Next Article in Journal
Mapping the Digital Media Landscape in Bulgaria: Analysis of Web Publications
Previous Article in Journal
A Pilot Study on AI-Powered Gamified Chatbot with OMO Strategy for Enhancing Parental Nutrition Knowledge
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Survey on Digital Trust: Towards a Validated Definition

by
Julija Saveljeva
* and
Tatjana Volkova
Department of Management, BA School of Business and Finance, LV-1013 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Digital 2025, 5(2), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020014
Submission received: 28 February 2025 / Revised: 27 April 2025 / Accepted: 30 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025

Abstract

:
Digital trust is increasingly crucial for successful interactions in modern digital environments. However, the existing literature lacks a unified definition and a comprehensive understanding of its core factors. This study addresses these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review to explore and synthesise existing definitions of digital trust and identify the fundamental factors that shape it. A total of 86 relevant sources were analysed, revealing that digital trust is typically conceptualised as confidence in people, processes, and technology aimed at ensuring a secure digital environment, with data protection and privacy playing critical roles. Through thematic analysis, “openness” emerged as an additional factor complementing previously established elements of the integrative model of organisational trust, such as ability, benevolence, and integrity. Based on 42 definitions, we developed a new holistic definition of digital trust. The authors evaluated its content validity, confirming its alignment with the essential factors shaping digital trust’s essence. The findings highlight the multidimensional nature of digital trust and offer an operationalised framework for future measurement and application.

1. Introduction

As technology becomes increasingly central to our lives and businesses, understanding and fostering digital trust (DT) is crucial for maximising the potential of digital technologies and maintaining healthy relationships with them [1]. Online environments provide more significant uncertainty and perceived risk than traditional settings, making trust a key factor in reducing fear and enabling engagement [2]. According to Alpcan, Levi, and Savas [3], there is a fundamental difference between trust relationships within online and offline environments due to differences in trust establishment settings; namely, in traditional trust formation, personal interaction plays an important role. At the same time, the concept of DT appears prominently in professional literature as a new approach to assessing the trustworthiness of digital technologies [4,5,6,7].
Research on DT has grown significantly since 2016, with studies focusing on its definition, formation process, and impact on various sectors, but it is still developing in scientific literature [2]. Trust should be considered contextual and varies across different domains [8,9]. Dimitrakos connects it with the competence of the other party (trustee) in behaving dependably within a given context and relative to a specific task [10].
Digital interactions experienced tremendous growth during the last decade; from 3.5 billion Internet users in 2016 [11], it transformed to 5.56 billion in 2025 [12]. This motivates exploring new dimensions that bring the digital environment into the trust concept [13]. The authors of various papers stated that there is no single definition of DT [2,14,15]. This leads to a limited understanding of this concept and its dimensions, preventing organisations from establishing DT [15]. Sometimes alternative terms are used, such as “cyber-trust” or “online-trust” [14]. Nevertheless, no single definition or clear understanding of alternative terms’ differentiation exists.
Simultaneously, researchers noticed a significant difference between “traditional” trust and DT. While DT includes the features of regular trust, as it is built on fundamental trust foundations, primarily social and psychological factors [16,17], it also has several unique characteristics due to technological or digital factors that influence it [3,16,17]. The need to explore DT resulted in several systematic literature review (SLR) research papers on DT topics, three of which were included in the scope of this review.
The first study of Tunkevichus and Rebiazina concentrated exclusively on consumer DT and identified the main trends and research directions in this field. The second systematic literature review, conducted by Pietrzak and Takala [2], had a broader scope, focusing on the concept of DT. While this work provided valuable insights into DT at the time, several limitations highlighted the need for a new systematic literature review rather than merely a replication with newly published sources:
  • The authors used only one database (Web of Science, WoS) for their research, significantly limiting the number of sources;
  • The inclusion and exclusion criteria were not described in their paper [2].
The third identified SLR by Sharma et al. [18], concentrated on adopting digital trust in blockchain-based supply-chain management, analysing the current state and providing future research directions. Thus, previous research has not solved the issue of various DT interpretations and the lack of consensus on its characteristics despite a highlighted strong need [19]. Therefore, the aim of this research is to conduct comprehensive research on the essence of the DT concept, including its definition and key factors. Further, considering the absence of a unified definition, the authors proposed their own holistic definition and tested it with the content validation method. It is important to acknowledge that the research devoted to trust in the digital environment became topical at least a decade before the DT concept appeared. For example, the “e-trust” concept focused on consumer trust in online government started to appear in the late 1990s [20]. However, this paper does not aim to look into the formation of various concepts related to trust in the digital environment and systematically distinguish the nuances between them.

2. Materials and Methods

This study comprised two phases. First, an SLR was conducted to gather a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the existing definition of DT and to analyse its factors. Second, the content validation method [21] was employed to demonstrate how the proposed definition of the DT concept aligns with its key factors.
The SLR was conducted per PRISMA 2020 methodology [22], which provides a standardised protocol to transparently report how the sources were reviewed and included in the final scope. The papers were searched in two of the world’s leading bibliographic scientific databases [23]—Scopus [24] and WoS [25]. The search, using the keyword “digital trust”, took place on 15 September 2024 and was restricted to (1) titles, abstracts, and keywords; (2) scientific articles and conference papers; and (3) the English language. Conference papers were included in the review, given that the concept of DT is still emerging.
A total of 156 records were identified in Scopus [24] and 84 in WoS [25]. After removing duplicates, 170 papers remained. All abstracts were subsequently retrieved and reviewed. The inclusion criterion was a mention of the DT concept in the text as a concept discussed within the paper. In turn, authors excluded papers that discussed DT primarily from a computer-science or engineering perspective; for example, from technical frameworks or algorithms for trust (e.g., cryptography, smart contracts, trusted execution environments, secure protocols) perspective, or detailed engineering solutions to trust/privacy/security problems, since the aim of this review was to look at DT as applicable for the social science. Following the initial abstract screening, 118 sources qualified for full-text review.
The authors could not access the full texts of 12 reports. Therefore, 106 papers were read, and 20 reports were excluded based on the previously stated criteria. As a result, 86 research papers—27 conference proceedings and 59 scientific articles—were included in the theoretical analysis of the DT concept. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is shown in Figure 1 below.

3. Systematic Literature Review Results

3.1. Bibliographical Analysis

The bibliographical analysis revealed that the first publication included in the analysis appeared in 2010 as conference proceedings. Interest in DT began to increase significantly in 2019, with four papers published, peaking in 2022 with 21 publications—five times more than in 2019. With 16 papers retrieved by September 2024, there is an expectation that the total number of publications in 2024 will equal or exceed that of 2022 if the publication rate remains consistent in the coming months. The papers included in the review, sorted by publication year and type, are illustrated in Figure 2.
These facts motivate an investigation of the external factors that could contribute to the significant growth of research devoted to DT. From a regulatory perspective, mid 2018 marked the enforcement of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, prompting the companies to prioritise privacy and data protection [26]. Simultaneously, the California Consumer Privacy Act was signed in June 2018 in California, United States, granting users new rights over personal data and imposing transparency duties on businesses [27]. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which involved the collection of personal data from millions of Facebook users without their explicit consent by Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, became public in 2018, significantly heightening public awareness of data-privacy issues and the potential for misuse of personal information by online platforms and political entities [28].
Further on, COVID-19 accelerated digitalisation in early 2020, increasing reliance and dependency on digital services more than ever before, as commerce, payments, learning, and communication rapidly shifted to the digital environment [29]. This might be why Edelman’s 2021 Trust Barometer global online survey of 31,000 respondents, conducted in October and November 2020, showed a significant 7% drop in public trust in technology [30].
While trust in the technology industry began to rebound the following year (end of 2021), growing by 4% [31], Edelman’s online survey conducted in 2023 showed that trust in the technological sector (76%) coexists with near-distrust in innovative technology (artificial intelligence, machine learning, natural language processing, and generative AI). Moreover, 59% of respondents stated that government regulators “lack adequate understanding of emerging technologies to regulate them effectively” [32] (p. 16).
Finally, the number of data breaches and cybersecurity incidents continues to grow. The annual number of data compromises in the United States grew from 1108, with 310 million individuals affected in 2020, to 3158, with over 1.35 billion individuals affected in 2024 [33]. Therefore, the accelerated digitalisation post COVID-19, combined with fluctuating public confidence and growing data-security concerns, could raise the actuality of such studies.
The keyword analysis revealed 328 keywords. A co-occurrence “full-counting” keyword analysis using VOSviewer [34] identified 11 keywords that appeared three or more times. The relatively small number of recurring keywords indicates a diverse focus among the analysed articles, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the DT concept.
Aside from “digital trust” (n = 39) and “trust” (n = 17), the most frequently mentioned keywords were “blockchain” (n = 15), “digitalisation” (n = 6), “digital transformation” (n = 6), and “sharing economy” (n = 6). These trends indicate a strong link between digital transformation and blockchain technology, highlighting contemporary research subjects focused on the shift from traditional to digital environments, which enable new business models.
The clustering analysis identified four clusters, as depicted in Figure 3:
  • Blue: devoted to governance;
  • Red: focused on digital transformation and digitalisation, closely connecting them with industrial or organisational changes;
  • Green: related to the technological application of DT;
  • Yellow: concerned with socio-economic aspects.
These findings highlight that the blockchain appears as the main technology used to build trust in digital settings. They also illustrate how trust is essential for adopting new digital processes and economic models.

3.2. Existing Definitions of Digital Trust

The research revealed 42 various definitions of DT in academia. Some authors provided their own definitions, whereas others referred to one of a few definitions from other sources. Notably, within the wide range of the identified definitions, only five were cited several times within the scope of the analysed articles. These observations suggest that no single proven point of view exists within academia, and authors have divergent views on the DT concept.
Nevertheless, based on the analysis, the most popular definition of DT is “the confidence of stakeholders in the competence of actors, technologies and processes for establishing reliable and secure business networks” [35] (p. 3), which was included in the analysed papers and quoted three times [36,37,38], i.e., used four times in total.
The complete list of identified definitions, classified into six thematic groups by applying content analysis, is presented in Appendix A. Some definitions encompass several themes but have been allocated to the most thematically appropriate group. The thematic distribution of the definitions is summarised in Table 1 below.
Further, each thematic group is described in detail, with examples of common traits and definitions.
Group 1: Confidence in people, processes, and technology to create a secure digital environment. This is the most prevalent definition type, represented by 12 examples. The common traits of these definitions are:
  • A focus on collective confidence in people, processes and technology, i.e., “holistic trust”.
  • An emphasis on having a secure and reliable digital environment.
  • Includes trust from various stakeholders such as users, customers, individuals, partners, and society.
For example, Das et al. [39] (p. 360) define DT as follows: “in the digital context, trust refers to users’ confidence and reliability in the systems, services, and organisations they interact with. Users must trust that their personal information will be handled responsibly, that their privacy will be respected, and that the systems they rely on are secure from malicious actors.
Group 2: Trust in data protection, privacy, security, and ethical information handling. This thematic group is also well represented, with eight examples. These definitions are focused chiefly on information security and management:
  • Assurance that personal and sensitive data are protected from unauthorised access and breaches.
  • Expectation in the organisations to handle data responsibly and ethically, respecting user privacy.
  • Meeting stakeholders’ expectations regarding data-handling practices.
Notably, this was the type of definition proposed by Pietrzak and Takala [2] (p. 64) as the result of their systematic research on DT: “Digital trust is assumed to be the measure of confidence that workers, consumers/buyers, partners, and other stakeholders have in an organisation’s ability to protect data and the privacy of individuals”.
Group 3: Trust in the technical capability and reliability of technology. Eight definitions fall under this thematic group, whose common patterns may be described as:
  • Confidence in technology’s ability to execute tasks and transactions accurately and securely.
  • Trust in the consistent performance and punctuality of digital systems, platforms, and services.
  • Use specific technologies (e.g., blockchain, AI) to establish or enhance trust.
An example is: “The consumer’s belief that the service is technically capable of ensuring the successful execution of the transaction” [40], quoted in [14] (p. 433).
In this regard, it is essential to note that some researchers portray blockchain, which can be defined as “a digital distributed ledger that secures and links the digital records called “blocks” using cryptographic techniques” [41] (p. 2) as DT, and there is a scientific discussion on this topic. For instance, Shin states DT is “a kind of user heuristics in blockchain” [42] (p. 2), meaning that when blockchain technology is used, users tend to assume that the digital solution is trustworthy. Some papers also name blockchain as a default guarantee, a substitute for DT [43,44]. While this technology can partially substitute trust between actors in certain collaborative, cooperative, contract-based activities, that does not fully substitute trust. For example, it can record transactions and automatically execute smart contracts but cannot address ethical dilemmas or resolve conflicts that emerge during the contract’s formation [45]. DT cannot be achieved solely through technology; it requires building trust in institutions and processes [46].
Group 4: Trust as a mental state that encompasses cognitive, emotional, and experiential factors. This group comprises seven definitions that are less digital/technical than previous groups. Its common patterns include:
  • Trust involves rational evaluations (competence, integrity) and emotional responses (feelings, beliefs).
  • Trust is built upon past experiences and evidence of behaviour, shaping future expectations.
  • Trust affects the willingness to take risks and make decisions, even with limited verification.
For example, Shin [42] (p. 2) defines “digital trust as cognitive heuristics constitute information processing methods to make decisions more quickly and with less effort than more complex methods, and thus they reduce cognitive load during security assessment”, and Hochstein et al. [47] (p. 1) “the willingness to rely on digitally presented information when there are limited means of verification”.
Group 5: Trust as an enabler in digital relationships, interactions, and business networks. This theme, represented by four definitions, highlights the following common aspects:
  • Trust facilitates interactions in environments involving human actors and technological elements.
  • Trust is crucial for customer acquisition, retention, and the formation of reliable business networks and partnerships.
  • Technology can be an enabler that either enhances or impedes trust in digital relationships.
An example of this thematic group is: “Digital trust represents the acquisition and retention of customers and shareholder value via providing confidence in the digital services with digital channels” [48], quoted in [49] (p. 6).
Group 6: Trust based on ethical behaviour and cultural principles. This is the least represented thematic group, appearing in three definitions. Its main characteristics are:
  • Trust is based on digital partners’ integrity, benevolence, and predictability.
  • Trust encompasses adherence to both written and unspoken commitments to avert harm.
  • It emphasises privacy, security, protection, and data management as part of an organisation’s culture.
For instance: “the digital trust category is also a general term to describe behavioural and cultural principles, including privacy, security, protection and data management” [50], quoted in [51] (p. 544).
According to these thematic groups, there is no unified approach to defining DT. Consequently, it is essential to clarify this concept, as the lack of familiarity hinders progress in scientific research and causes organisations to encounter challenges in measuring, managing, and enhancing their level of DT.
Identifying the key factors that contribute to DT is necessary to construct a comprehensive definition that reflects the multidimensional and holistic nature of the concept.

3.3. Key Characteristics of Digital Trust

The importance of a shared understanding of the DT concept and its characteristics is evident from previous attempts to identify the characteristics of DT using a SLR methodology. The recent publication dates of these studies further reinforce this point. The need for a consensus on DT and its characteristics among key stakeholders worldwide was also highlighted by the World Economic Forum’s Centre for Cybersecurity [19].
However, both previous studies primarily focused on blockchain as the main DT provider and drew on blockchain-related literature to extract DT characteristics.
Rychkova and Ghriba [52] reviewed blockchain literature to identify 21 technology-neutral trustworthiness requirements, emphasising the importance of digital, technological, and social trust in organisational decision making. Based on the trustworthiness factors Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman [9] mentioned, the requirements were split into three categories: ability, benevolence, and integrity.
Sharma, Agrawal, and Manupati [18] examined the adoption of DT in blockchain-based supply-chain management and listed its characteristics. They identified five key characteristics of DT essential for sustainable blockchain-based supply chains: transparency, cybersecurity, data protection, accountability, reliability and provenance, and regulatory compliance. This study offered more high-level characteristics, as some factors could subsume additional factors identified by Rychkova and Ghriba [52].
The present SLR focuses exclusively on DT but was not restricted to the blockchain aspect. A total of 36 analysed papers included the characteristics of DT, yet none appeared in a systematic review by Rychkova and Ghriba [52]. From these papers, 24 DT factors were identified and organised into four categories and eight sub-categories.
Some authors used “trust” or “trustworthiness” as DT factors, which does not clarify the specific elements of digital trustworthiness. In reviewing various factors, it was noted that authors discussed them using different levels of granularity. Some were using exact “ability”, “benevolence”, and “integrity” [53]; some were naming categories, such as “security” and “responsible use” [54], whereas some were naming very detailed factors, such as “data privacy” [38] or “decentralisation” [55].
Because this research aims to identify universally applicable DT factors, all identified factors were arranged into three layers:
  • Category, based on the initial trustworthiness factors introduced by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman [9];
  • Sub-category, representing the foundational elements of the category in the context of DT; and
  • Consolidated DT factors, as numerous researchers employed various elements to convey a single DT factor.
Trustworthiness requirements are linked to social science factors (ability, benevolence, and integrity) to bridge social and technological domains, following the approach of Rychkova and Ghriba [52]. As stated by Mayer et al. [9], all three categories—ability, benevolence, and integrity—are distinct yet interrelated. According to Mayer et al.’s definition, ability is “that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to influence within some specific domain” [9] (p. 717). Considering DT’s context, “ability” here includes:
  • A system’s, service’s, and service provider’s competence and performance;
  • Security and control factors, i.e., internal technical capabilities required to operate reliably;
  • Secure system architecture factors representing internal design choices to enhance systems or services’ capabilities and perform reliably.
Such an interpretation may be discussable. For instance, it differs from Rychkova and Ghriba’s [52] classification, which places security and control under Category 3, “integrity”. Nevertheless, such a position goes against the initial definition of “integrity”, which means “that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable” [9] (p. 719). Implemented technical controls are characteristics of products or services rather than inherent values or correspondence to externally defined principles. While governance and compliance frameworks may prescribe certain standards, implementing security and control remains a matter of technical capability.
Table 2 below provides a comprehensive overview of the DT factors included in Category 1.
The second category, benevolence, is “the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive” [9] (p. 718). Mayer et al. [9] describe benevolence as the perception of a positive orientation of the trustee toward the trustor. The category can be considered a blend of cognitive and emotional trust, as it arises from the trustor’s subjective perception, the information available, and his experiences. In other words, this category is considered as the customer’s rating of the service or product based on his previous experience and information available to him. Among the identified factors, this category may be classified into:
  • Relational credibility includes elements like goodwill, the reliability of the supplier or service provider, and their reputation.
  • User experience and the level of support received—how satisfied the trustor is with the service, their prior experiences, and the convenience of using the product or service.
In this category, it is essential to distinguish between the service’s technical reliability and the user’s perception of whether they can depend on the service provider. Table 3 below presents the complete list of the DT factors in the benevolence category.
The earlier definition of integrity pertains to whether an organisation operates within the agreed-upon values, ethics, and rules. From the identified factors, this category can be divided into:
  • The organisation’s core ethical principles include integrity, which guides its adherence to data ethics.
  • Governance and compliance encompass accountability for the organisation’s actions, adherence to regulations, and the implementation of standards, including industry best practices and other frameworks.
Table 4, with all DT factors within Category 3, is depicted below.
Although nearly all identified factors can be categorised into three main categories: 1. The system or organisation’s competence/capacity (ability); 2. The positive intent of organisations/service providers towards users (benevolence); and 3. The organisation’s adherence to acceptable standards and principles (integrity); one particular set of DT factors does not entirely conform to these three pillars. While Rychkova and Ghriba [52] placed “auditability”, “transparency”, and “traceability” under “Integrity”, defining it as “the moral quality of being sincere, honest, and consistent in one’s behaviour; capacity and willingness to adhere to some rules/principles” (p. 82), we argue that the methods for verifying trustworthiness through external sources and assurances go beyond an organisation’s internal adherence to ethical and governance principles and should be assessed as a separate component of DT. The body of reviewed sources, for example [39,55,70,76,77], looked into transparency and traceability from the perspective of blockchain technology, as essential for DT. This is also a key difference comparing with the offline settings, when trust may be ensured through personal interaction.
Several papers treat transparency, auditability, or traceability as a separate dimension of DT. For example, Jelovac et al. adopted a five-dimensional DT model that included transparency and integrity as separate dimensions [69]. Likewise, Das et al. treat them as separate metrics for trustworthiness evaluation [39]. In the modern world, trust is becoming demonstrable and publicly verifiable, and the segregation of this dimension highlights a need for its assessment and measurement. Therefore, this concept can be described as “openness” and could be defined as the extent to which an organisation or service makes its operations, data flows, and decision-making processes verifiable by external parties. Based on our analysis, this category encompasses three components:
  • Transparency signifies open and clear information about how the service functions.
  • Auditability pertains to an external party’s capacity to examine the service or its provider and provide independent verification or certification. In this context, the experiences of other users may also be emphasised, whether through feedback, reviews, or word of mouth.
  • Traceability refers to the ability to track processes and data flows within the service.
As this category targets a single dimension and includes only three factors, no sub-category has been introduced, and cumulative referencing has been calculated for the entire category. The complete list of references for this category is presented in Table 5 below.
The overall framework of the factors included in the DT concept is depicted in Figure 4 below.
Following the preceding thematical analysis of the existing DT definitions, the authors propose to a holistic definition based on the two most widespread groups that highlight the DT’s nature of providing confidence in people, processes, and technology for secure digital environment creation, as well as a focus on data protection, privacy, and ethical data handling. Simultaneously, the proposed definition includes all components of the DT key factors: “Digital trust is the confidence that an entity or digital environment consistently demonstrates competence and reliability, maintains robust security and a secure system architecture, fosters fair and honest practices, provides a positive user experience, complies with governance and regulatory standards, and ensures auditability and traceability of data and operations”.

4. Digital Trust Definition Validation

Clear conceptual definitions are very important for scientific progress and further theoretical development [79]. Even more important is the creation of a formal definition using precise language to prevent unclarities and repetitive reasoning [80]. Although one of the 42 DT definitions appeared four times in the sample, it is difficult to label it as dominant. Furthermore, this definition was included in the first thematic group of definitions, and the authors of this study argue that it reflects the holistic nature of the concept.

4.1. Definition Validation Methodology

Considering the various existing definitions while proposing a new comprehensive one, there is a noticeable need for content validation, defined as “the methodological process of gauging the degree to which scale items adequately sample the universe of content associated with a construct” [81] (p. 1243). Although DT can be viewed as an interdisciplinary concept that merges technology with psychology, the methodology offered by Colquitt et al. [81] (commonly applied in industrial/organisational psychology) for conducting definitional correspondence (to analyse the degree to which a scale’s items or factors composing the concept correspond to its definition) and definitional distinctiveness (to analyse the extent to which a scale’s items or factors composing the concept correspond more to the given definition than to other related constructs) was considered relevant and was applied in this study.
The questionnaire for content validation of the definition was created using Hinkin and Tracey’s approach [21]. Since it was a self-guided online survey designed to determine the degree to which the definition corresponded to the key factors that compose it, the response scale offered by Colquitt et al. [81] in the detailed instructions (illustrated in Figure 5 below) was deemed unsuitable for the objectives of this study.
The respondents were informed that the research aims to validate the newly developed definition to ensure it effectively captures the essence of the DT concept. They were also informed that they would be invited to rate four definitions: three existing ones and one newly developed, in a random order. They evaluated how well each survey item, i.e., each characteristic, aligns with the four provided definitions.
The authors, fluent in both English and Latvian, first created the questionnaire in English before translating it into Latvian. This was essential for effective distribution in Latvia, the authors’ place of allocation, as not all potential respondents had the necessary level of English proficiency. Furthermore, the translation was validated by two native Latvian speakers who were fluent in English to ensure that both the definitions and the factors matched the original intent of the English versions.
Subsequently, the initial version of the questionnaire was piloted with five respondents to gather feedback and assess its validity. Following the pilot, the wording of the scale items was simplified, as the respondents found it difficult to grasp the essence of each factor and ascertain whether it was reflected in the provided definition. Additionally, based on the feedback, the Likert scale was reduced from 7 points to 5 points, as the respondents were uncertain about the fundamental difference between the “extremely bad/good” ratings and the “very bad/good” ratings, in line with Hinkin and Tracey’s original approach [21]. The final evaluation scale ranged from 1 to 5, where
  • 1 means that the characteristic is not presented in the definition at all.
  • 2 means that the characteristic is more absent than presented.
  • 3 means that the characteristic is partially presented.
  • 4 means that the characteristic is more presented than absent.
  • 5 means that the characteristic is fully presented in the definition.
Seven DT subcategories were operationalised to measure the validity of DT definitions. For the fourth category, known as the openness category, no subcategory was formulated; however, two of its selected factors—auditability and traceability—were operationalised. These two factors were chosen because they both essentially provide some of the transparency promised by a digitally trustworthy organisation.
The operationalised descriptions of the validation factors, which are listed in Table 6 below, were based on the factor descriptions proposed by Rychkova and Ghriba [52]. To operationalise the first three categories (F1–F7), the authors summarised the descriptions of the factors included in the sub-category, as provided by Rychkova and Ghriba [52]. The fourth category factors (F8, F9) were created directly using the descriptions from Rychkova and Ghriba [52].
Four definitions were provided for the respondents’ judgement: the first, developed by the authors for validation; the second, the most popular existing definition, to determine whether the proposed one better captures the concept’s essence; and the third and fourth, pertaining to the DT concepts of “cyber-trust” and “online trust”.
Definition No. 1: “Digital trust is the confidence that an entity or digital environment consistently demonstrates competence and reliability, maintains robust security and a secure system architecture, fosters fair and honest practices, provides a positive user experience, complies with governance and regulatory standards, and ensures auditability and traceability of data and operations” (proposed by the authors).
Definition No. 2: “Digital trust is the confidence of stakeholders in the competence of actors, technologies and processes for establishing reliable and secure business networks” ([35] p. 3), the most popular definition within the analysed sample.
Definition No. 3: “The user’s confidence in the predictability of the ‘behaviour’ of software and hardware systems (digital technologies), their reliability, which is manifested in the willingness to delegate several tasks to various software and hardware systems” [82] (cited in [14] p. 433). This defines the related concept of “cyber-trust”.
Definition No. 4: “Consumers’ perception of a web site’s usefulness, security, privacy, reputation, quality, and e-vendors’ willingness to customise” [83] (p. 433). The definition of the related concept is “online trust”.
Although Colquitt et al., (2019) [81] based on an analysis of 112 studies, stated that naïve respondents can be used when applying the methodology, doctoral students are considered the best judges for definitional correspondence and distinctiveness. This is because they look beyond the simple meaning of definitions due to their expertise and experience. Therefore, the authors tried to obtain input from this group of respondents and distributed the questionnaire among doctoral students through Facebook [84] and LinkedIn [85] PhD student groups and personal networks. The respondents were not compensated for their participation in the survey. However, to encourage completion, participants could provide an email address to enter a prize draw of three gift cards of the winner’s choice.
To ensure the necessary number of responses, and considering that, according to the methodology, the judges may also be naïve, the questionnaire was distributed among students at all levels at the university where the authors are affiliated—BA School of Business and Finance—and among professionals connected with digital topics through their networks. A total of 282 potential respondents opened the survey, 171 began to fill it out, and only 99 submitted their responses. Since Colquitt et al. [81] stated that a minimum sample size of 100 respondents would yield sufficiently precise results, we conclude that the current sample is adequate for this study.

4.2. Definition Validation Study Results

Statistical calculations in this study were conducted using Jamovi v.2.3.28 [86] software. A total of 47 (47.5%) respondents completed the questionnaire in English, whereas 52 (52.5%) selected the Latvian language for their responses. There was an option to select ages above 65, but none of the respondents chose it. The most represented age group was 35 to 44 (n = 34, 34.3%), and most respondents were under 44 (n = 83, 83.8%). From the educational perspective, the most represented group was those with a master’s degree (n = 43, 43.4%). Most respondents (n = 79, 79.8%) had obtained at least a college degree. The full demographic statistics are presented in Table 7 below.
Furthermore, the authors’ proposed definition (definition no. 1) was analysed according to the index of definitional correspondence, known as htc (for Hinkin–Tracey correspondence), calculated using the following formula:
htc = average definitional correspondence rating/a
The analysis of definition number 1 (D1) ratings confirmed that the judgments are not normally distributed, as anticipated in this study, based on the Shapiro–Wilk test; p < 0.001 in all instances. The standard deviation (SD) indicated some variation in the opinions; nonetheless, they remain largely consistent.
Following Hinkin and Tracey [21], a minimum value of 4.2 for htc provides a confirmation of content adequacy. According to Colquitt et al., (2019) [81] the htc value between 0.87 and 0.90 indicates strong content adequacy, while values from 0.84 to 0.86 suggest a moderate correlation that remains sufficient. Overall, the analysis reveals that the provided definition is moderately or strongly aligned with the key factors of the concept, enabling the authors to assert that it captures the essence of DT. While the judges noted that certain measurable items (such as competence and performance, user experience and support, and auditability) were not as strongly represented in the definition compared to others (like security and control or governance and compliance), their htc value still indicates that the definition adequately encompasses all assessed key factors. The calculations are presented in Table 8 below.
The statistical analysis of the second (D2), third (D3), and fourth (D4) definitions confirmed that they were also not normally distributed, which was anticipated in this research. The SDs for the ratings of these definitions were higher than for the first definition, indicating that the ratings displayed greater variability from the judges. The calculations are provided in Table 9 below.
Afterwards, the results of the similar (D2) and alternative (D3, D4) definitions were analysed using the htd or Hinkin–Tracey distinctiveness index, which was calculated using the formula below:
htd = Average of all (Intended Correspondence Rating − Orbiting Correspondence Rating)/(a − 1), where a is the number of anchors
According to Colquitt et al. [81], the htd value from 0.18 to 0.26 is moderate, whereas the value from 0.27 to 0.34 is strong. Following the calculations of the factors/measurable items’ ratings presented in Table 10 below, definition no. 2—the most popular definition of DT—is moderately distinctive from the newly proposed definition. Thus, we may conclude that the proposed definition (D1) better represents the conceptual essence of DT than the existing definition.
In turn, definition no. 3 (D3)—the definition of cyber trust—exhibits strong distinctiveness, whereas definition no. 4 (D4)—the definition of online trust—demonstrates moderate distinctiveness compared to the proposed D1. From this, we can conclude that the proposed D1 represents the DT concept, rather than the orbiting ones.

5. Discussion

The thematic analysis of existing definitions of DT revealed six distinct approaches to the conceptual meaning of this term. The authors conceptually align with the definitions outlined in Group 1, which posits that DT is the confidence in people, processes, and technology to create a secure digital environment, and Group 2, which emphasises trust in data protection, privacy, security, and ethical information handling, thereby supporting a holistic and multidimensional view of this concept. While digital trust entails confidence in the enablers that foster a secure digital environment, data are the most valuable asset in the modern digital world, and its protection, along with users’ privacy, must be included or acknowledged in the definition of the concept. Simultaneously, the authors contest the position concerning the definitions encompassed in Group 3, which asserts that it involves trust in the technical capability and reliability of technology. Although the importance of trustworthy and reliable technology may be a part of the definition, the technology itself, much like any isolated tool, cannot encompass all dimensions of trust-building.
The analysis of the factors that compose the essence of DT confirmed that there are various approaches towards the conceptualisation level of the factors. While some authors define aspects of DT as “ability” and “benevolence” [53], others may go to a very granular level, mentioning “certification” [65] or “prompt resolution of the issues” [61]. Additionally, this study allowed for the identification of an additional category of trust factors—“openness”, that complements Mayer et al.’s [9] previously named and highly recognised three categories—“ability”, “benevolence”, and “integrity”. Such a result confirms the position of Alpcan et al. [3] and Dimitrakos [10], who argued that there is a distinction between trust in traditional and digital contexts, strongly influenced by the situation.
Finally, the proposed definition of DT is valid and represents all identified key factors. Moreover, the new holistic definition performs better from the perspective of key-factor representation and significantly differs from similar definitions of cyber and online trust. Additionally, the operationalised DT key factors may be used in the future for DT measurement.

6. Conclusions

This study addressed the absence of a unified definition of DT by conducting a comprehensive two-phase analysis. First, 42 DT definitions were mapped into six major clusters, illustrating the multidimensional nature of current theoretical discourse on the concept. Second, the study consolidated and extended three recognised trustworthiness dimensions of “ability”, “benevolence”, and “integrity” by introducing “openness” as an additional dimension relevant in digital contexts. From these four categories, nine DT factors were synthesised, including technical (e.g., security and control, secure architecture), relational and user-centric (e.g., competence and performance, user experience), governance and ethics, and transparency-focused (e.g., auditability, traceability) aspects.
Building on these results, the study proposed a new, holistic theoretical DT definition, which was validated through a survey. Compared to other cited definitions, the new definition was shown to capture the essential, multi-layered nature of DT more comprehensively. In particular, the validation results indicated strong to moderate alignment between the definition and all nine DT factors, confirming its conceptual fit.
The proposed definition and DT factors provide researchers and practitioners with a baseline for developing and testing DT measurement instruments. Moreover, organisations that seek to measure, manage, and strengthen DT may use a multi-dimensional view of the concept to enhance trust in their products and services. The expanded perspective on openness, including transparency and independent verification, may assist policymakers in developing and improving the guidance that will represent holistic requirements towards DT and promote blockchain technology usage as an element that facilitates trust.
This paper has several limitations. First, the paper aimed to analyse a scientific body of previous peer-reviewed publications to propose a comprehensive scientific definition of digital trust. Although the DT concept is widely applied in the industry, professional publications were not considered within this analysis due to the focus on the academic understanding and conceptualisation of DT. Second, the authors focused on two scientific databases—Scopus and WoS—to ensure the high credibility of the used sources. Although authors assume that the retrieved sources provided a comprehensive review of the DT concept, adding additional sources, such as IEEE Xplore or Google Scholar, might provide a wider overview of this emerging concept. Third, the paper was focused solely on the DT concept, not taking into consideration and not comparing with the concepts that preceded the development of DT.
Future research on DT may overcome the paper’s focus solely on the academic body of knowledge. By analysing professional literature and industry frameworks, future research may compare how academia and industry understand the concept, and discuss findings with industry experts. This analysis could address the question of the identified factors’ operationalisation within the industry and explore how they can be measured in different contexts (such as e-commerce, finance, and healthcare) and what tools can potentially be employed for this purpose.
Further, future research may address questions about each thematic group of the implications of the definition for various stakeholders, for example, organisations (businesses), consumers, and policymakers. Additionally, a comparison of e-trust, cyber trust, online trust, and DT concepts, understanding their differences and similarities might shed light on the question of whether they represent the same meaning and under what circumstances they are typically used.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S.; methodology, J.S.; software, J.S.; validation, J.S.; formal analysis, J.S.; resources, J.S.; data curation, J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.; writing—review and editing, T.V.; visualisation, J.S.; supervision, T.V.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is financed by the Recovery and Resilience Facility project “Internal and External Consolidation of the University of Latvia” (No. 5.2.1.1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/007).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DTDigital Trust
SDStandard Deviation
SLRSystematic Literature Review
WoSWeb of Science

Appendix A

The appendix contains the scope of the identified and analysed definition of DT. The logic of providing an authorship in the table is as follows:
  • Suppose the definition was found in a source included in 86 analysed papers and copied directly from this source. In that case, the reference is included in the column source, and the field in the column “quoted in” is marked N/A (even if other authors from the scope of SLR also referenced this paper).
  • If the authors of the paper quoted another source when providing the definition, the source of the quotation is referenced in the “source” column, while the paper itself is referenced in the “quoted in” column.
Table A1. Definitions of DT.
Table A1. Definitions of DT.
NrDefinitionSourceQuoted in
Thematical Group 1
1“In the digital context, trust refers to users’ confidence and reliability in the systems, services, and organizations they interact with. Users must trust that their personal information will be handled responsibly, that their privacy will be respected, and that the systems they rely on are secure from malicious actors”.[87] (p. 360)[39]
2“The perceived confidence individuals have in the ability of people, technology, and processes to build a secure digital environment”.[88][54] (p. 4329)
3“A concept that defines confidence in the reliability of all components of digital interaction: users, processes, devices, technologies and vendors”[89][14] (p. 433)
4“Digital Trust can be defined as the confidence that users have in processes, technology and people to create a secure digital world”.[63] (p. 1)N/A
5“Digital trust underpins every digital interaction by measuring and quantifying the expectation that an entity is who or what it claims to be and that it will behave in an expected manner”.[90][91] (p. 179)
6“The general belief that technology, people, and processes act or are aligned in ways that will fulfill people’s digital expectations, such as sense of confidence, security, or control to support the creation of a secure digital environment”.[90][92] (p. 30)
7“Digital trust implies a sufficient level of confidence in people, processes, and technology to build a secure digital world”[59] (p. 245)N/A
8“Confidence in the creation of a secure digital world”[93][51] (p. 539)
9“DTrust is associated with trust in digital institutions, digital technologies and platforms, which, in other words, means the user’s trust in the capability of digital institutions, companies, technologies and processes to create a safe digital world”.[69] (p. 490)N/A
10“Digital trust can be referred to as the confidence of stakeholders on the competence of actors, technologies, and processes for establishing reliable and secure business networks”.[35] (p. 3)N/A
11“Digital trust has been defined in practitioner circles as the confidence users have in the ability of people, technology, and processes to create a secure digital world. Yet the basis of trust placed in people, technology (e.g., devices, platforms), and processes (e.g., systems, institutions) will likely differ across digital contexts”.[94][95] (p. 668)
12“DT represents stakeholders’ confidence in the competence of actors, technologies, platforms and processes of establishing a reliable network”.[96][60] (p. 74)
Thematical Group 2
13“Digital trust represents the acquisition and retention of customers and shareholder value via providing confidence in the digital services with digital channels”[48][49] (p. 6)
14“Reliability of information provided by trade partners, or the safety and security of the data managed by a central authority”[97][18] (p. 19)
15“The confidence that a digital society attains in terms of data protection and privacy protection”[98][46] (p. 168)
16“Confidence in the counterparty that stores and use consumers’ digital information in such a way that this meets the expectations of consumers”[99][14] (p. 433)
17“Digital trust is assumed to be the measure of confidence which workers, consumers/buyers, partners and other stakeholders have in the ability of an organisation to protect data and the privacy of individuals”[2] (p. 65)N/A
18“The confidence placed in an organisation to collect, store, and use the digital information”[100][2] (p. 65)
19“Digital trust stems from a combination of different factors (…): security, identifiability, and traceability. Quite often, however, the presence of these features can be too difficult for an individual to evaluate—and especially so in a digital environment”.[101][2] (p. 65)
20“Digital trust can be seen as insurance placed by data owners in an actor empowered to manage their digital data. This means that data owners feel secure with their data, by securely controlling their distribution. Their consent is required to access this data”.[102] (p. 262)N/A
21“Digital trust refers to the belief that technology and information systems can be relied upon, secure, and well-integrated into business processes”.[92][103] (p. 4)
22“Digital trust, which is the users’ confidence in the safety, privacy, security, reliability, and ethical handling of data by companies in the digital environment, correlates with the perceived value of the information conveyed”[103] (p. 6)N/A
Thematical Group 3
23Digital trust is maintained through technologies like blockchain and smart contracts, replacing traditional ‘implicit trust’ with ‘technically expressed trust’.[104][105] (p. 6)
24The consumer’s belief that the service is technically capable of ensuring the successful execution of the transaction[40][14] (p. 433)
25“The concepts of digital trust are represented as a layered model by dividing the system into trust, credentials, control data, and trust storage abstraction levels”.[64] (p. 582)N/A
26“Trust in the technology environment, digital trust (DT) in other words, as the belief of an individual towards a digital system regarding its reliability and punctuality in performing commercial and operational transactions”.[56] (p. 7)N/A
27“The extent to which users believe that a platform provides reliable services and maintains a trustworthy status within relevant verification organizations”.[106][107] (p. 5)
28“The reliability of the system involves a shift from physical to digital and human to machine, which we refer to as digital trust, reflecting users’ positive beliefs about accepting and using voice-assisted AI systems”.[108][61] (p. 203)
29“DT reflects the user’s confidence in the digital platform’s consistency and punctuality when executing operational and commercial transactions”.[56,109][110] (p. 235)
Thematical Group 4
30“Trust is a mental state comprising (1) expectancy: the trustor expects a specific behaviour of the trustee such as providing valid information or effectively performing cooperative actions; (2) belief: the trustor believes that the expected behavior will occur, based on the evidence of the trustee’s competence, good intention, and integrity; (3) willingness to take a risk: the trustor is willing to take the risk for (or be vulnerable) that belief in a specific context, where there is an expectation for the specific behaviour of the trustee”.[111][78] (p. 107)
31“Digital trust in blockchain can be defined as enabling user heuristics made between security and privacy that reflect their level of confidence. Digital trust is a kind of user heuristics in blockchain. (…)Digital trust as cognitive heuristics constitute information processing methods to make decisions more quickly and with less effort than more complex methods, and thus they reduce cognitive load during security assessment”.[42] (p. 2)N/A
32“A trust based either on past experience or evidence that an entity has behaved and/or will behave in accordance with the self-stated behaviour”.[73] (p. 885)N/A
33“The combination of cognitive trust and emotional trust. Cognitive trust includes practicality, commitment to execution, honesty, benevolence, and so on. Emotional trust includes likes, beliefs, and so on”.[71] (p. 4)N/A
34“Digital trust is defined as a “measurable belief and/or confidence” that is “accumulated from past experiences” and is an “expecting value for the future”.[112][113] (p. 106745)
35“The willingness to rely on digitally presented information when there is limited means of verification”[47] (p. 1)N/A
Thematical Group 5
36“The confidence that causes users to exercise a choice to interact, transact, and consume online. Fundamentally, it determines the quality of the interaction between those who give trust and those who guarantee to uphold said trust”.[114] (p. 25)[115] (p. 3)
37“Trust in interactions that take place in an environment where human actors and/or technological elements are involved”.[72] (p. 2)N/A
38“Specific beliefs about the way that technology operates through a work environment”[116][56] (p. 7)
39“Digital trust is a third dimension that affects digital B2B relationships. It specifically refers to trust between digital partners and it can also be influenced by the perception of the tools used. For instance, the opportunity to use technology that simulates real in-person contact reinforces trust, while only chatting has the opposite effect. According to this vision, technology represents an enabler of the relationship that can influence the formation of trust in a techno-mediated environment”.[117] (p. 2107)N/A
Thematical Group 6
40“Digital trust, or “e-trust”, is characterized as one’s set of specific beliefs in the e-vendor, including integrity, benevolence, ability, and predictability, that results in behavioral intentions”.[118][53] (p. 1361)
41“The digital trust category is also used as a general term to describe behavioral and cultural principles, including privacy, security, protection and data management”[50][51] (p. 544)
42Is consumer’s confidence in a digital partner’s, business’ or institution’s commitment (written/unwritten) to prevent all sources of harm that may arise in transacting business between the two parties (consumer and partner/business/ institution).[119]N/A

References

  1. Chauhan, D. Digital Trust Is Core to Our Relationship with Technology. Netw. Secur. 2023, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pietrzak, P.; Takala, J. Digital Trust—Asystematic Literature Review. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2021, 9, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alpcan, T.; Levi, A.; Savas, E. Digital Trust Games: An Experimental Study. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Proceedings of International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security; College Park, MD, USA, 14–15 November 2011; Baras, J., Katz, J., Altman, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 7037, pp. 182–200. [Google Scholar]
  4. World Economic Forum Earning Digital Trust. Available online: https://initiatives.weforum.org/digital-trust/earning-trust (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  5. PwC Digital Trust and Cybersecurity. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/my/en/services/digital/digital-trust-and-cybersecurity.html (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  6. ISACA Digital Trust. Available online: https://www.isaca.org/digital-trust (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  7. Deloitte Future of Digital Trust. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/risk/articles/future-of-digital-trust.html (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  8. Marsh, S. Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dimitrakos, T. System Models, E-Risks and E-Trust; Springer: Zürich, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  11. Roser, M. The Internet’s History Has Just Begun. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/internet-history-just-begun (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  12. Fraguela, N. The Number of Internet Users Worldwide Increases by 2.5% and Reaches 5.56 Billion. 2025. Available online: https://marketing4ecommerce.net/en/number-of-internet-users-in-the-world/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  13. Kożuch, B. The Dimensions of Trust in the Digital Era. In Trust, Organizations and the Digital Economy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 15–26. ISBN 978-1-00-316596-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tunkevichus, E.; Rebiazina, V. Consumer Digital Trust: The Main Trends and Research Directions. Ross. Zhur. Menedzhmenta-Russ. Manag. J. 2021, 19, 429–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, X.; Li, B.; Song, D.; Wang, M. Influences of Risk-Aversion Behavior and Purchasing Option in a Cross-Border Dual-Channel Supply Chain. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2023, 32, 1494–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chaudhuri, A. Transformation with Trustworthy Digital: Policy Desiderata for Businesses in Post COVID-19 World. Edpacs 2021, 63, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhghenti, T.; Chkareuli, V. Enhancing Online Business Sector: Digital Trust Formation Process. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2021, 2, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharma, V.; Agrawal, R.; Manupati, V. Blockchain Technology as an Enabler for Digital Trust in Supply Chain: Evolution, Issues and Opportunities. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2024, 15, 4183–4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Papic, A.; Radoja, K.; Szombathelyi, D. Cyber Security Awareness of Croatian Students and the Personal Data Protection. In Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific Symposium Region, Entrepreneurship, Development, Osijek, Croatia, 9–10 June 2022; Simic, M., Ed.; Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek: Osijek, Croatia, 2022; pp. 563–574. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P.; Peralta, M. Building Consumer Trust Online. Commun. ACM 1999, 42, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hinkin, T.R.; Tracey, J.B. An Analysis of Variance Approach to Content Validation. Organ. Res. Methods 1999, 2, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elsevier Scopus. Available online: https://www.scopus.com (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  25. Clarivate Web of Science. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  26. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L119, 1–88. [Google Scholar]
  27. California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  28. ur Rehman, I. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Harvesting: What You Need to Know. Libr. Philos. Pract. 2019, 2497, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  29. Consultancy.uk. COVID-19 Has Accelerated Digital Transformation by Seven Years. Available online: https://www.consultancy.uk/news/26372/covid-19-has-accelerated-digital-transformation-by-seven-years#:~:text=consumer%20behaviour%2C%20specifically%20the%20growing,grocery%20shopping%20to%20financial%20transactions (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  30. Edelman. 21st Annual Edelman Trust Barometer. 2021. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  31. Edelman. 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer. 2022. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022-trust-barometer (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  32. Edelman. 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer. 2024. Available online: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2024/trust-barometer (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  33. Identity Theft Resource Center. 2024 Data Breach Report; 2025. Available online: https://www.idtheftcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ITRC_2024DataBreachReport_Final_020325.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  34. VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com// (accessed on 26 April 2024).
  35. Mubarak, M.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 Technologies, Digital Trust and Technological Orientation: What Matters in Open Innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Lu, C.; Yu, J. Influences of Industrial Internet Platform Firms’ ESG Performance and Digital Leadership on User Firms’ Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Inter-Firm Trust. J. Digit. Econ. 2023, 2, 204–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Han, S.; Ulhoi, J.; Song, H. Digital Trust in Supply Chain Finance: The Role of Innovative Fintech Service Provision. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2024, 37, 1737–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mubarak, M.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Evans, R.; Jucevicius, G.; Prestianawati, S.; Mubarik, M. Metaverse Adoption in the Manufacturing Industry: Impact on Social and Environmental Sustainability Performance. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Das, D.; Banerjee, S.; Chatterjee, P.; Ghosh, U. A Comprehensive Analysis of Trust, Privacy, and Security Measures in the Digital Age. In Proceedings of the 2023 5th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA), Atlanta, GA, USA, 1–4 November 2023; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 360–369. [Google Scholar]
  40. Harrison McKnight, D.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The Impact of Initial Consumer Trust on Intentions to Transact with a Web Site: A Trust Building Model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tripathi, G.; Ahad, M.A.; Casalino, G. A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Technology: Underlying Principles and Historical Background with Future Challenges. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 9, 100344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shin, D. Blockchain: The Emerging Technology of Digital Trust. Telemat. Inform. 2019, 45, 101278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Taghiyeva-Zeynalova, M.; Wang, Y.; Ta’eed, O. Blockchain as a Value Enabler: Bridging Financial Assets and Intangibles. In Proceedings of the BSCI—2019 ACM International Symposium on Blockchain and Secure Critical Infrastructure, Proceedings of the Asia CCS’19: ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Auckland, New Zealand, 8 July 2019; Association for Computing Machinery Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  44. Osuagwu, O.N.; Lekan Gbadamosi, S.; Ojo, E.E. Blockchain-Based Platforms for Agricultural Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Science, Engineering and Business for Driving Sustainable Development Goals (SEB4SDG), Omu-Aran, Nigeria, 2–4 April 2024. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lee, N.; Varshney, L.; Michelson, H.; Goldsmith, P.; Davis, A. Digital Trust Substitution Technologies to Support Smallholder Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Katete, G. Digital Elections and the Problem of Liquid Trust in the Kenyan Electoral Management Institution. Int. J. Afr. Renaiss. Stud. 2021, 16, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hochstein, R.; Harmeling, C.; Perko, T. Toward a Theory of Consumer Digital Trust: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Its Role in the Effectiveness of User-Generated Content. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Neill, G. Digital Trust and Emerging Technologies; KPMG. 2015. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/digital-trust.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  49. Büyüközkan, G.; Havle, C.; Feyzioglu, O. A New Digital Service Quality Model and Its Strategic Analysis in Aviation Industry Using Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP. J. Air Transp. Manage. 2020, 86, 101817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abraham, C.; Sims, R.; Daultrey, S.; Buff, A.; Fealey, A. How Digital Trust Drives Culture Change. 2019. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-digital-trust-drives-culture-change/ (accessed on 11 April 2025).
  51. Aiusheeva, I.; Soyfer, T. Formation of the Environment of Confidence in Sharing Economy: Problems of Civil Regulation in Russia. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 2022, 13, S536–S559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rychkova, I.; Ghriba, M. Trustworthiness Requirements in Information Systems Design: Lessons Learned from the Blockchain Community. Complex. Syst. Inform. Model. Q. 2023, 2023, 67–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zolfaghari, A.; Thomas-Francois, K.; Somogyi, S. Consumer Adoption of Digital Grocery Shopping: What Is the Impact of Consumer’s Prior-to-Use Knowledge? Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 1355–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Asprion, P.M.; Grieder, H.; Grimberg, F. Building Digital Trust to Protect Whistleblowers—A Blockchain-Based Reporting Channel. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Maui, Online, 3–6 January 2023; Bui, T.X., Ed.; IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamitos, CA, USA; Volume 2023-January, pp. 4328–4337. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kfoury, E.; Khoury, D.; AlSabeh, A.; Gomez, J.; Crichigno, J.; Bou-Harb, E. A Blockchain-Based Method for Decentralizing the ACME Protocol to Enhance Trust in PKI. In Proceedings of the 2020 43rd International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), Milan, Italy, 7–9 July 2020; Herencsar, N., Ed.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 461–465. [Google Scholar]
  56. Balci, G. Digitalization in Container Shipping: Do Perception and Satisfaction Regarding Digital Products in a Non-Technology Industry Affect Overall Customer Loyalty? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 172, 121016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Svenson, F.; Peuser, M.; Çetin, F.; Aidoo, D.C.; Launer, M.A. Decision-Making Styles and Trust across Farmers and Bankers: Global Survey Results. Decis. Anal. J. 2024, 10, 100427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mohlmann, M. Unjustified Trust Beliefs: Trust Conflation on Sharing Economy Platforms. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shipunova, O.; Berezovskaya, I.; Pozdeeva, E.; Evseeva, L.; Barlybayeva, S. Digital Trust Indicators in Human-Computer Interaction. In Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, A., Adeli, H., Dzemyda, G., Moreira, F., Eds.; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 468, pp. 245–254. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kluiters, L.; Srivastava, M.; Tyll, L. The Impact of Digital Trust on Firm Value and Governance: An Empirical Investigation of US Firms. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2023, 18, 71–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ranieri, A.; Di Bernardo, I.; Mele, C. Serving Customers through Chatbots: Positive and Negative Effects on Customer Experience. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2024, 34, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Deprez, J.; Ponsard, C.; Matskanis, N. A Goal-Oriented Requirements Analysis for the Collection, Use and Exchange of Electronic Evidence across EU Countries. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), Beijing, China, 12–16 September 2016; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 106–113. [Google Scholar]
  63. Chatterjee, J.; Damle, M.; Aslekar, A. Digital Trust in Industry 4.0 & 5.0: Impact of Frauds. In Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), Madurai, India, 17–19 May 2023; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 922–928. [Google Scholar]
  64. Latvakoski, J.; Kylloenen, V.; Ronkainen, J. Decentralised IOTA-Based Concepts of Digital Trust for Securing Remote Driving in an Urban Environment. IoT 2023, 4, 582–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Alsamara, T.; Khalidi, F. Review Of Covid-19 And E-Commerce In The Moroccan Legal System: Challenges And Opportunities. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Iss. 2020, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  66. Soldatova, A.V.; Budrin, A.G.; Budrina, E.V.; Presnova, A.A.; Girsh, L.V. Customer Loyalty Management in the Context of Digital Transformation of Business. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Quality Management, Transport and Information Security, Information Technologies (IT&QM&IS), Yaroslavl, Russia, 6–10 September 2021; Shaposhnikov, S.O., Ed.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 907–910. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kayhan, H. Ensuring Trust In Pharmaceutical Supply Chains By Data Protection Through A Design Approach To Blockchains. Blockchain. Healthc. Today. 2022, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Piccininni, M.; Rohmann, J.; Logroscino, G.; Kurth, T. Blockchain-Based Innovations for Population-Based Registries for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front. Blockchain 2020, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jelovac, D.; Ljubojevic, C.; Ljubojevic, L. HPC in Business: The Impact of Corporate Digital Responsibility on Building Digital Trust and Responsible Corporate Digital Governance. Digit. Poli. Regul. Govern. 2022, 24, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kafeza, I. An Intelligent Mediation Platform for Smart Contracts in Blockchain. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2021), Gold Coast, Australia, 1–5 November 2021; Cong, G., Ramanath, M., Eds.; CEUR-WS: Aachen, Germany, 2021; Volume 3052. [Google Scholar]
  71. Guo, Y. Digital Trust and the Reconstruction of Trust in the Digital Society: An Integrated Model Based on Trust Theory and Expectation Confirmation Theory. Digit. Gov. Res. Pract. 2022, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gronier, G.; Lambert, M. A Model to Measure the Perceived Quality of Service in eGovernment. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on eGovernment, ECEG, Limerick, Ireland, 17–18 June 2010; ODonnell, D., Ed.; pp. 527–531. [Google Scholar]
  73. Akram, R.; Ko, R. Digital Trust—Trusted Computing and beyond: A Position Paper. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 13th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, Beijing, China, 24–26 September 2014; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 884–892. [Google Scholar]
  74. Khan, W.; Aalsalem, M.; Khan, M.; Arshad, Q. Enabling Consumer Trust Upon Acceptance of IoT Technologies Through Security and Privacy Model. In Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Park, J., Jin, H., Jeong, Y., Khan, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 393, pp. 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  75. Flew, T. The Crisis of Digital Trust in the Asia-Pacific Commentary. Int. J. Commun. 2019, 13, 4738–4750. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kobzan, T.; Biendarra, A.; Schriegel, S.; Herbst, T.; Müller, T.; Jasperneite, J. IEEE Utilizing Blockchain Technology in Industrial Manufacturing with the Help of Network Simulation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 16th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), Porto, Portugal, 18–20 July 2018; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 152–159. [Google Scholar]
  77. Liu, H.; Ma, R.; He, G.; Lamrabet, A.; Fu, S. The Impact of Blockchain Technology on the Online Purchase Behavior of Green Agricultural Products. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rane, T.; Huang, J. Blockchain-Based Digital Trust Mechanism: A Use Case of Cloud Manufacturing of LDS Syringes for COVID-19 Vaccination. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 2022, 26, 103–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 2016, 19, 159–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sell, J. Definitions and the Development of Theory in Social Psychology. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2018, 81, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Colquitt, J.A.; Sabey, T.B.; Rodell, J.B.; Hill, E.T. Content Validation Guidelines: Evaluation Criteria for Definitional Correspondence and Definitional Distinctiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2019, 104, 1243–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Vidiasova, L.; Tensina, I.; Bershadskaya, E. Cyber-Social Trust in Different Spheres: An Empirical Study in Saint-Petersburg. In Digital Transformation and Global Society; Alexandrov, D.A., Boukhanovsky, A.V., Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Koltsova, O., Musabirov, I., Eds.; Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1242, pp. 3–13. ISBN 978-3-030-65217-3. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wu, G.; Hu, X.; Wu, Y. Effects of Perceived Interactivity, Perceived Web Assurance and Disposition to Trust on Initial Online Trust. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2010, 16, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Facebook. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/ (accessed on 21 February 2025).
  85. Linkedin. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/ (accessed on 21 February 2025).
  86. The jamovi project. jamovi (Version 2.3.28). [Computer Software] 2022. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  87. Das, D.; Banerjee, S.; Chatterjee, P.; Ghosh, U.; Mansoor, W.; Biswas, U. Design of a Blockchain Enabled Secure Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication System. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Signal Processing and Information Security (ICSPIS), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 24–25 November 2021; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA; pp. 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ritter, J. Digital Trust. Available online: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/digital-trust (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  89. Orekhova, E. Digital Trust as a Contributor to Development under Uncertainty and Turbulence. Bull. Saratov State Socio-Econ. Univ. 2020, 3, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  90. Marcial, D.E.; Launer, M.A. Towards the Measurement of Digital Trust in the Workplace: A Proposed Framework. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Sci. 2019, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marcial, D.E.; Arcelo, A.; Montemayor, J.; Launer, M. Digital Trust in the Academe: People, Software, and Hardware. Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools 2022, 89, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Launer, M.; Çetin, F.; Paliszkiewicz, J. Digital Trust in the Workplace: Testing a New Instrument on a Multicultural Sample. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2022, 10, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Frenehard, T. GRC Tuesdays: Building Digital Trust, What Does It Really Mean? Available online: https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-blogs-by-sap/grc-tuesdays-building-digital-trust-what-does-it-really-mean/ba-p/13412611 (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  94. PwC. The Journey to Digital Trust; PricewaterhouseCoopers.: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  95. Ferraro, C.; Wheeler, M.; Pallant, J.; Wilson, S.; Oldmeadow, J. Not so Trustless after All: Trust in Web3 Technology and Opportunities for Brands. Bus. Horiz. 2023, 66, 667–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bhattacharjee, S.; Gopal, R.D.; Lertwachara, K.; Marsden, J.R. Impact of Legal Threats on Online Music Sharing Activity: An Analysis of Music Industry Legal Actions. SSRN J. 2005, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, Y.; Han, J.H.; Beynon-Davies, P. Understanding Blockchain Technology for Future Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 62–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gangneux, J. Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society: By Arne Hintz, Lina Dencik and Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2019,180 Pp., £15.99 (Hardback), ISBN 9781509527168. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2019, 22, 2211–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, F.; Betts, S.C. Trust: What It Is And What It Is Not. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2003, 2, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Accenture. U.S. Consumers Want More Personalized Retail Experience and Control Over Personal Information, Accenture Survey Shows. 2015. Available online: https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/2015/us-consumers-want-more-personalized-retail-experience-and-control-over-personal-information-accenture-survey-shows (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  101. Mattila, J.; Seppälä, T. Digital Trust, Platforms, and Policy. 2016. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290428350_Digital_Trust_Platforms_and_Policy (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  102. Goint, M.; Bertelle, C.; Duvallet, C. Establish Trust for Sharing Data for Smart Territories Thanks to Consents Notarized by Blockchain. In Blockchain and Applications; Prieto, J., Partida, A., Leitao, P., Pinto, A., Eds.; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 320, pp. 261–271. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sartono, Y.; Siti Astuti, E.; Wilopo, W.; Noerman, T. Sustainable Digital Transformation: Its Impact on Perceived Value and Adoption Intention of Industry 4.0 in Moderating Effects of Uncertainty Avoidance. F1000 Res. 2024, 13, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Gromek, M. Clarifying the Blurry Lines of FinTech: Opening the Pandora’s Box of FinTech Categorization. In The Rise and Development of FinTech Accounts of Disruption from Sweden and Beyond; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  105. Pashkov, P.; Pelykh, V. A Conceptual Framework of Developing Ecosystem Strategies for Digital Financial Services. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings; Telnov, Y., Fiodorov, I., Eds.; CEUR-WS: Aachen, Germany, 2021; Volume 2919, pp. 48–58. [Google Scholar]
  106. Sundararajan, A. Commentary: The Twilight of Brand and Consumerism? Digital Trust, Cultural Meaning, and the Quest for Connection in the Sharing Economy. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ko, G.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Appiah, G.; Larimo, J. Non-Market Strategies and Building Digital Trust in Sharing Economy Platforms. AIMS Res. Publ. 2023, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fernandes, T.; Oliveira, E. Understanding Consumers’ Acceptance of Automated Technologies in Service Encounters: Drivers of Digital Voice Assistants Adoption. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Loh, H.; Lee, J.; Gu, Y.; Chen, H.; Tay, H. The Effects of Digital Platforms on Customers’ Satisfaction in International Shipping Business. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2024, 34, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Huang, J.; Nicol, D.M. Trust Mechanisms for Cloud Computing. J. Cloud Comput. Adv. Syst. Appl. 2013, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. International Telecommunication Union. Telecommunication Standardization (ITU-T) Series Y: Global Information Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects, Next-Generation Networks, Internet of Things and Smart Cities; International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  113. Ting, H.; Kang, X.; Li, T.; Wang, H.; Chu, C. On the Trust and Trust Modeling for the Future Fully-Connected Digital World: A Comprehensive Study. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 106743–106783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bhaskar, C.; Chaturvedi, R.S.; Filipovic, C.; Brewer, G. Digital Intelligence Index; The Fletcher School: Medford, OR, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  115. Venter, I.M.; Cranfield, D.J.; Tick, A.; Blignaut, R.J.; Renaud, K.V. ‘Lockdown’: Digital and Emergency eLearning Technologies—A Student Perspective. Electronics 2022, 11, 2941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Akbari, M.; Rezvani, A.; Shahriari, E.; Zúñiga, M.Á.; Pouladian, H. Acceptance of 5 G Technology: Mediation Role of Trust and Concentration. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2020, 57, 101585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Corsaro, D.; D’Amico, V. How the Digital Transformation from COVID-19 Affected the Relational Approaches in B2B. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 2095–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Thomas-Francois, K.; Somogyi, S.; Zolfaghari, A. The Cultural Acceptance of Digital Food Shopping: Conceptualisation, Scale Development and Validation. Int. J. Retail Disrtib. Manag. 2023, 51, 306–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for SLR on DT (author’s own).
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for SLR on DT (author’s own).
Digital 05 00014 g001
Figure 2. Publications included in the review sorted by year and type, 2010–2024 (author’s own).
Figure 2. Publications included in the review sorted by year and type, 2010–2024 (author’s own).
Digital 05 00014 g002
Figure 3. Visualisation of keywords’ co-occurrence clusters (author’s own).
Figure 3. Visualisation of keywords’ co-occurrence clusters (author’s own).
Digital 05 00014 g003
Figure 4. DT factors’ categories and sub-categories (author’s own).
Figure 4. DT factors’ categories and sub-categories (author’s own).
Digital 05 00014 g004
Figure 5. The response scale for Hinkin and Tracey’s approach (Source: [21]).
Figure 5. The response scale for Hinkin and Tracey’s approach (Source: [21]).
Digital 05 00014 g005
Table 1. DT definitions distribution by the thematic group 1.
Table 1. DT definitions distribution by the thematic group 1.
Group nr.Main Group’s Theme
Group 1 (n = 12)Confidence in people, processes and technology to create a secure digital environment
Group 2 (n = 8)Trust in data protection, privacy, security, and ethical information handling
Group 3 (n = 8)Trust in the technical capability and reliability of technology
Group 4 (n = 7)Trust as a mental state involving cognitive, emotional, and experiential factors
Group 5 (n = 4)Trust as an enabler in digital relationships, interactions, and business networks
Group 6 (n = 3)Trust based on ethical behaviour and cultural principles
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 2. DT factors included in Category 1: ability 1.
Table 2. DT factors included in Category 1: ability 1.
Category 1: AbilitySource
1. Competence and reliable performance (cumulative n = 19)
1.1. Competence (n = 2)[52,56]
1.2. Performance (n = 2)[52,57]
1.3. System’s reliability (incl. safety and quality) (n = 8)[16,46,54,55,58,59,60,61]
1.4. Operational stability (incl. availability, resilience and business continuity) (n = 7)[16,49,52,54,57,59,61]
2. Security and control (cumulative n = 25)
2.1. Identity and access management (inc. authentication, authorisation, safe credentials and identifiability) (n = 6)[2,49,52,62,63,64]
2.2. Confidentiality (incl. data protection and control over own data) (n = 9)[18,51,52,54,62,64,65,66,67]
2.3. Integrity of data (incl. immutability) (n = 10)[39,45,52,54,55,57,61,62,68,69]
3. Secure system architecture (cumulative n = 8)[52,68]
3.1. Automation (n = 2)
3.2. Decentralisation (incl. consensus algorithms, permissionless access, censorship resistance and cryptographic functions/protocols) (n = 5)[45,52,54,55,68]
3.3. Interoperability (n = 1)[52]
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 3. DT factors included in Category 2: benevolence 1.
Table 3. DT factors included in Category 2: benevolence 1.
Category 2: BenevolenceSource
1. Relational credibility (cumulative n = 10)
1.1. Goodwill (incl. benevolence, fairness and honesty) (n = 3)[53,70,71]
1.2. Reliability (predictability of or confidence in service provider) (n = 3)[2,53,61]
1.3. Reputation (incl. credibility) (n = 4)[2,69,72,73]
2. User experience and support (cumulative n = 12)
2.1. Satisfaction of customer service and support (incl. prompt resolution of the issues) (n = 6)[39,56,57,58,60,61]
2.2. Positive past experience (n = 3)[59,72,73]
2.3. Usability (n = 3)[52,71,72]
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 4. DT factors included in Category 3: integrity 1.
Table 4. DT factors included in Category 3: integrity 1.
Category 3: IntegritySource
1. Core ethical principles (cumulative n = 14)
1.1. Integrity (the principle of the organisation) (n = 1)[52]
1.2. Data ethics (incl. responsible use and privacy) (n = 12)[38,42,46,49,52,54,59,62,65,66,73,74]
1.3. Sustainability (n = 1)[36]
2. Governance and compliance (cumulative n = 13)
2.1. Accountability (n = 6)[18,39,45,49,52,75]
2.2. Compliance with regulations (n = 6)[17,18,52,67,74,75]
2.3. Application of standards (n = 1)[72]
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 5. DT factors included in Category 4: openness 1.
Table 5. DT factors included in Category 4: openness 1.
Category 4: Openness (Cumulative n = 23)Source
1. Transparency (n = 11)[18,39,45,49,52,55,59,62,70,75,78]
2. Auditability (incl. certification and independent verification) (n = 6)[36,45,52,59,62,73]
3. Traceability (incl. data provenance) (n = 6)[2,18,52,62,63,78]
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 6. Description of measurable items 1.
Table 6. Description of measurable items 1.
CodeCategoryOperationalised Description
Category 1: Ability
F11. Competence and performanceThe entity demonstrates competence and reliably delivers services or products.
F22. Security and controlThe entity ensures secure access, protects data, and maintains its integrity.
F33. Secure system architectureThe entity employs a secure architecture and processes to ensure efficiency, control, and integration.
Category 2: Benevolence
F41. Relational credibilityThe entity demonstrates fairness, honesty, and reliability, building a strong reputation.
F52. User experience and supportThe entity ensures a positive user experience and provides responsive support.
Category 3: Integrity
F61. Core ethical principlesThe entity demonstrates integrity, protects data privacy, and adopts sustainable practices.
F72. Governance and complianceThe entity ensures governance and compliance in accordance with regulations and standards.
Category 4: Openness
F81. AuditabilityThe entity ensures compliance through certifications, audits, and supervision.
F92. TraceabilityThe entity ensures traceability by providing information about data origins.
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 7. Demographic statistics 1.
Table 7. Demographic statistics 1.
LanguageN%AgeN%EducationN%
English4747.5%18–242121.2%High-school diploma or equivalent2020.2%
Latvian5252.5%25–342828.3%College1010.1%
35–443434.3%Bachelor’s degree2626.3%
45–541313.3%Master’s degree4343.4%
55–6433.0%
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 8. Statistical calculations of definition no. 1 1.
Table 8. Statistical calculations of definition no. 1 1.
CodeCategorySDpRating 2htc 3
F1Competence and performance1.173<0.0014.180.84
F2Security and control0.969<0.0014.410.88
F3Secure system architecture0.959<0.0014.280.86
F4Relational credibility0.956<0.0014.320.86
F5User experience and support1.082<0.0014.180.84
F6Core ethical principles1.036<0.0014.260.85
F7Governance and compliance0.873<0.0014.480.90
F8Auditability1.152<0.0014.170.83
F9Traceability0.894<0.0014.340.87
Overall 4.290.86
1 Source: created by authors. 2 Rating: the average rating of each characteristic alignment with the provided definition. 3 htc: the index of definitional correspondence, which suggests a moderate correlation with a value from 0.84 to 0.86.
Table 9. Statistical calculations of definitions no. 2, 3 and 4 1.
Table 9. Statistical calculations of definitions no. 2, 3 and 4 1.
CodeCategoryD2 SDD2 pD3 SDD3 pD4 SDD4 p
F1Competence and performance1.003<0.0011.035<0.0011.082<0.001
F2Security and control0.955<0.0011.218<0.0011.204<0.001
F3Secure system architecture1.082<0.0011.051<0.0011.109<0.001
F4Relational credibility1.069<0.0011.190<0.0011.063<0.001
F5User experience and support1.094<0.0011.123<0.0011.071<0.001
F6Core ethical principles1.041<0.0011.211<0.0011.023<0.001
F7Governance and compliance1.114<0.0011.228<0.0011.161<0.001
F8Auditability1.264<0.0011.229<0.0011.159<0.001
F9Traceability1.161<0.0011.123<0.0011.218<0.001
1 Source: created by authors.
Table 10. Ratings 1 and htd 2 calculations for definitions no. 2, 3, and 4 3.
Table 10. Ratings 1 and htd 2 calculations for definitions no. 2, 3, and 4 3.
CodeCategoryD1 RatingD2 RatingD2 htdD3 RatingD3 htdD4 RatingD4 htd
F1Competence and performance4.183.650.133.360.213.530.16
F2Security and control4.413.620.203.310.283.590.21
F3Secure system architecture4.283.470.203.430.213.350.23
F4Relational credibility4.323.410.233.150.293.480.21
F5User experience and support4.183.130.263.270.233.710.12
F6Core ethical principles4.263.420.213.060.303.350.23
F7Governance and compliance4.483.230.313.110.343.170.33
F8Auditability4.173.210.243.000.293.060.28
F9Traceability4.343.170.293.060.322.920.36
Overall 4.293.370.233.200.273.350.24
1 Rating: the average rating of each characteristic alignment with the provided definition. 2 htd: distinctiveness index, which suggests the proposed definition’s distinctiveness level from other analysed definitions (moderate: 0.18–0.26; strong: 0.27–0.34). 3 Source: created by authors.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saveljeva, J.; Volkova, T. A Survey on Digital Trust: Towards a Validated Definition. Digital 2025, 5, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020014

AMA Style

Saveljeva J, Volkova T. A Survey on Digital Trust: Towards a Validated Definition. Digital. 2025; 5(2):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saveljeva, Julija, and Tatjana Volkova. 2025. "A Survey on Digital Trust: Towards a Validated Definition" Digital 5, no. 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020014

APA Style

Saveljeva, J., & Volkova, T. (2025). A Survey on Digital Trust: Towards a Validated Definition. Digital, 5(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020014

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop