為了維持人際的互動，「信任」是不可或缺的重要因素，因此，有許多相關研究對其提出看法與定義。在西方文化中，「信任」的相關文獻指出信任是存在於人際、組織間的互動中；而在東方文化中，「信」相關的詞彙運用範圍不斷地擴延成為一般人際生活的常用詞彙，早在傳統的古籍中能搜尋出許多「信」的陳述句，但缺乏結構性的整理，顯示「信」的意義缺乏深刻的剖析，以至於難以深入理解其內涵，使得「信」概念模糊不清。
為了讓「信」的內涵更易於理解，進而使東方華人傳統文化的「信」概念能與西方文化的「信任」做呼應。因此本研究便是要：1.歸納、詮釋古籍中的「信」概念，使「信」的意義更為清晰、易懂。2.比較典籍中「信」與西方研究「信任」的概念與意涵。
本研究蒐集儒家思想─四書中「信」的陳述句，並對其進行白話文解釋予以歸納、詮釋後，對「信」的層次與涵義作進一步的剖析，討論「信」與「信任」的異同。主要成果包括：1.典籍中的「信」，其概念隨著運用場合的不同而有不同的層次，根據釋義可將「信」歸結出個人層次、人際層次以及組織層次等三種層次。2.將陳述句的句意透過辭典對各個「信」相關詞彙解釋，「信」的涵義可被分成個人觀念以及社會互動兩大詞意。3.儒家思想的古籍與西方研究均具有層次與正面價值觀涵意。4.儒家思想古籍中探討「信」的概念均是靜態，缺乏西方文獻中討論動態的「信任」關係。

In order to maintain interpersonal interaction, “Trust” is an important factor. Therefore, a lot of opinions were proposed in many relevant researches. In Western, the relevant literatures of “Trust” indicate that trust exists in interpersonal and inter-organizational interactions. In Eastern, the vocabulary about “Shin” has been continuously expanded to be a common vocabulary in daily life. A lot of “Shin” statements can be found in traditional ancient paper. However the lack of structural arrangement shows that the meaning of “Shin” is short of a deep analysis, making it difficult to understand its definition, making the concept of “Shin” ambiguous.
In order to compare the “Shin” concept of Eastern traditional culture and the “Trust” concept of Western culture. This research shows that: 1. Summarize and interpret the concept of “Shin” in ancient paper, so that the meaning of “Shin” is clearer and easier to understand. 2. Compare the concepts and meanings of “Shin” and “Trust”.
This research collects Confucianism sentences of “Shin” and interprets them. Then this research analyzes the level and meaning of “Shin” and discusses the similarities and differences between “Shin” and “Trust”. The result shows that: 1. In the ancient paper, the “Shin” concept has different levels depending on the different occasions. According to the interpretation, “Shin” can be classified into three levels: personal level, interpersonal level and organizational level. 2. Explain the meaning of the sentences through the dictionary. The meaning of “Shin” can be divided into two major meanings: personal concept and social interaction. 3. Both Confucianism and Western studies have levels and positive values. 4. The concepts of “Shin” discussed in ancient paper of Confucianism are static and lack the dynamic concept, which was proposed in Western research.

王守玉(民101)，簡介紮根理論法，護理雜誌，第59卷，第1期，頁91-94。
朱虹 (2009)，信任：心理、社會與文化的三重視角，社會科學，第11期，頁64-70。
周麗芳(民91)，華人組織中的關係與社會網絡，本土心理學研究，第18期，頁175-
228。
林孟玲 (民94)，人際信任理論性構念之研究，台灣科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
林榮斌 (1996)，『勢』概念在管理的意涵，交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
祁順生、賀宏卿 (2006)，組織內信任的影響因素，心理科學進展，第14卷，第6期，頁918~923。
姜定宇（民98），華人企業主管知覺部屬效忠，中華心理學刊，51卷，1期，頁101-120。
姜定宇，鄭伯壎，鄭紀瑩，周麗芳（民96），華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構，中華心理學刊，第49卷，第4期， 407-432。
姜定宇、丁捷、林伶瑾(2012)，家長式領導與部屬效能：信任主管與不信任主管的中介效果，中華心理學刊，第54卷，第3期，頁269 - 291。
翁懿涵、許瀛方、黃瓈葳（2000），紮根理論。
高立婷、黃敏萍 (民99) ，華人組織中的向上影響策略：概念分析與量表建構，私立元智大學經營管理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
許順旺、鄭姍姍、張姮燕(民107)，「信任是基礎，知識是力量」－以台灣國際觀光旅館為例，商管科技季刊，第十九卷，第4期，頁395-423。
陳昺麟(2001)，社會科學質化研究之紮根理論實施程序及實例之介紹，勤益學報，第19期，頁327-342。

陳雲龍(2017)，關係信任：中國人信任的實踐邏輯，《本土心理學研究》，第48 期，頁167-230。
陳嵩、林伶瑾、楊素卿(2018)，上司信任部屬的前因及對領導行為之影響：上司信任傾向的調節角色，人力資源管理學報，第18卷，第1期，頁85 - 127。
黃敏萍、梁瑋鈞、高立婷(民99) ，華人組織中的部屬向上影響策略，IACMR國際中國管理研討會，上海。
廖述賢、費吳琛、王儀雯 (2005)，信任關係、工作滿足與知識分享關聯性之研究，第九屆科際整合管理研討會，頁201-207。
趙鑫、馬欽海、郝金锦 (2011)，顧客心理契约違背與信任和滿意關係的再思考，營銷科學學報，第7 卷，第2 期，頁81-91。
劉建麟 (民103)，人際信任對員工積極性行為之影響─中介與調節效果，中正大學勞工勞工關係研究所碩士論文。
劉麟書(民90)，人際信任整合模型之研究，銘傳大學管研所碩士論文。
鄭仁偉、林秀霞、郭智輝與劉麟書(民95)，人際信任的理論性構念詮釋，國立台中技術學院學報，第7卷，第2期，頁3-25。
鄭伯壎（1995)，差序格局與華人組織行為，本土心理學研究，3期，頁142-219。
鄭伯壎、黃敏萍 (民89)，華人企業組織中的領導：一項文化價值的分析，中山管理評論，第8卷，第4期，583-617頁。
謝冰瑩、李鍌、劉正浩及邱燮友編譯(民70)，新譯四書讀本，台北：三民書局。
Atuahene-Gima, K. & Li, H. (2002). When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, 61-81.
Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr & Sejo Oh, (1987), “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationship”, Journal of Marketing, pp.11-27.
Deutsch, M. (1960), “The Effect of Motivational Orientation upon Trust and Suspicion,” Human Relations, Vol. 13, pp.123-139.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P. & Mullen, M. R. (1998), “Understanding the Influence
of National Culture on the development of Trust,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No.3, pp.601-620.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln. Y. S. (Eds.). (1998), Collecting and interpreting qualitative
materials. London: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln. Y. S. (Eds.). (1998), Strategies of qualitative inquiry. London:
SAGE Publications.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York, NY: Free Press.
Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Roca-Puig, V. (2014). Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: an empirical study. Personnel Review, Vol. 43, Iss1,
pp. 96 – 115.
Guptai, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). Multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.37, pp. 1271–1292
Hosmer, L. T. (1995), “Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory
and Philosophical Ethics,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, 379-403.
Harvey, B. M., Reiche, S. & Moeller, M. (2011). Developing effective global relationships through staffing with inpatriate managers: The role of interpersonal trust. Journal of International Management Vol.17, pp.150–161.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995), “Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp.379-403.

Jean L. Johnson & John B. Cullen (2017), “Trust in Cross‐Cultural Relationships,” The
Blackwell Handbook of Cross‐Cultural Management, pp.335-360.
Lewis, J. D. & Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a Social Reality,” Social Force, Vol. 63,
No. 4, pp.967-985.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992), "Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations", Journal of Marketing Research, (29), pp.314-328.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992), “Relationships Between
Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and
Between Organizations,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp.314-328.
McAllister, D. J. (1995), “Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for
Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.24-59.
Pathak, S. & Muralidharan, E. (2016). Informal institutions and their comparative influences on social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of in-group collectivism and interpersonal trust. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.54, No.1, pp. 168–188.
Rotter, J. B. (1967), “A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust,”
Journal of Personality, Vol. 35, pp. 651-665.
Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1998).Basics of Qualitative Research：Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of Qualitative Research：Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zucker, L. G. (1986), “Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic
Structure, 1840-1920,” In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp.53-111, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.