, (b) synthesize findings regarding its antecedents, developmental processes, and consequences, and (c) propose a unified theoretical framework that links the formation of trust asymmetry to its outcomes. This review makes three primary contributions. First, it integrates fragmented perspectives to establish a clearer conceptual foundation for trust asymmetry. Second, it identifies methodological patterns and theoretical inconsistencies, offering guidance for more rigorous future research. Third, it develops a framework that explains how trust asymmetry emerges and evolves, thereby supporting more systematic empirical investigation and practical application, such as improving corporate collaboration and stabilizing political alliances. In doing so, this review positions trust asymmetry as an independent and theoretically meaningful construct, offering a foundation for advancing understanding of how trust imbalances shape organizational and interorganizational relationships.

Defining Trust Asymmetry

Given the practical challenges of trust asymmetry in organizational collaboration and cross-cultural interactions, alongside the limitations of existing research, a thorough analysis of its formation mechanisms and impacts requires first clarifying the core essence of trust asymmetry. Current studies exhibit divergent perspectives on its definition, encompassing risk perception, dual-sided trust differences, and other dimensions. Therefore, this section systematically reviews conceptual definitions of trust asymmetry based on prior research, establishing a clear definitional framework for this study to lay the groundwork for subsequent theoretical framework development and empirical analysis.

The principle of trust asymmetry, first proposed by Slovic in 1993, posited that “loss of trust is easier than gaining trust.” The early conceptualization phase, influenced by risk perception theory, focused on individuals’ perception of negative information; This principle posits that negative events impact self-reported trust more significantly than positive ones, leading individuals to lend greater credence to negative occurrences. This tendency to prioritize negative information is a well-documented phenomenon, supported by extensive empirical evidence (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2001; Slovic, 1993). For example, Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2001) found that people are more likely to believe information suggesting that food coloring and electromagnetic fields are harmful to health rather than information suggesting they are not harmful. This definition has been used and supported in subsequent research (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2004; Viitaharju & Lähdesmäki, 2012; White et al., 2003). Research on trust asymmetry, as introduced by Slovic and subsequently explored by numerous scholars, delves into the trust dynamics between individuals and objects. The current research limitations include: focusing solely on individual-information unidirectional interactions, failing to address interpersonal or organizational trust relationships, and employing poorly defined boundaries.

However, During the mid-stage of conceptual expansion, as societal and academic interest in team collaboration continued to intensify, the concept gradually shifted from focusing on individuals to emphasizing interactions between them. The core definition evolved to center on the disparity in perceived levels of trust among different participants. Trust, defined as the willingness to be influenced by the positive expectations of others based on their positive intentions or behaviors, prompted further investigation into trust asymmetry between individuals. For example, research by John and Reve (2010), which collected binary data on trust ratings between wholesalers and retailers, found that the trust correlation between the two parties was only .166. As demonstrated by the “strategy choice model” in negotiation theory, “information asymmetry” in business negotiations is a key factor inducing trust asymmetry (e.g., Party A concealing payment capacity, leading to reduced trust from Party B). Trust asymmetry, in turn, influences the selection of negotiation strategies (Alfredson & Cungu, 2008; Ross & LaCroix, 1996). Graebner (2009) identified trust asymmetry in buyer-seller transactions, defining it as divergent trust levels between parties, and theoretically constructed the concept. Therefore, Graebner (2009) theoretically constructed the concept of trust asymmetry as the variance in trust levels between two parties. This concept was later extended to team dynamics, referring to the variance in trust among team members (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012). The theoretical breakthrough at this stage lies in expanding the application of the concept of trust asymmetry from individual psychology to individual interactions and within organizations, thereby broadening its scope.

The current deepening phase is driven by digital transformation (such as increased remote collaboration and cross-border cooperation), shifting research focus toward cross-organizational interactions and dynamic mechanisms. Consequently, the concept of trust asymmetry has expanded to the organizational level, with its core definition now centered on the dynamic imbalance of trust levels within and across organizations. Trust asymmetry denotes the variation in trust among internal members (Graebner et al., 2020; S. Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006). According to power theory, power within an organization is closely linked to trust. The power disparity between superiors and subordinates exacerbates trust asymmetry—superiors, who control resource allocation, typically trust subordinates’ capabilities less than subordinates trust superiors’ decision-making. Trust flows from subordinates to superiors (Luhmann, 2018; Tomlinson & Mryer, 2009). Differentiating between trust divergence and trust asymmetry is essential when examining inter-organizational trust. Trust divergence refers to varying trust levels perceived by members of one company toward another, while organizational trust asymmetry involves a two-way examination of trust within an organization (Brattström et al., 2019). This definition emphasizes the quantitative dimension of trust, focusing on how varying degrees of trust impact cooperative relationships. The theoretical innovation at this stage lies in no longer viewing trust asymmetry as a static disparity, but rather as a dynamic process that evolves with the cooperative phase. It also necessitates distinguishing between internal organizational discrepancies and the boundaries of interorganizational asymmetry.

In summary, the concept of trust asymmetry remains in a state of dynamic evolution. Its developmental trajectory is clearly discernible: beginning with a focus on individual-level differences in information preferences, it gradually expanded to encompass interpersonal interaction scenarios, and subsequently extended to organizational trust asymmetry. This series of developmental steps reflects its close connection to practical needs and theoretical advancement. For a systematic overview of the specific types of trust asymmetry, along with their core characteristics and key distinctions, please refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of Trust Asymmetric Types.

Aforementioned viewpoints	Development stage	Core research focus	Conceptual expansion directions	Key differences	Primary theoretical basis	Conception	Explanation
Risk recognition	Early Conceptualization Phase	Individual-Level Negative Information Preference Principle	From abstract principles to individual psychological mechanisms, laying the conceptual foundation	The one-way relationship between individual and information cannot cover bidirectional interaction scenarios.	Risk Identification Theory	Trust asymmetry	Loss of trust is easier than gaining trust
Dyadic trust studies	Mid-Term Expansion Phase	Individual Interactions and Intra-Organizational Variation	Expanding from individual psychology to individual interaction and within organizations, broadening the conceptual application level.	The application scope of the concept of trust asymmetry has been expanded, but it fails to distinguish between static differences and dynamic changes.	Theory Strategic Choice Model in Negotiation	Trust asymmetry	The difference in the level of trust between both parties
						Team trust asymmetry	The difference in the level of trust among internal team members
	Current Deepening Phase	Inter-organizational Interaction and Cross-Scenario Adaptation	Expanding from single-organization to cross-organizational interaction, focusing on dynamic evolution and scenario boundaries, moving toward refinement.	Trust asymmetry should no longer be viewed as a static disparity, but rather as a dynamic process that evolves with the stages of cooperation.	Power Theory	Organizational trust asymmetry	The difference in the level of trust among internal members

Currently, despite extensive research, studies on trust asymmetry exhibit certain contradictions and discrepancies due to differing theoretical perspectives. These manifest in two aspects. First, differences in conceptual attributes. Some scholars view trust asymmetry as an attribute of trust characterized by dispersion and persistence (B. De Jong et al., 2021), assessing its existence and impact through the level of trust consensus. Others argue that trust asymmetry is an independent concept, emerging from binary trust patterns and explaining issues beyond mutual trust and reciprocal trust (Graebner, 2009; Korsgaard et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2023). The former view holds that trust constitutes a group-level consensus, with asymmetry merely representing “insufficient consensus”; the latter view maintains that trust is a dynamic game between two parties, where trust asymmetry itself is the key factor influencing cooperation.

Second, the boundaries are poorly defined. For instance, Slovic’s (2010) research defines trust asymmetry as risk recognition, this definition builds upon the earlier individual psychological perspective but fails to account for differences in trust at the interpersonal/organizational level. Xuan and Lin (2013) characterize it as information preference, although it expands the types of information, it remains confined to a one-way “individual-information” relationship and cannot cover two-way interactive scenarios. H. Wang, Peverelli, et al. (2015), M. Wang et al. (2024), and Zhu et al. (2023) define it under Graebner’s (2009) framework of inter-trust and dyadic trust studies. However, these perspectives require cautious interpretation. Slovic’s (2010) definition is based on research in risk recognition, suggesting people trust information indicating risk more than non-risk information. Graebner’s (2009) definition focuses on trust level differences between two parties, addressing gaps in mutual and reciprocal trust thoeries. However, its limitation lies in failing to distinguish between static differences and dynamic changes.

The reasons for these discrepancies may lie in the fact that early researchers tended to define concepts from an individual cognitive perspective, while later researchers focused more on the organizational interaction perspective, making it difficult to achieve a unified definition. Notably, these differences have led to inconsistent measurement dimensions in subsequent empirical studies, making it challenging to compare findings across studies. Consequently, a unified perspective on trust asymmetry is necessary to consolidate its definition and application in research. Therefore, we urge a unified perspective on the definition of trust asymmetry.

Measurement and Research Designs Adopted in Trust Asymmetry

Measurement of Trust Asymmetry

Analysis of prior research reveals that measuring trust asymmetry is crucial in fields such as risk perception and team collaboration, offering a key perspective for understanding trust differences between individuals and groups. Currently, primary measurement approaches focus on risk perception and trust asymmetry under a dyadic perspective.

Trust Asymmetry Under Risk Recognition

Trust asymmetry under risk recognition is typically measured using questionnaire that assess the degree of trust in emotionally valenced information. For example, Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2001) asked participant to evaluate their trust in research results with responses coded as high trust, weak trust, undecided etc., for data analysis. This measurement approach is applicable to individual trust assessments of information. It complements social cognitive trust theory by demonstrating that trust differences in emotional information constitute a significant source of trust asymmetry, thereby refining the cognitive pathways of trust formation. However, it does not incorporate interpersonal interactions emphasized in relational exchange theory (Mitchell et al., 2012), making it difficult to explain variations in trust toward the same information across different relational contexts. This limitation hinders theoretical integration.

Trust Asymmetry Under Binominal Perspectives

To measure trust asymmetry from binominal perspectives, questionnaires are administrated to both parties performing tasks simultaneously. Scales have been developed to directly measure trust asymmetry in teams, such as the scale by B. A. De Jong and Dirks (2012; see Table 2). In this method, researchers ensure all team members understand the trust levels, ranging from 1 (completely distrustful) to 5 (completely trusting). Each participant (A) completes a trust assessment scale for their teammate (B). Team trust asymmetry, conceptualized as non-uniform dispersion, is calculated by first determining the absolute variation of the scores, and then averaging the trust scores given by A to B and the trust scores perceived by B. The calculation formula for team trust asymmetry is:

$\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{k} [\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{r} [| T_{ab} - T_{ba} |]}{r} j}{k}$

where $T_{ab}$ is A’s trust in B, $T_{ba}$ is B’s trust in A, r is the number of relations that team member j has, and k is the number of team members. This measurement method addresses the shortcomings of the dual-trust theory—where traditional theories focus solely on mutual trust. By calculating trust differentials, this scale quantifies trust asymmetry as an independent analytical unit for the first time, providing empirical support for Graebner’s (2009)“independent conceptualization of trust asymmetry.” However, the requirement for real names in these scales may make participants to feel wary, leading to inaccurate scores. To mitigate this, some scholars use anonymous trust scales to measure trust directly, then infer trust symmetry or asymmetry by comparing the degree of trust each party has toward the other simultaneously. For example, M. Wang et al. (2024) adapted three items from A. Zaheer et al. (1998) to measure trust at one point in time, reflecting the degree of trust in exchange partners. They decomposed trust asymmetry into buyer and seller trust asymmetry to show the direction and magnitude of trust asymmetry. However, it only measures trust levels at specific points in time, conflicting with the property-based hypothesis that “trust asymmetry exhibits persistence” proposed by B. De Jong et al. (2021). This approach fails to capture the dynamic evolution of trust asymmetry and may underestimate its long-term impact. A comparison of trust asymmetry measurement methods and their implications on results is presented in Table 3.

Table 2.

Trust Asymmetry Scale.

Trustworthiness	Options
None	I have no trust whatsoever in this teammate. I would not trust him/her with anything that concerns me.
Very little	I have very little trust in this teammate: I would only trust him/her with things that are unimportant to me.
Some	I have some trust in this teammate: I would be willing to trust him/her with some things, as long as these are not of crucial importance to me.
Quite a lot	I have quite a lot of trust in this teammate: I am willing to trust him/her with quite a few things, including things that are important to me.
Complete	I completely trust this teammate: I am willing to trust him/her with just about everything, even things that are really important to me.
Neutral	I don’t know this teammate well enough to be able to say whether I trust him/her or not.

Table 3.

Comparison of Trust Asymmetry Measurement Methods and Their Impact on Results.

Measurement method	Applicable scenarios	Sources of result bias	Impact on theoretical integration
Risk Perception Questionnaire	Individual assessment of information trustworthiness	Emotional bias (e.g., amplified distrust toward negative information)	Difficult to compare with “interpersonal trust” studies, hindering theoretical integration
Binary Non-uniform Discrete Scale	Intra-team interpersonal trust asymmetry	Subjective scoring differences (e.g., divergent interpretations of “trust” definition)	Allows cross-team comparisons but cannot be scaled to organizational level
Anonymous binary scale	Cross-agent trust (e.g., buyer-seller)	Temporal static nature (fails to capture dynamic changes)	Supports “independent concept theory” but conflicts with “attribute theory” persistence assumptions

Despite significant achievements in the academic field of measuring trust asymmetry, existing research still faces certain limitations. Current trust asymmetry measurements exhibit substantial methodological inconsistencies, making it difficult to compare findings across studies and hindering the integration of theoretical frameworks. Relevant measurement efforts have predominantly focused on the micro levels of individuals and teams, while attention to the meso and macro levels of organizations remains relatively scarce, resulting in gaps within the research system. Therefore, future research should prioritize exploring organizational-level trust asymmetry measurement. Approaches could integrate risk perception and dyadic interactions while incorporating temporal dimensions to develop cross-contextually applicable measurement tools. This would address current research gaps and advance the broader application and refinement of trust asymmetry theory.

Research Design in Trust Asymmetry

Empirical studies on trust asymmetry, whether from a risk perception perspective or within the binary viewpoint, predominantly use questionnaire-based research designs. This provides support for the theory of trust asymmetry—large-sample data can be used to analyze the dispersion of trust asymmetry, such as differences in trust toward the same object across different groups. However, it is susceptible to social expectation bias and cannot manipulate trust asymmetry variables, making it difficult to verify causal relationships.

Among 29 empirical studies, three employed experimental designs to manipulate trust asymmetry, and one utilized a simulated experiment. The experimental method for manipulating trust asymmetry under risk perception involved a structured trust game conducted in three steps: first, subjects assessed risk and made decisions; second, feedback was provided based on their choices; finally, subjects continued with a second round of the trust game, consistently exposed to the same type of risk (Zhu et al., 2023).

Similarly, the experimental approach for manipulating trust asymmetry under the binary viewpoint also used a trust game. For example, Pillutla et al. (2003) controlled the principal’s level of trust by setting different initial payment amounts for the first group members. This allowed the observation of trustees’ reactions to varying levels of trust, measuring trust asymmetry across different initial trust levels. Another example is Korsgaard et al. (2015) who managed participants’ trust levels by categorizing their trust patterns into high mutual trust, low mutual trust, and trust asymmetry. This categorization was used to study team collaboration under these three conditions. By manipulating independent variables such as risk feedback and initial capital, this study demonstrates that differences in risk perception and resource dependency are the causes of trust asymmetry. This directly supports Graebner’s (2009) hypothesis within independent conceptual theory that dual-objective differences lead to trust asymmetry. Compared to questionnaires, experimental designs are more suitable for causal testing, while surveys are better for describing real-world distributions. Research can complement both approaches to refine theoretical frameworks.

Unlike the aforementioned approaches, H. Wang, Wu et al. (2015) took a different approach by simulating the emergence and impact of trust asymmetry through a computable project organization and process simulation model. This method allowed a clear observation of the longitudinal development of trust asymmetry. Overall, the design approach for trust asymmetry research has shifted from traditional questionnaire surveys toward experimental studies and simulation methods, driving the theory of trust asymmetry from static attributes toward a deeper understanding of its dynamic formation mechanisms. Future research may explore pathways for integrating these two theoretical perspectives with research designs, thereby constructing a more systematic and comprehensive framework for understanding.

Literature Search and Criteria

To clarify the primary research topics on trust asymmetry and ensure comprehensive coverage, a literature review was conducted by collecting and retrieving domestic and international studies. We searched Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for peer-reviewed articles containing the term “trust asymmetry” in their title, Keywords, or abstract, with no time restrictions. The earliest article identified was published in 1993 on risk cognition, while explicit discussions of trust asymmetry began emerging after 2009, following related work in 2003, 2006, and 2007. Additional studies were located by examining the reference lists of the initial set of articles.

The articles included in this study must meet two core criteria: First, trust asymmetry must be the central research theme. Literature was initially screened based on the alignment of research themes, content, and design by reviewing titles, abstracts, keywords, and other relevant elements. Subsequently, we examined whether trust asymmetry was treated as an independent or dependent variable, whether the research context encompassed organizational or interpersonal settings relevant to this review, and whether quantitative studies demonstrated reasonable sample size, reliable and valid measurement tools, and appropriate statistical methods. For qualitative studies, we assessed the scientific rigor of data collection methods and the transparency of analytical logic. Theoretical studies were evaluated based on the rigor of their theoretical frameworks and the sufficiency of supporting literature. Based on these criteria, the final articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Secondly, articles were included if trust asymmetry was a central construct and if they appeared in peer-reviewed journals, ensuring rigorous theoretical and methodological standards. Consequently, book chapters, unpublished manuscripts, conference papers, and dissertations were excluded. Authors independently screened the studies, resulting in a final set of 41 articles encompassing quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical work.

This study employs the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology to identify research on trust asymmetry, select and evaluate the contributions of each study, and analyze and synthesize the data. Through screening and analysis, we ultimately categorized the literature into three core analytical dimensions: (a) Temporal distribution, examining publication trends from 1999 to 2024; (b) Spatial distribution: China (8 papers), United States (18 papers), United Kingdom (7 papers), Germany (2 papers), Netherlands (1 paper), South Africa (1 paper); (c) Content classification: Based on keyword co-occurrence strength, research themes were categorized into definitions (6 papers), antecedent variables (21 papers), consequent variables (12 papers), measurement and research design (3 papers), and developmental processes (4 papers). Based on the review and analysis of the sample literature, this paper systematizes and summarizes the primary themes in existing trust asymmetry research, aiming to provide a foundation and conceptual framework for further constructing a theoretical analytical framework of the trust asymmetry formation process. Figure 1 illustrates the temporal distribution of publications and the measures employed to asssess trust asymmetry.

Figure 1.

Trust asymmetry publications by year.

Review of Empirical Work on Variables Related to Trust Asymmetry

This section maps the nomological network of variables related to trust asymmetry by classifying the antecedents and consequences as per the perspectives adopted in each study, regardless of whether the measurement was cross-sectional, correlational, or longitudinal.

Theoretical Framework

The Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model posits that stimuli (S), which include internal or external contextual factors, influence the cognitive or affective psychological states of organisms (O). These states are then internalized as psychological responses (R) or externalized as behavioral responses (R; Xie et al., 2019). This model aligns seamlessly with the study of trust asymmetry. Firstly, antecedents of trust asymmetry can be perceived as “S” in the SOR model. Secondly, trust asymmetry itself can be viewed as a comprehensive manifestation of individuals’ cognitive, behavioral, and emotional states, corresponding to the “O” in the SOR model. Thirdly, the consequences of trust asymmetry can be seen as the different responses individuals exhibit, corresponding to “R” in the SOR model. Thus, when individual (personality, emotions, etc.), external (power, information, etc.), and situational (culture, risk, etc.) antecedents serve as the “stimulus (S),” they trigger the formation of an asymmetrical trust state characterized by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral imbalances—the “organism (O).” This state progresses through initial formation, dynamic adjustment, and stabilization/ breakdown phases, ultimately manifesting as positive outcomes like enhanced cooperative efficiency and reduced monitoring costs, or negative consequences such as deception and heightened conflict. Therefore, this study constructs a theoretical framework (Figure 2) that categorizes antecedents triggering trust asymmetry, particularly from the risk perception perspective (i.e., information type and sources of risk), into situational factors. This framework provides a structured approach to understanding how different variables interact within the context of trust asymmetry.

Figure 2.

The theory framework of antecedents and outcomes.

Antecedents of Trust Asymmetry

This paper explores the antecedents of trust asymmetry from three perspectives: individual, extrinsic, and situational factors, based on the theoretical framework presented in Table 4. The aim is to explain why certain factors lead to trust asymmetry.

Table 4.

Antecedents of Trust Asymmetry.

Antecedents	Theory	References
Individual antecedents
Personality	Big Five Personality Theory	Yakovleva et al. (2010)
Emotions	Impression Management Theory	Bo et al. (2018), Yu et al. (2021)
Cognition	Leader-Follower Theory/ Heuristics Theory	Y. Li et al. (2021), Werbel and Lopes Henriques (2009)
Extrinsic antecedents
Power imbalances	Power Dependency Theory	Graebner (2009), Trope et al. (2007), H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015), Wicks and Berman (2004)
Task dependence	Power Dependency Theory	S. B. De Jong et al. (2007), Yakovleva et al. (2010)
Relationship satisfaction	Social Exchange Theory	Y. Li et al. (2021)
Information asymmetry	Opportunistic Behavior Theory	Falk and Hermle (2018), Weber et al. (2004)
Team sub-group identity	Discontinuity Theory	Polzer et al. (2006)
Contextual antecedents
Context	Context Power Effect	Dirks and de Jong (2022), H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015)
National institution and cultures	Social Background Effect	Dirks and de Jong (2022), Jarvenpaa and Keating (2012), A. Zaheer and Kamal (2011), S. Zaheer and Zaheer (2006)
The type of information presentation and the source of risks	Information Preference Theory, Pocket Money Effect	Bohnet et al. (2008), Zhu et al. (2023)

Individual Antecedents

Individual antecedents of trust asymmetry can be categorized into personality traits, emotions and cognition.

Personality Traits

From a social psychological perspective, interpersonal trust encompasses three core dimensions: competence, integrity, and benevolence (Simpson, 2007). Differences among individuals in their manifestation of competence, integrity, and benevolence traits are also key factors contributing to the emergence of trust asymmetry. Empirical studies show that integrity and benevolence are crucial for upward trust relationships, whereas competence and integrity are more important for downward trust relationships, upward trust (employees toward leaders) relies more on “the benevolence of leaders,” while downward trust (leaders toward employees) relies more on “the competence of employees.” (Yakovleva et al., 2010).

Emotions

Studies examining the link between emotions and trust asymmetry suggest that positive and negative emotional states have opposite effects on trust asymmetry. For example, Yu et al. (2021) found that negative emotions impact trust more significantly than positive emotions due to impression management. Bo et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis indicating that positive emotions increase individuals’ propensity to trust others, leading to trust asymmetry compared to those with negative emotions.

Cognition

Few studies have explored the relationship between cognition and trust asymmetrY. Li et al. (2021) suggested that cognition influences trust asymmetry through perceptions of risk, relationships, and fairness. Different cognitive processes lead to varying levels of trust asymmetry. Leader-follower behavior theory also highlights how differing focuses between leaders and employees can result in trust asymmetry. Such that, leaders might focus on empowerment issues, whereas employees might consider wages, punishment, and resource allocation, leading to asymmetrical trust based on their respective concerns (Werbel & Lopes Henriques, 2009).

Extrinsic Antecedents

Extrinsic antecedents, such as power imbalance, task dependence, relationship satisfaction, information asymmetry, and team sub-group identity, significantly contrribute to trust asymmetry. Compared to individual antecedents, extrinsic antecendents have received adequate attention.

Power Imbalances

Empirical stuudies have demonstrated a strong relationship between power imbalances and trust asymmetry (Graebner, 2009). In particular, power-dependence theory explains that when one party has more power, the other party becomes more dependent. When A depends on B’s resources, A maintains the relationship by increasing trust, while B, holding the power, can reduce trust. This creates an asymmetry where the dependent party maintains high trust while the powerful party maintains low trust. (H. Wang, Wu, et al., 2015; Wicks & Berman, 2004). Research on buyer-seller relaationships in construction projects supports this, finding that weaker parties exhibit more trust behaviors (H. Wang, Wu, et al., 2015). Additionally, individuals in higher positions tend to trust more than those in lower positions (En-Shou & Shuo, 2020).

Task Dependence

Task dependence refers to the situation where team members are dependent on oneanother for task completetion. For example, member A needs help from member B, and B helps the A successfully to complete the task. In this context, A is dependent on B. In particulr, surveys indicate that in 53% of relationships, at least one member perceives trust asymmetry due to task dependence (S. B. De Jong et al., 2007). When one person’s task relies heavily on another, the dependent person is more likely to trust, while the other exhibits mistrust, leading to trust asymmetry (Yakovleva et al., 2010).

Relationship Satisfaction

Studies suggest that relationship satisfaction is related to trust asymmetry (Bo et al., 2018). According to social exchange theory, perceived imbalance in resource investment and returns indicates inequality in the relationship, leading to trust asymmetry (Lin-Qian et al., 2020).

Information Asymmetry

Agency theory posits that inherent disparities in information access and holdings naturally exist between principals and agents due to their distinct roles (Eisenhardt, 1989; Ramaswami et al., 1997). When parties possess differing levels of critical information—such as capabilities, integrity, intentions, history, and processes—it creates an imbalance in their assessments of each other’s behavioral predictability and goodwill, thereby destabilizing the trust relationship (Xuan & Lin, 2013). Parties with more information tend to trust less, while those with less information compensate by showing higher trust and proactive socialization. Moreover, the party with information advantage maintains its negotiating leverage by withholding critical information, causing the disadvantaged party to place excessive trust due to insufficient information, thereby creating a trust gap (Weber et al., 2004). Notably, hidden information before cooperation can hinder trust relationships, resulting in mutual suspicion and trust asymmetry (Falk & Hermle, 2018).

Team Sub-Group Identity

Research has shown that team sub-groups develop stronger internal trust, leading to trust asymmetry with other groups (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012). Team fault line theory suggests that sub-groups with strong internal identity trust more within their group, causing significant trust asymmetry with external groups (Polzer et al., 2006).

Contextual Antecedents

Compared to extrinsic antecedents, contextual antecedents have received relatively less scholarly attention. Previous research on contextual antecedents has primarily focused on various contextual factors, national institution and cultures, the type of information presentation, and the source of risks. In particular, the type of information presentation and the source of risks within the context of risk perception are significant contributors to trust asymmetry.

Context

Researchers have increasingly investigated whether individuals’ trust in each other varies based on their perception of context. For example, M. Wang et al. (2024) contend that the impact of context on trust asymmetry should not be underestimated. The situational power effect suggests that when both parties interact in a transparent environment, their interpretations of the interaction are influenced by subjective factors, leading to interpretative differences and consequent trust asymmetry (Dirks & de Jong, 2022).

National Institution and Cultures

Cultural background refers to the set of attitudes, values, and norms learned by individuals socialized in a particular cultural setting (Gibson et al., 2014). Culture significantly influences the meanings people attach to their experiences and their perceptions of appropriate conduct in social interactions (Hofstede, 2001). Wicks and Berman (2004) found in their study of international joint ventures (IJVs) that differing institutional conditions readily lead to divergent exchange expectations among partners. In IJVs, where partners originate from different countries, greater interdependence among parties, lower power imbalances, and increased reliance necessitate trust. When partners exhibit low interdependence, this may result in differing levels of trust between them, creating trust asymmetry. Consequently, trust levels between parties from different cultures can vary substantially. For example, S. Zaheer and Zaheer (2006) identified that differences in institutional and cultural environments across nations result in three distinct trust patterns between partners from different countries: unformly low or high trust levels on both sides, and asymmetric patterns where one partner exhibits higher trust in the other. A. Zaheer and Kamal (2011) theoretically elaborated on the critical role of national cultural context in trust asymmetry. B. De Jong et al. (2021) conducted a longitudinal study using data from a Dutch organization collected between 2013 and 2016, confirming the positive relationship between international cultural diversity and trust asymmetry.

Additionally, Graebner (2009) argues that unexpected entrepreneurial costs reduce trust in UK companies but not in Japanese companies, while Japanese firms experience diminished trust due to their proprietary technology being used outside of joint ventures. Generally, differences in institutional and cultural environments lead to divergent exchange expectations, resulting in power imbalances during negotiations, and thus, trust asymmetry between partners (Jarvenpaa & Keating, 2012). Dirks and De Jong (2022) further suggest that in collectivist cultures, individuals rely more on background cues to trust others, and varying interpretations of these cues can result in trust asymmetry. In individualistic cultures, personality traits (such as differences in perceived personal integrity) exert a stronger influence on trust asymmetry (Westjohn et al., 2022). Sources of trust asymmetry also vary across cultural systems (S. Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006). For instance, in healthcare settings:—Western cultures (low power distance): Patients prioritize physicians’“information transparency,” with trust asymmetry primarily stemming from information disparities.—Eastern cultures (high power distance): Patients emphasize physicians’“professional authority,” with trust asymmetry predominantly arising from perceived competence differences.

The Type of Information Presentation and the Source of Risks

The type of information presentation and the source of risks are essential factors in trust asymmetry under risk perception. Empirical evidence indicates that people tend to trust experiential information more than descriptive information, as decision-making based on experiential information involves implicit processes and is more influenced by emotions (Zhu et al., 2023).

Bohnet et al. (2008) introduced the concept of risk sources, categorizing risk into random, environmentally sourced natural risks and social risks, with trust classified as a social risk. The “private stash” effect suggests that individuals are more willing to invest funds obtained through investment in high-risk ventures, while funds earned through labor are more conservatively invested. Research emplying trust game methods has found that in scenarios involving natural risks, the decline in trust due to negative risky information is more pronounced than the increase in trust from positive risky information. However, in scenarios involving social risks, the effect on trust asymmetry is not significant (Zhu et al., 2023).

Outcomes

Previous research on trust asymmetry has examined a broad spectrum of outcomes, including innovation, performance, and the success or failure of cooperation. Within the SOR framework, responses to trust asymmetry can be categorized into “positive outcomes” and “negative outcomes” (Xie et al., 2019). This variation in outcomes is significantly correlated with the degree of trust asymmetry, as demonstrated by principal-agent theory and information transmission theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Mavlanova et al., 2012). Trust asymmetry reflects the relationship between the principal (information disadvantage) and the agent (information advantage). When trust asymmetry is low, information is relatively clear for both parties. The disadvantaged party can accurately assess the agent’s sincerity, making both parties more willing to engage in cooperation and thereby enhancing cooperative efficiency (H. Wang, Wu, et al., 2015). Conversely, when trust asymmetry is high, significant information gaps exist. The superior party may exploit this advantage to deceive the disadvantaged party, preventing them from verifying information authenticity. This leads to loss of benefits and adverse effects for both parties (M. Wang et al., 2024).

Negative Outcomes

Prior studies have demonstrated significant negative associations between trust asymmetry and various outcomes, such as deception, income loss, and knowledge hiding. According to agency theory, information asymmetry between negotiating parties leads to asymmetric trust. The party with informational advantage faces lower risk of being detected for deception, prompting them to engage in fraudulent behaviors such as concealing critical information (e.g., post-sale product costs) or fabricating favorable conditions (Clots-Figueras et al., 2015). Graebner (2009), for example, investigated trust and deception in technology firm acquisitions, revealing that trust asymmetry not only fosters deception in negotiations and material gains but also leads to opportunism and moral hazards. Specifically, trust asymmetry can increase a supplier’s opportunism when the buyer’s trust exceeds that of the supplier, and decrease it when the buyer’s trust is lower (M. Wang et al., 2024).

Furthermore, research suggests that entrepreneurs with higher trust levels than investors experience reduced benefits, leading to declining company performance (Bammens & Collewaert, 2012). Tomlinson and Mryer (2009) argue that trust asymmetry can disrupt dyadic relationships, resulting in poor cooperation and lower performance outcomes. According to social exchange theory, individuals or organizations continuously evaluate the balance between their contributions and returns during social exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). When trust becomes asymmetrical, the high-trust party often bears higher trust costs without receiving commensurate returns. This imbalance between investment and reward directly diminishes their willingness to cooperate, thereby reducing efficiency and collaborative outcomes (Li, et al., 2024). Korsgaard et al. (2015) found that cooperation is weaker under trust asymmetry compared to high mutual trust and mutual distrust. Bergman et al. (2010) explored perceived trust asymmetry in temporary teams, finding it significantly decreases team performance and team conflict. Additionally, a survey of a university project design team indicated that high trust asymmetry triggers knowledge hiding, hindering the effective updating, distribution, and retrieval of team knowledge, thus limiting the development of interaction memory and reducing innovative behavior (Boxu et al., 2022).

Positive Outcomes

Contrary to the predominantly negative view, some scholars argue that trust asymmetry can also yield positive effects, potentially enhancing cooperation. On one hand, from the perspective of agency theory, moderate trust asymmetry simplifies monitoring costs. Principals need not excessively intervene in agents’ specific tasks but focus solely on final outcomes. Agents, empowered by trust, gain autonomy to address task challenges more flexibly, reducing efficiency losses from hierarchical reporting (Eisenhardt, 1989). H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015) conducted an agency theory-based simulation experiment, finding that trust asymmetry moderates average trust levels and team performance, with lower levels of trust asymmetry yielding superior performance outcomes. On the other hand, B. A. De Jong and Dirks (2012) suggest that moderate levels of trust asymmetry may have beneficial effects by activating mutual monitoring among team members, strengthening internal competition, and ultimately improving team performance. H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015) identified positive effects of trust asymmetry on both individual and team-level performance, theorizing a connection between trust asymmetry and various outcomes. They propose that team trust asymmetry affects performance through mutual monitoring and team learning behavior, moderated by the mean trust level within the team. At the individual level, trust asymmetry influences performance via perceived social uncertainty, also moderated by team mean trust.

Furthermore, trust asymmetry moderates the relationship between monitoring consistency and team performance, where lower asymmetry and higher consistency result in optimal performance. Research by S. Zaheer and Zaheer (2006) indirectly suggests that trust asymmetry can prompt trust-building efforts from the untrusted party, promoting successful cooperative relationships. Finally, H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015) studied trust asymmetry in two teams, one from a large Chinese enterprise and the other from a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME), finding that the SME’s efforts to gain the larger enterprise’s trust through social communication led to successful cooperation and positive collaborative outcomes.

The Development Process of Trust Asymmetry

Trust asymmetry, in a binary perspective, primarily concerns the varying levels of trust each party has in the other. Based on the analysis of the antecedents of trust asymmetry, it is evident that this phenomenon is dynamic and ongoing. For example, as illustrated in Figure 3, prior work has explored the development stages of trust asymmetry between companies. These stages can be divided into exploration, commitment building, and long-term commitment. These stages demonstrate that trust asymmetry is a developmental process that persistently exists and dynamically transforms over time (H. Wang, Wu, et al., 2015).

Figure 3.

The development process of trust asymmetry between enterprises.

During the exploration phase, according to the anchoring effect in cognitive psychology, individuals’ initial judgments of trust are anchored by past experiences. Negative experiences form low trust anchors, while positive expectations form high trust anchors (Falcone & Castelfranchi, 2004; Furnham & Boo, 2011). Therefore, due to prior failed cooperation experiences, large businesses tend to have low levels of trust toward SMEs. Conversely, SMEs often hold higher levels of trust toward large businesses due to their reliance on the latter’s power and status. This results in a high level of trust asymmetry. At this stage, SMEs can leave a good first impression on large businesses by introducing themselves. If the large businesses are willing to sign low-value contracts, the first turning point in trust asymmetry occurs, and the degree of trust asymmetry gradually decreases.

In the commitment building phase, both cognitive and affective trust are utilized to reduce the degree of trust asymmetry between enterprises. Despite the continued existence of power differences and cognitive asymmetry, cognitive trust asymmetry remains fixed during this stage. This is because through the fulfillment interactions of low-value contracts, both parties develop an objective understanding of each other’s “capabilities and integrity,” preventing the rational-level trust gap from widening further. Large companies may impose requirements and sometimes fail to follow contractual stipulations. However, the reduction of affective trust asymmetry plays a crucial role in diminishing the overal trust asymmetry. As SMEs continue to communicate with large businesses, the attitude of the latter shifts toward being more outgoing and enthusiastic, further reducing trust asymmetry.

As the degree of trust asymmetry continues to decrease, both parties enter the long-term commitment phase. Large businesses decide whether SMEs are trustworthy based on their cooperation, while SMEs continuously invest trust in large businesses to gain their trust. The gap in trust asymmetry is eventually reduced as both parties sign high-value contracts. Trust equilibrium at this stage depends on the fairness of exchanges. If both parties perceive their contributions and rewards as equivalent, trust will continue to strengthen; if perceived as unfair, trust will break down. As shown in Figure 4, the degree of trust asymmetry gradually decreases over time. If the cooperation is successful, the reduction of asymmetry is demonstrated by an increase in trust levels of the initially low-trusting large businesses. Conversely, if the cooperation fails, the reduction in asymmetry is evidenced by a decrease in trust levels of the initially high-trusting party.

Figure 4.

The evolutionary forms of trust asymmetry in enterprises.

Conclusions and Discussion

Discussion

This study employed a systematic review approach, utilizing the Web of Science and CNKI databases, to examine research on trust asymmetry from 1993 to 2024. We analyzed 41 research articles, focusing on the historical progression, current status, and impact within this field. Additionally, we outlined future research directions. Our study provides a comprehensive summary covering perspectives, definitions, measurement methodologies, antecedents, consequences, and prevalent keywords related to trust asymmetry, establishing a knowledge framework for the field and clarifying connections between factors such as power differentials and trust asymmetry.

In 1993, Slovic introduced trust asymmetry from the perspective of risk perception (Slovic, 1993), which stimulated extensive examination and validation by scholars. Subsequently, Graebner (2009) expanded the research perspective with the concept of binomial trust studies, encouraging exploration of its implications in team and organizational contexts (see Table 1). Despite increased scholarly attention, many studies have not sufficiently differentiated their perspectives on trust asymmetry, complicating literature retrieval.

Following its origination, scholars refined manipulation strategies and measurement methods for trust asymmetry. Whether viewed through the lens of risk cognition or binomial trust studies, trust games have been widely used to manipulate trust asymmetry. From the perspective of risk cognition, measuring participants’ trust is essential to reflect asymmetry accurately. In contrast, binomial trust studies emphasize assessing participants’ mutual trust, such as through the peer assessment method developed by B. A. De Jong and Dirks (2012) to measure trust asymmetry within teams.

Research in this field has focused extensively on the antecedents and consequences of trust asymmetry. The formation of trust asymmetry results from the combined influence of individual traits (personality, emotions), external factors (power, information), and cultural background. In cross-cultural contexts, cultural dimensions such as power distance and collectivism exert significant effects on trust asymmetry. Under the lens of risk cognition, the presentation of information and sources of risk are primary factors leading to trust asymmetry (Bohnet et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2023). In binomial trust studies, factors include personality (Yakovleva et al., 2010), emotions (Bo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021), power imbalances (Graebner, 2009), task dependence (S. B. De Jong et al., 2007), national institutions, and cultures (Gibson et al., 2014). Research into the consequences of trust asymmetry reveals that the impact of trust asymmetry is dual-natured: excessive asymmetry leads to negative outcomes, while moderate asymmetry can enhance team effectiveness. Its negative effects include negotiation deception, and material deceit (Graebner, 2009), increased conflict and decreased performance (Bergman et al., 2010), knowledge hiding and reduced team innovation (Boxu et al., 2022), and positive impacts, such as enhanced individual performance (H. Wang, Wu, et al., 2015), improved team performance (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012), and facilitation of cooperative ventures (S. Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006).

Additionally, this study found that the developmental stages of trust asymmetry exhibit dynamic evolutionary characteristics, progressing through an exploratory phase, a trust-building phase, and a long-term cooperation phase. Cognitive trust determines evolutionary stability, while emotional trust dictates evolutionary speed. For instance, H. Wang, Wu, et al. (2015) described the development process of trust asymmetry between enterprises from cognitive, emotional, and behavioral perspectives. Based on their descriptions, this study developed a flowchart illustrating the development of trust asymmetry between enterprises (see Figure 3). Furthermore, attempts have been made to depict the development of trust asymmetry under conditions of smooth cooperation (see Figure 4), aligning with the developmental patterns of trust asymmetry proposed by B. A. De Jong and Dirks (2012).

Practical Implication

Organizational Management Scenarios

Research indicates that power imbalance (Graebner, 2009) and information asymmetry (Sriram, 2005) are primary causes of trust asymmetry, which in turn leads to declining performance (Graebner, 2009). Therefore, within organizations, leaders can mitigate trust asymmetry between superiors and subordinates through power redistribution and information transparency. For instance, project approval authority for middle managers can be decomposed into dual mechanisms: team voting and data evaluation. Simultaneously, establishing a weekly transparent reporting system reduces information asymmetry. Inter-organizational trust asymmetry can be mitigated through pre-assessment to reduce collaboration risks. Before partnering with suppliers, organizations should measure both their trust in the supplier and the supplier’s trust in the organization. If the discrepancy is significant, risk mitigation measures should be implemented (e.g., phased payments, third-party oversight).

Negotiation Strategy Scenario

Given that information presentation (Zhu et al., 2023) and cultural differences (Gibson et al., 2014) influence trust asymmetry, and trust asymmetry exacerbates deception in negotiations (Clots-Figueras et al., 2015). Therefore, on one hand, negotiators in cross-cultural settings can adjust information delivery methods based on cultural differences to mitigate trust asymmetry caused by information gaps. On the other hand, negotiators can adapt strategies based on dynamic evolutionary characteristics. During the exploratory phase, initial trust risks can be mitigated through small-order testing. In the trust-building phase, transparency and emotional bonding can narrow trust gaps. In long-term cooperation, risk-sharing clauses can maintain trust equilibrium and prevent deception stemming from excessive asymmetry.

Team Dynamics

We found that team subgroup identification (B. A. De Jong & Dirks, 2012) leads to trust asymmetry. Therefore, managers can reduce excessive trust asymmetry through subgroup integration interventions. For instance, if trust asymmetry exists between technical and operational subgroups within a team, organizations can implement role-swapping activities based on research findings to mitigate this asymmetry. Based on the finding that “moderate asymmetry enhances performance,” innovation teams can also manage moderate trust asymmetry to stimulate innovation and improve team innovation performance.

Implications and Future Research Opportunities

This study reviewed the definition, measurement, antecedents, consequences, and developmental processes of trust asymmetry using a systematic review approach. It categorizes perspectives on trust asymmetry and proposes a novel theoretical framework linking its antecedents and consequences.

Addressing Fundamental Issues

In examining the definition of trust asymmetry, two persistent issues emerge: first, whether trust asymmetry should be considered an independent variable or an attribute of trust, and second, the lack of unified principles guiding its understanding. These matters remain unresolved and lack consensus in current literature. While this study attempts to address these issues, further scholarly discourse and research are necessary to establish a unified understanding. Resolving these questions would facilitate better categorization of articles related to trust asymmetry, avoiding issues of omission or redundancy. For instance, B. De Jong et al. (2021) propose that trust asymmetry is an emergent state within trust dynamics rather than a distinct entity, whereas Brattström et al. (2019) distinguishes trust discrepancy from trust asymmetry, emphasizing inconsistent unidirectional trust levels outside the organization. Differentiating articles based on theoretical contexts can enhance clarity on the evolution of trust asymmetry.

Updated Research Perspective of Trust Asymmetry

The rise of robotic applications has brought human-robot trust asymmetry to the forefront, as trust calibrations such as over-trust or under-trust directly impact collaborative efficiency (Huang & Ye, 2024). This new context necessitates expanding traditional trust asymmetry research to examine how gender, personality, and cognitive biases shape trust biases in human-robot interactions. For example, gender differences in risk perception and prosocial tendencies may manifest as distinct trust asymmetries, which could either impede cooperation or foster adaptive trust adjustments. Researchers should investigate whether these biases yield negative outcomes (e.g., task failure) or positive outcomes (e.g., resilient collaboration) under different contextual conditions, integrating cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of trust (Falk & Hermle, 2018; Siegrist et al. 2002; Markowitz, 1952).

Improving Measurement of Trust Asymmetry

Previous studies often measure trust unidirectionally, neglecting the dyadic nature of trust and thereby overlooking asymmetry (B. De Jong et al., 2021). To address this, researchers should adopt bidirectional measurement to capture mutual trust discrepancies directly. Current research relies on scale-based asymmetry indices, but standardized thresholds for defining asymmetry levels (e.g., low, moderate, high) are absent. Future studies should establish empirical benchmarks to quantify asymmetry degrees, enabling precise analysis of its consequences. Additionally, leveraging neuroimaging techniques like EEG or NIRS can reveal the dynamic neural mechanisms underlying trust asymmetry during human-robot or interpersonal interactions, bridging behavioral observations with cognitive processes. Additionally, incorporating longitudinal case study designs—such as tracking teams over time—we documented the dynamic progression of trust asymmetry from “emergence to intensification to resolution” through quarterly questionnaires and EEG brainwave monitoring.

Expanding Research on Antecedents and Consequences

Gender represents a critical yet understudied antecedent of trust asymmetry. Risk preference theory posits that women’s higher risk aversion may reduce trust levels (Charness & Gneezy, 2012; Siegrist et al. 2002), whereas prosocial theory suggests women’s stronger prosocial behaviors could enhance trust (Falk & Hermle, 2018). This theoretical tension highlights the need for empirical clarification of how gender influences trust asymmetry across contexts.

Regarding consequences, extant research on team performance yields conflicting findings: Bergman et al. (2010) link asymmetry to performance decline, while B. A. De Jong and Dirks (2012) argue moderate asymmetry improves performance via mutual monitoring. This divergence suggests that the degree of asymmetry (e.g., low vs. high) and contextual moderators (e.g., task interdependence) play pivotal roles. Future research should systematically examine how asymmetric trust impacts not only team performance but also individual learning outcomes and proximal variables like team creativity—critical for addressing innovation challenges such as idea validation and partnership dynamics.

Additionally, while most studies focus on distal variables like team innovation, fewer have examined proximal variables such as team creativity. Research on creativity can directly address innovation challenges (i.e., creative idea validation, creative deviance, partnership capacity, red tape, etc.) faced by teams. Future research should focus on these proximal variables, short-term performance (e.g., project completion efficiency) and long-term performance (e.g., organizational innovation capability; Nestle et al., 2019); Concurrently, introducing mediating variables such as knowledge sharing frequency (X. Li et al., 2024) could examine whether trust asymmetry indirectly inhibits organizational innovation by reducing knowledge sharing. This approach would address current research gaps and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact mechanisms of trust asymmetry.

Trust asymmetry varies across cultural contexts (Jarvenpaa & Keating, 2012). Future research should further explore the dynamic evolution and coping strategies of trust asymmetry in different cultural settings, providing more effective theoretical support and practical guidance for addressing cross-cultural trust issues. Studying trust asymmetry across cultural contexts allows for comparative analysis. For instance, future research could sample enterprises from various countries, employing questionnaire surveys and experimental methods to compare and analyze the moderating effects of cultural dimensions on the antecedents and consequences of trust asymmetry.

The Comprehensive Development Process of Trust Asymmetry

Trust asymmetry is a dynamic phenomenon evolving through iterative interactions, yet its longitudinal development remains understudied. Current evidence from case studies shows that interorganizational trust asymmetry often diminishes toward positive outcomes, but Jarvenpaa and Keating (2012) document persistent asymmetry in global teams. This contrast underscores the need for longitudinal designs to track how asymmetry evolves under success versus failure scenarios, particularly regarding negative trajectories—such as entrenched mistrust or trust erosion—that are poorly understood. Comprehensive portrayals of its developmental phases (e.g., exploration, commitment, stabilization) will deepen our understanding of its causal mechanisms and practical implications.

Limitations

Similar to previous studies, this research has certain limitations. First, when employing the systematic review methodology, the literature search was confined to the Web of Science and CNKI Core Database, presenting two limitations: firstly, the exclusion of gray literature (such as academic reports, unpublished dissertations, and conference abstracts) may have omitted research findings, including early explorations of trust asymmetry in practical fields; Second, the exclusion of multilingual databases like Scopus and Google Scholar may have omitted research on cross-cultural trust asymmetry from regions such as Southeast Asia and Africa, potentially limiting the geographical generalizability of the findings. Future studies should consider incorporating additional databases.

Second, despite employing dual screening criteria of keywords and abstracts during literature selection, potential selection biases remain: First, prioritizing highly cited papers may exclude recent, cutting-edge research that has not yet achieved high citation rates (e.g., the latest experimental findings on human-machine trust imbalance), affecting the comprehensiveness of this review.

Finally, over 90% of the included literature consists of cross-sectional studies (e.g., team trust surveys at a single point in time), while only 10% incorporate short-term follow-up data. The absence of longitudinal studies spanning more than 3 years prevents analysis of how trust asymmetry evolves across an organization’s lifecycle. Future research could explore the long-term impacts of trust asymmetry on organizational performance, innovation, and relationships.

Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive review of trust asymmetry, addressing its definition, measurements, antecedents, consequences, and developmental processes. This study finds: (a) The causes of trust asymmetry can be categorized into three types: individual (personality, emotions), external (power, information), and situational (culture, risk). Among these, power imbalance and information asymmetry are dominant precursors across scenarios; (b) Its consequences exhibit a “double-edged sword” characteristic—excessive asymmetry leads to deception and declining performance, while moderate asymmetry can enhance team effectiveness through supervision; (c) The developmental process follows a three-stage dynamic pattern: “exploration phase → trust-building phase → long-term cooperation phase.” By deeply integrating the SOR framework with trust asymmetry, this study achieves a comprehensive theoretical integration spanning causes, mechanisms, and outcomes of trust asymmetry. We point to new directions for understanding its complexity and profound impacts. Furthermore, by summarizing the dynamic patterns of its developmental process, we clarify the dynamic stages of trust asymmetry and the core characteristics of each stage. Future research should aim to resolve fundamental issues in its definition, study the evolving dynamics of human-robot trust asymmetry, improve measurement methodologies, and expand investigations into its antecedents and consequences. Understanding the comprehensive development process of trust asymmetry will be beneficial for advancing the field and augmenting practical applications in various contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Changfeng Wang

Mengjiao Han

Ying Pan

Nilesh Kumar

Ethical Considerations

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.

Consent to Participate

There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F.W., M.H., Y.P.; methodology, Y.P., C.F.W.; software, Y.P.; validation, M.H., Y.P., N.K.; formal analysis, Y.P.; investigation, Y.P.; resources, N.K., C.F.W.; data curation, M.H., Y.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.P., C.F.W., N.K.; writing—review and editing, M.H., Y.P., N.K.; visualization, Y.P.; supervision, C.F.W.; project administration, C.F.W.; funding acquisition, N.K., C.F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project “Research on the Mechanism and Countermeasures of Innovation Consortium by Leading Enterprises in Zhejiang Province”. It is funded by The National Social Science Fund of China (No. 22AGL006).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used during the current study are available upon reasonable request from the authors.

References

Alfredson

Cungu

(2008). Negotiation theory and practice: A review of the literature. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Bammens

Collewaert

(2012). Trust between entrepreneurs and angel investors: Exploring positive and negative implications for venture performance assessments. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1980–2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463937

Bergman

J. Z.

Small

E. E.

Bergman

S. M.

Rentsch

J. R.

(2010). Asymmetry in perceptions of trustworthiness: It’s not You; It’s Me. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3(4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00066.x

Xiangchao

S. U. N.

Ran

Y. O. U.

Fuhui

L. I. U.

Weiqiang

L. I.

(2018). The effect of emotion on trust: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 16(5), 632–643.

Bohnet

Greig

Herrmann

Zeckhauser

(2008). Betrayal aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. The American Economic Review, 98(1), 294–310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29729972

Boxu

Xingguang

Kou

(2022). Research on the influence of network embeddedness on innovation performance: Evidence from China’s listed firms. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), Article 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100210

Brattström

Faems

Mähring

(2019). From trust convergence to trust divergence: Trust development in conflictual interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 40(11), 1685–1711.

Charness

Gneezy

(2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007

Clots-Figueras

Hernán-González

Kujal

(2015). Information asymmetry and deception. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, Article 109.

10.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

11.

De Jong

B. A.

Dirks

K. T.

(2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406.

12.

De Jong

Gillespie

Williamson

Gill

(2021). Trust consensus within culturally diverse teams: A multistudy investigation. Journal of Management, 47(8), 2135–2168.

13.

De Jong

S. B.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

Molleman

(2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1625–1637.

14.

Dirks

K. T.

de Jong

(2022). Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse of the third. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 247–276.

15.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

16.

En-Shou

Shuo

Y. U.

(2020). The influence of power and status on trust behavior. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(2), 459.

17.

Falcone

Castelfranchi

(2004, July). Trust dynamics: How trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself. In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004 (pp. 740–747). IEEE.

18.

Falk

Hermle

(2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), Article eaas9899.

19.

Furnham

Boo

H. C.

(2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42.

20.

Gibson

C. B.

Huang

Kirkman

B. L.

Shapiro

D. L.

(2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217–244.

21.

Graebner

M. E.

(2009). Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 435–472.

22.

Graebner

M. E.

Lumineau

Fudge Kamal

(2020). Unrequited: Asymmetry in interorganizational trust. Strategic Organization, 18(2), 362–374.

23.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.

24.

Huang

L. I.

(2024). Trust dampening and trust promoting: A dual-pathway of trust calibration in human-robot interaction. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00527

25.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Keating

(2012). Global offshoring of engineering project teams: Trust asymmetries across cultural borders. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1–2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2011.641173

26.

John

Reve

(2010). Transaction cost analysis in marketing: Looking back, moving forward. Journal of Retailing, 86(3), 248–256.

27.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Brower

H. H.

Lester

S. W.

(2015). It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41(1), 47–70.

28.

Zhang

Yin

Sun

Bai

Liu

(2024). Impact of asymmetric trust on construction project management performance: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(11), 4538–4561.

29.

Liu

(2021). Influencing factors on inter-organizational trust asymmetry behavior in construction projects: Evidence from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(1), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2019-0256

30.

Lin-Qian

F. U.

Xiao-Chun

X. I. E.

L. E. I.

Peng-Cheng

Y. U.

(2020). The influence of partner’s phubbing and its psychological mechanisms. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(3), 726.

31.

Luhmann

(2018). Trust and power. John Wiley & Sons.

32.

Markowitz

(1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x

33.

Mavlanova

Benbunan-Fich

Koufaris

(2012). Signaling theory and information asymmetry in online commerce. Information & Management, 49(5), 240–247.

34.

Mitchell

M. S.

Cropanzano

R. S.

Quisenberry

D. M.

(2012). Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In Törnblom

Kazemi

(Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications (pp. 99–118). Springer New York.

35.

Nestle

Täube

F. A.

Heidenreich

Bogers

(2019). Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 563–572.

36.

Pillutla

M. M.

Malhotra

Murnighan

J. K.

(2003). Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 448–455.

37.

Polzer

J. T.

Crisp

C. B.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Kim

J. W.

(2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.

38.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 24(6), 1475–1486.

39.

Ramaswami

S. N.

Srinivasan

S. S.

Gorton

S. A.

(1997). Information asymmetry between salesperson and supervisor: Postulates from agency and social exchange theories. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(3), 29–50.

40.

Ross

LaCroix

(1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4), 314–360.

41.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

(2001). Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 199–206.

42.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

Gutscher

(2002). Risk preference predictions and gender stereotypes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 91–102.

43.

Simpson

J. A.

(2007). Foundations of interpersonal trust. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2, 587–607.

44.

Slovic

(1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.

45.

Slovic

(2010). The feeling of risk. New perspectives on risk perception. Routledge.

46.

Sriram

M. S.

(2005). Information asymmetry and trust: A framework for studying microfinance in India. Vikalpa, 30(4), 77–86.

47.

Tomlinson

E. C.

Mryer

R. C.

(2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104.

48.

Trope

Liberman

Wakslak

(2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X

49.

Viitaharju

Lähdesmäki

(2012). Antecedents of trust in asymmetrical business relationships: Differing perceptions between food producers and retailers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(5), 567–587.

50.

Wang

Peverelli

P. J.

Bossink

B. A. G.

(2015). The development of asymmetric trust in cooperation between large firms and SMEs: Insights from china. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(5), 925–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9422-6

51.

Wang

Liu

(2015). Congfigural of trust: The positive effect of trustasymmetry on working team. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(11), 1886. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2015.01886

52.

Wang

Zhou

K. Z.

Bai

(2024). Trust asymmetry and changes in supplier opportunism: An institutional contingency view. Journal of Business Research, 174, Article 114537.

53.

Wang

Zhou

Zhu

(2023). The impact of abusive supervision differentiation on team performance in team competitive climates. Personnel Review, 52(4), 901–915.

54.

Weber

J. M.

Malhotra

Murnighan

J. K.

(2004). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 75–101.

55.

Weiss

Michels

Burgmer

Mussweiler

Ockenfels

Hofmann

(2021). Trust in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 95–114.

56.

Werbel

J. D.

Lopes Henriques

(2009). Different views of trust and relational leadership: Supervisor and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 780–796.

57.

Westjohn

S. A.

Magnusson

Franke

G. R.

Peng

(2022). Trust propensity across cultures: The role of collectivism. Journal of International Marketing, 30(1), 1–17.

58.

White

M. P.

Pahl

Buehner

Haye

(2003). Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23(4), 717–726.

59.

Wicks

A. C.

Berman

S. L.

(2004). The effects of context on trust in firm-stakeholder relationships: The institutional environment, trust creation, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), 141–160.

60.

Xie

Qin

Y. Z.

Duan

H. M.

(2019). A literature review of employee grievance and prospects based on SOR theory framework. Chinese Journal of Management, 16, 783–790.

61.

Xuan

Lin

W. U.

(2013). The mechanism of trust in risk perception: Symmetry or asymmetry? Journal of Psychological Science, 36(6), 1333.

62.

Yakovleva

Reilly

R. R.

Werko

(2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 79–91.

63.

Berg

J. M.

Zlatev

J. J.

(2021). Emotional acknowledgment: How verbalizing others’ emotions fosters interpersonal trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 116–135.

64.

Zaheer

Kamal

D. F.

(2011). Creating trust in piranha-infested waters: The confluence of buyer, supplier and host country contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1), 48–55.

65.

Zaheer

McEvily

Perrone

(1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.

66.

Zaheer

(2006). Trust across borders. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 21–29.

67.

Zhu

Yao

Jiang

(2023). Vulnerability or resilience? Examining trust asymmetry from the perspective of risk sources under descriptive versus experiential decision. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1207453.