Trust and Risk Management Interplay: A Review in the Digital

Context

Julija Saveljeva

Department of Economics and Finance, BA School of Business and Finance, K. Valdemara Street 161, Riga, Latvia

Keywords: Risk Management, Trust, Digital Environment, Systematic Literature Review, Trust Integration, Perceived

Risk.

Abstract: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of previous studies on the relationship between trust and risk

management in the digital environment, highlighting multiple ways trust elements can enhance risk

management practices. PRISMA 2020 methodology was used to perform this analysis, and 281 papers

retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science databases were examined. 45 papers selected based on specific

inclusion and exclusion criteria formed the foundation of this study.

The main research findings are: 1. A strong, mutual relationship exists between trust and perceived risk.

Increased trust reduces perceived risk and leads to more user adoption and engagement with digital services.

In turn, higher perceived risk lowers trust and discourages the adoption. 2. Trust integration into assessments

for decision-making improves risk management by enhancing accuracy, fairness, and uncertainty handling in

online environments. 3. Since the trust is dynamic by its nature, its regular reassessments are important. 4.

Furthermore, even when cooperating with trusted services and platforms, it is necessary to continuously

monitor providers to avoid over-reliance risks.

1 INTRODUCTION

The relationship between trust and risk has long been

a research subject, highlighting their inherent

relationship (Jøsang & Presti, 2004). This was also

confirmed by a search using the keywords “risk

management” AND “trust” limited to article titles,

abstracts, keywords and articles and conference

papers in the Scopus (Elsevier, n.d.) database in July

2024, which provided 2068 papers meeting these

criteria. According to the analysed documents,

interest in the topic started to appear in the early

1990s, with a wave of growth in 2004 and increased

interest since 2020, as illustrated in Figure 1.

In recent years, the European Union has

increasingly emphasised regulatory measures to

enhance risk management in the digital environment

(European Commission, 2022b, 2022a). However,

the effectiveness of the risk management system

within the European context remains a relevant

question (Ghazieh & Chebana, 2021), raising the

issue of an effective risk management framework

(Luther et al., 2023). At the same time, with increased

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2385-5852

cybersecurity threats, traditional risk mitigation

actions are losing their effectiveness (Aslan et al.,

2023).

Figure 1: Identified publications distribution by the years.

Therefore, the research on the possibility of

enhancing risk management practices in the digital

environment by incorporating the trust element is

becoming actual. This study aims to provide a

comprehensive overview of the previous studies on

the relationship between trust and risk management in

Saveljeva, J.

Trust and Risk Management Interplay: A Review in the Digital Context.

DOI: 10.5220/0013344200003956

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business (FEMIB 2025), pages 189-196

ISBN: 978-989-758-748-1; ISSN: 2184-5891

189

the digital environment. To fulfil this aim, the

following research questions were formulated:

RQ1: What industries are studied within the scope

of trust and risk management relationships in the

digital environment?

RQ2: What is the main focus of the research on

trust and risk management in a digital environment?

RQ3: What are the main findings on the

relationship between trust and risk management in the

digital environment?

RQ4: How can trust elements be incorporated into

risk management practices?

2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND

METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature review was conducted

following the PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021)

methodology to analyse the relationship between trust

and risk management in a digital environment.

Scopus (Elsevier, n.d.) and Web of Science (WoS)

(Clarivate, n.d.) - two leading scientific databases

(Pranckutė, 2021; Zhu & Liu, 2020) - were used for

this research to ensure that the latest sources are

covered and to avoid indexation bias. The search

included the keywords trust AND “risk management”

AND (“digital” OR “online” OR “cyber”). It was

limited to paper titles, abstracts, keywords, and

document types such as articles and conference

papers. The search based on these parameters was

conducted on 30.06.2024 in Scopus (n=272) and on

07.07.2024 in WoS (n=55). Removing the duplicates,

281 unique papers were identified for further review.

The first relevance check phase included reading

and reviewing the abstracts, using the following

inclusion criteria: discussing risk management and

trust correlation in a digital, cyber, or online

environment. In turn, the exclusion criteria were a

focus on trust as a technical element of the solution

and a trust management topic from the perspective of

computer science.

Based on these criteria, 85 papers qualified for the

full-text paper review. Out of this scope, nine papers

were unavailable to the author, and 31 papers were

excluded from the analysis based on the previously

described criteria. As a result, 45 papers (22

conference papers and 23 journal articles) were

included in further bibliographical and contextual

analysis.

3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

3.1 Bibliometric Analysis Results

A total of 141 authors from 21 countries (based on

their affiliations) have shown interest in risk

management and trust in digital settings. The most

represented countries are the United Kingdom (n=9),

the United States of America (n=8), China (n=7),

India (n=4), and Tunisia (n=3).

The bibliographical analysis identified an

increased interest in the topic by two authors: Lifen,

L.(Lifen, 2008a, 2008b), who published two

conference papers, and Youssef, S.B.H., and

Boudriga, N. (Hadj Youssef & Boudriga, 2021;

Youssef & Boudriga, 2022), who contributed with a

conference paper and a scientific article.

Furthermore, two journals were notable for their

contributions to the topic: Online Information

Review, which published three articles, and

Computers in Human Behavior, which published two

articles.

Author keywords (n=171) from the identified

papers were analysed. Focusing on the keywords that

appeared three or more times, the most common

were, as expected, “trust” (n=19) and “risk

management” (n=11). Other frequently appearing

keywords included “electronic commerce” and “e-

commerce” (n=7), as well as “perceived risk” and

“risk perception” (n=6). The keywords “privacy”,

“cyber-physical systems”, and “cybersecurity” each

appeared three times. Such distribution provides

insights into the most popular research sector,

highlights the previous research focus on the

correlation between trust and risk perception and

emphasises cyber security as a component of digital

trust.

Afterwards, VOSviewer software (VOSviewer,

n.d.) was used to perform a full-count co-occurrence

keyword analysis and identify clusters. 24 keywords

appearing more than twice were included in the study,

resulting in six identified clusters depicted in Figure

2, each with a distinct focus:

• Green: Focuses on risk management in contexts

where human factors, security, and privacy are

critical.

• Yellow: Connects perceived risk with user

adoption and behavioural intention frameworks

like UTAUT2 (Unified Theory of Acceptance

and Use of Technology).

• Red: Centres on cyber risks in the context of

social media and broader cyber security

concerns.

FEMIB 2025 - 7th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

190

• Purple: Focuses on cyber-physical systems and

their associated information security risks,

emphasising risk analysis.

• Blue: Explores the intersection of risk

management and emerging technologies like

blockchain, particularly in e-commerce.

Figure 2: Keywords co-occurrence clustering results.

3.2 Context Analysis Results

Further context analysis was applied to the selected

studies to address the formulated research questions.

3.2.1 Industries Studied Within Trust and

Risk Management Relationship Scope

in the Digital Environment

Based on the previously conducted keyword analysis,

one of the most researched areas is e-commerce.

Nevertheless, context analysis revealed a different

proportion of such studies.

The financial industry was reviewed the most,

with ten papers devoted to the research of trust and

risk management. The general focus was on digital

services, often with a more narrow focus on payment

solutions (Hadj Youssef & Boudriga, 2021; Youssef

& Boudriga, 2022), investments (Putri et al., 2022;

Sun et al., 2016), banking (Kaur & Arora, 2021; G.

Liu et al., 2008), and lending (Amalia et al., 2019).

E-commerce was the focus of nine articles, for

example (Chang & Chen, 2008; Chong & Abawajy,

2007; San Martín & Camarero, 2009).

Four papers each concentrated on information

technology (Mollazehi et al., 2024; Rogers et al.,

2016; Shaytura et al., 2021; Terry Morris et al., 2020)

and different aspects of social media (Abdul-Rahman

& Hailes, 2000; Hansen et al., 2018; M. Liu et al.,

2021; X. A. Zhang & Cozma, 2022). Two papers

examined trust and risk management from an

agricultural sector perspective (Carter, 2022; Y.

Zhang et al., 2016), and one focused on healthcare

(Ksibi et al., 2023), maritime (Larsen et al., 2022), oil

and gas (Oudina et al., 2024), communication

(Tehrani et al., 2020) and hospitality (Hong & Kim,

2024). The other eleven articles were not

concentrated on any particular industry.

3.2.2 Main Focus of the Research on Trust

and Risk Management in a Digital

Environment

Five groups can be identified when analysing the

research focuses of the papers. The papers’

distribution between the groups is based on their

primary focus. Nevertheless, it is subjective since the

thematic aspects discussed are often interrelated.

1. Research on perceived risk, trust, and consumer

behaviour. This largest thematical group (n=15, 33%)

focuses on how perceived risk and trust influence

consumer behaviour, technology acceptance, and

decision-making in online environments such as e-

commerce, online banking, social media, and digital

platforms.

For example, the research of J.M. Hansen, G.

Saridakis and V. Benson (2018) examines how

perceived risk, trust, and the interaction between

elements of the Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

influence consumers' intentions to use social

networking services for transactions.

2. Research on trust management models,

frameworks, and assurance. The main focus of this

group (n=14, 31%) is on developing and analysing

models and frameworks for trust management, risk

management, and assurance across various systems,

including e-commerce, cyber-physical systems, and

virtual communities. These studies aim to enhance

the reliability and security of digital systems by

proposing methodologies to manage trust and reduce

vulnerabilities.

As an example, the study by Li et al. (2023)

establishes a novel conflict-eliminating framework

with a dynamic trust risk management mechanism to

manage trust risks and promote consensus.

3. Research on trust and risk in emerging

technologies. The aim of these papers (n=7, 16%) is

to study the impact of emerging technologies like

blockchain, artificial intelligence, and digital

transformation on trust and risk management

practices. They analyse how these technologies can

enhance security, reduce risks, and build trust in

digital transactions and infrastructures.

As an illustration, the study by Shaytura may be

mentioned (Shaytura et al., 2021) since it aimed to

analyse the possibilities of using blockchain

technology to ensure technogenic safety and risk

management.

Trust and Risk Management Interplay: A Review in the Digital Context

191

4. Research on human factors in cybersecurity and

trust. This group (n=6, 13%) explores how human

factors, such as individual differences, social

engineering, and behavioural aspects, affect trust and

risk-taking in cybersecurity contexts.

For example, the goal of Bishop et al. (2020) was

to determine which specific individual differences

influence cybersecurity behaviours to create tailored

interventions that can be used within businesses to

mitigate human susceptibility to cyber threats.

5. Research on privacy concerns and trust. This

smallest category of papers (n=3, 7%) investigates

privacy issues and their relationship with trust and

risk in digital environments. As an illustration, the

paper of Oudina et al. (2024) examines trust concerns.

It identifies the key trust-related fears and needs that

have shaped the development of trust quality in

cyber-physical systems from the early design phase.

3.2.3 Main Findings on the Relationship

Between Trust and Risk Management

in the Digital Environment

Analysing the results and conclusions of the analysed

papers, one of the main findings is that trust and

perceived risk are closely interrelated and mutually

influence each other. Increased trust mitigates

perceived risk, enhancing user acceptance and

positive behavioural intentions toward digital

services (Aldás-Manzano et al., 2009; Ksibi et al.,

2023; San Martín & Camarero, 2009). Opposingly,

high perceived risk can reduce trust levels, slowing

down adoption (Putri et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the findings suggest that individuals

are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours

when they trust the source, advisor, or platform. Trust

influences decisions in financial investments, social

engineering contexts, sharing economy platforms,

and information sharing on digital platforms (Hansen

et al., 2018; Mollazehi et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2016).

An important identified aspect is that excessive

trust in systems, suppliers, or advanced technologies

can result in overconfidence, less attention to risks,

and greater vulnerability. This overreliance may lead

individuals to underestimate potential threats and

neglect necessary precautions (Bishop et al., 2020;

Larsen et al., 2022; Terry Morris et al., 2020).

In the analysed papers were numerous positive

confirmations of adopting assurance frameworks and

emerging technologies like blockchain to enhance

trust by reducing uncertainties and transaction risks.

These were confirmed to improve risk management

practices across various sectors (Ghaffarian et al.,

2023; Hampton et al., 2021; Shaytura et al., 2021).

It was proven that providing transparent,

explainable information and engaging in effective

risk communication enhance trust and help manage

public risk perceptions (Ghaffarian et al., 2023;

Windelberg, 2016). When trust is low, individuals

adopt risk-averse strategies, such as avoiding new or

complex tasks, technologies, or interactions (McInnis

et al., 2016; Setty, 2018).

Incorporating trust assessments into decision-

making processes and identifying trust concerns

enhance the effectiveness of risk management

models. Trust-based approaches lead to more

accurate predictions, fairer systems, and better

handling of uncertainties in online environments

(Oudina et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2010).

Finally, an important finding confirmed in a

digital environment is that social, cultural, and

individual factors significantly affect trust

development and risk perceptions. Effective risk

management requires understanding these influences

and customising approaches to different cultural

contexts to build trust and address specific concerns

(Bhattacharya & Saha, 2004; Windelberg, 2016).

3.2.4 Trust Element Incorporation into Risk

Management Practices

Previous studies reveal numerous ways to incorporate

trust into risk management practices in the digital

environment. As a service provider, building and

demonstrating trust in a digital environment helps to

address the risk concerns of the customer or user. It

can be achieved through:

• Strengthening security protocols and

safeguarding user data (San Martín &

Camarero, 2009).

• Openly sharing information about risk

management practices and system capabilities

(Ghaffarian et al., 2023; Tehrani et al., 2020).

• Tailoring communication to align with

different user groups’ cultural norms and

expectations (Bhattacharya & Saha, 2004).

• Enhancing transparency and explainability in

the data management (Li et al., 2023) of used

technologies.

• Involving individuals in developing and

improving digital services to build trust and

address their concerns (McInnis et al., 2016;

Y. Zhang et al., 2016).

In turn, the trust element might be integrated into

the organisation’s internal risk-management

practices:

• Trust metrics might be integrated into risk

assessment practices using trust scoring

FEMIB 2025 - 7th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

192

systems that evaluate partners, suppliers, and

users (Abdul-Rahman & Hailes, 2000; Yuan

et al., 2010).

• These metrics could be supported with

independent audits and certifications to verify

the security and reliability of services or

systems (Hafver et al., 2021).

• The usage of services that include trusted

emerging technology by design, such as

blockchain, might be considered (Shaytura et

al., 2021).

While integrating these trust elements into internal

risk management practices, it is essential to regularly

re-assess the trust levels, as trust is dynamic (Oudina

et al., 2024). Even with trusted services and

platforms, it is essential to keep monitoring the

providers and not over-trusting them (Larsen et al.,

2022).

4 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the industry analysis previously studied

in the context of trust and risk management

relationships are unsurprising since the topic of trust

and trustworthiness in the financial sector has been

crucial for decades (Litovtseva et al., 2022), and

interest in the subject within the digital environment

seems natural.

The research on trust as an element of the risk

management framework is not dominating in the

selected papers’ range, keeping this topic relevant for

future research. Nevertheless, the findings of these

papers already prove the possibility of using trust and

its assessed level to enhance risk management

frameworks in a digital environment. Moreover, this

study summarises overall directions that might be

considered while integrating the trust element into the

organisation's risk management practices.

Further research on this topic might be devoted to

developing a risk management framework and

standardised decision-making processes, including

integrated trust metrics, and exploring the methods

for assessing and constantly monitoring trust levels in

the digital context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is supported by the grant received

within a project nr. 5.2.1.1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/007

“Internal and External Consolidation of the

University of Latvia”.

Since the author’s first language is not English,

the paper's text was proofread using the Open AI

GPT-4o model (OpenAI, 2025) and Grammarly

(Grammarly, n.d.) to ensure it had no

orthographical or grammar mistakes. After

applying these services/tools, the text was

reviewed, and the author took full responsibility for

the publication's content.

REFERENCES

Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (2000). Supporting trust in

virtual communities. Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf.

Syst. Sci., 2000-January. Scopus.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-

s2.0-85094162508&partnerID=40&md5=07a9071320

7 ea1a535184152f578700b

Aldás-Manzano, J., Lassala-Navarré, C., Ruiz-Mafé, C., &

Sanz-Blas, S. (2009). Key drivers of internet banking

services use. Online Information Review, 33(4), 672–

695. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/

14684520910985675

Amalia, N., Dalimunthe, Z., & Triono, R. A. (2019). The

effect of lender’s protection on online peer-to-peer

lending in Indonesia. In Soliman K.S. (Ed.), Proc. Int.

Bus. Inf. Manag. Assoc. Conf., IBIMA: Educ. Excell.

Innov. Manag. Vis. (WOS:000510675601048; pp.

6056–6066). International Business Information

Management Association, IBIMA; Scopus.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-

s2.0-85074066697&partnerID=40&md5=f368ac88131

89c826339722a0eed9920

Aslan, Ö., Aktuğ, S. S., Ozkan-Okay, M., Yilmaz, A. A., &

Akin, E. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of Cyber

Security Vulnerabilities, Threats, Attacks, and

Solutions. Electronics, 12(6), 1333.

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12061333

Bhattacharya, K. K., & Saha, S. (2004). Trust dimensions

in E-retailing: A strategic exploration. IEEE Int Eng

Manage Conf, 2, 825–828. Scopus.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-

s2.0-17644387597&partnerID=40&md5=3e39f71a22f

513246ea3b98a9bd19c6b

Bishop, L. M., Morgan, P. L., Asquith, P. M., Raywood-

Burke, G., Wedgbury, A., & Jones, K. (2020).

Examining human individual differences in cyber

security and possible implications for human-machine

interface design. In Moallem A. (Ed.), Lect. Notes

Comput. Sci.: Vol. 12210 LNCS (pp. 51–66). Springer;

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50309-3_4

Carter, M. R. (2022). Can digitally-enabled financial

instruments secure an inclusive agricultural

transformation? Agricultural Economics (United

Kingdom), 53(6), 953–967. Scopus. https://doi.org/

10.1111/agec.12743

Trust and Risk Management Interplay: A Review in the Digital Context

193

Chang, H. H., & Chen, S. W. (2008). The impact of online

store environment cues on purchase intention: Trust and

perceived risk as a mediator. Online Information

Review, 32(6), 818–841. Scopus. https://doi.org/

10.1108/14684520810923953

Chong, S.-K., & Abawajy, J. H. (2007). Feedback

credibility issues in trust management systems. Proc Int

Conf Multimedia Ubiquitos Eng, 387–394. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1109/MUE.2007.130

Clarivate. (n.d.). Web of Science. Retrieved 18 November

2024, from https://www.webofscience.com

Elsevier. (n.d.). Scopus. Retrieved 18 November 2024,

from https://www.scopus.com

European Commission. (2022a). Directive (EU) 2022/2555

of the European Parliament and of the Council of

14 December 2022 on measures for a high common

level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU)

2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148

(NIS 2 Directive) (Text with EEA relevance).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj

European Commission. (2022b). Regulation (EU)

2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 14 December 2022 on digital operational

resilience for the financial sector and amending

Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012,

(EU) No 600/2014, (EU) No 909/2014 and (EU)

2016/1011 (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/

?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2554

Ghaffarian, S., Taghikhah, F. R., & Maier, H. R. (2023).

Explainable artificial intelligence in disaster risk

management: Achievements and prospective futures.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 98.

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104123

Ghazieh, L., & Chebana, N. (2021). The effectiveness of

risk management system and firm performance in the

European context. Journal of Economics, Finance and

Administrative Science, 26(52), 182–196.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-07-2019-0118

Grammarly. (n.d.). [Computer software]. Grammarly.

https://www.grammarly.com/

Hadj Youssef, S. B., & Boudriga, N. (2021). A Robust and

Efficient Micropayment Infrastructure Using

Blockchain for e-Commerce. In Arai A. (Ed.), Intell.

Comput. - Proc. Comput. Conf.

(WOS:000839363100058; Vol. 284, pp. 825–839).

Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland

GmbH; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

80126-7_58

Hafver, A., Ferreira, C., Agrell, C., McGeorge, D., Hektor,

E. A., Pedersen, F. B., van der Meulen, M., Haugen, O.

I., Eldevik, S., & Myhrvold, T. (2021). On the meaning

of assurance. In Castanier B., Cepin M., Bigaud D., &

Berenguer C. (Eds.), Proc. Eur. Saf. Reliab. Conf. (pp.

3288–3295). Research Publishing, Singapore; Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.3850/978-981-18-2016-8_465-cd

Hampton, C., Sutton, S. G., Arnold, V., & Khazanchi, D.

(2021). Cyber supply chain risk management: Toward

an understanding of the antecedents to demand for

assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 35(2), 37–

60. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISYS-19-050

Hansen, J. M., Saridakis, G., & Benson, V. (2018). Risk,

trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of use and

behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of

social media for transactions. Computers in Human

Behavior, 80, 197–206. Scopus. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.010

Hong, I. B., & Kim, M. (2024). Understanding the influence

of a host’s guest perceptions on sharing intention on the

airbnb platform: A signaling theory perspective.

Telematics and Informatics, 87. Scopus. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.tele.2023.102096

Jøsang, A., & Presti, S. L. (2004). Analysing the

Relationship between Risk and Trust. In C. Jensen, S.

Poslad, & T. Dimitrakos (Eds.), Trust Management

(Vol. 2995, pp. 135–145). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24747-0_11

Kaur, S., & Arora, S. (2021). Role of perceived risk in

online banking and its impact on behavioral intention:

Trust as a moderator. Journal of Asia Business Studies,

15(1), 1–30. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-

2019-0252

Ksibi, S., Jaidi, F., & Bouhoula, A. (2023). A

Comprehensive Study of Security and Cyber-Security

Risk Management within e-Health Systems: Synthesis,

Analysis and a Novel Quantified Approach. Proc. Int.

Conf. Syst. Syst. Eng.: Socio-Tech. Perspec., SoSE,

28(1), 107–127. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11036-022-02042-1

Larsen, M. H., Lund, M. S., & Bjørneseth, F. B. (2022). A

model of factors influencing deck officers’ cyber risk

perception in offshore operations. Maritime Transport

Research, 3. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.martra.2022.100065

Li, M., Xu, Y., Liu, X., Chiclana, F., & Herrera, F. (2023).

A Trust Risk Dynamic Management Mechanism Based

on Third-Party Monitoring for the Conflict-Eliminating

Process of Social Network Group Decision Making.

IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 53(6), 3399–3413.

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2022.3159866

Lifen, L. (2008a). Trust derivation and recommendation

management in a trust model. Int. Conf. Intelligent Inf.

Hiding Multimedia Signal Process., IIH-MSP, 219–

222. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIH-MSP.2008.18

Lifen, L. (2008b). Trust derivation and transitivity in a

recommendation trust model. Proc. - Int. Conf.

Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng., CSSE, 3, 770–773. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1109/CSSE.2008.484

Litovtseva, V. Ye., Vasilyeva, T. A., & Brychko, M. M.

(2022). TRUST IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR: A

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS (1967–2020).

Academic Review, 2(57), 87–97. https://doi.org/

10.32342/2074-5354-2022-2-57-7

Liu, G., Huang, S.-P., & Zhu, X.-K. (2008). User

acceptance of Internet banking in an uncertain and risky

environment. Renmin University of China, 381–386.

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRMEM.2008.82

Liu, M., Bi, J., Yang, J., Qu, S., & Wang, J. (2021). Social

media never shake the role of trust building in relieving

FEMIB 2025 - 7th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

194

public risk perception. Journal of Cleaner Production,

282. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jclepro.2020.124442

Luther, B., Gunawan, I., & Nguyen, N. (2023). Identifying

effective risk management frameworks for complex

socio-technical systems. Safety Science, 158, 105989.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105989

McInnis, B., Cosley, D., Nam, C., & Leshed, G. (2016).

Taking a hit: Designing around rejection, mistrust, risk,

and workers’ experiences in Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Conf Hum Fact Comput Syst Proc, 2271–2282. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858539

Mollazehi, A., Abuelezz, I., Barhamgi, M., Khan, K. M., &

Ali, R. (2024). Do Cialdini’s Persuasion Principles Still

Influence Trust and Risk-Taking When Social

Engineering is Knowingly Possible? In Araújo J., de la

Vara J.L., Santos M.Y., & Assar S. (Eds.), Lect. Notes

Bus. Inf. Process. (Vol. 513, pp. 273–288). Springer

Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH;

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59465-

6_17

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT: An AI Language Model

[Computer software]. https://chatgpt.com/

Oudina, Z., Derdour, M., Dib, A., & Yaakoubi, M. A.

(2024). Identifying and Addressing Trust Concerns in

Cyber-Physical Systems for the Oil and Gas Industry.

Ingenierie Des Systemes d’Information, 29(2), 469–

478. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.18280/isi.290208

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., Chou, R.,

Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu,

M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E.,

McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA

2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting

systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus:

The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s

Academic World. Publications, 9(1), 12.

https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012

Putri, N., Yuliati, E., Mulyono, K., Rahman, Y., & Astuti,

D. (2022). The Effect of Perceived Risk on Customer’s

Behavioral Intention of Digital Gold Platform: The

Moderating Role of Trust. University of Indonesia.

ICE-BEES 2021. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-7-

2021.2316918

Rogers, R., Apeh, E., & Richardson, C. J. (2016).

Resilience of the Internet of Things (IoT) from an

Information Assurance (IA) perspective. SKIMA - Int.

Conf. Softw., Knowl., Inf. Manag. Appl., 110–115.

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/SKIMA.2016.7916206

San Martín, S., & Camarero, C. (2009). How perceived risk

affects online buying. Online Information Review,

33(4), 629–654. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985657

Setty, E. (2018). Young People’s Attributions of Privacy

Rights and Obligations in Digital Sexting Culture.

International Journal of Communication, 12, 4533–

4552. Scopus.

Shaytura, S. V., Olenev, L. A., Nedelkin, A. A., Minitaeva,

A. M., Ordov, K. V., & Feoktistova, V. M. (2021).

Blockchain in Technogenic Safety and Risk

Management. International Journal of Emerging

Technology and Advanced Engineering, 11(12), 72–78.

Scopus. https://doi.org/10.46338/ijetae1221_08

Sun, Q., Gibbert, M., Hills, T. T., & Nowak, E. (2016). Are

Financial Advisors Money Doctors or Charlatans?

Evidence on Trust, Advice, and Risk Taking in

Delegated Asset Management. In Papafragou A.,

Grodner D., Mirman D., & Trueswell J.C. (Eds.), Proc.

Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc., CogSci (pp. 895–900).

The Cognitive Science Society; Scopus.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-

s2.0-85139186557&partnerID=40&md5=bc9e523097

34c3317c9571925c412f27

Tehrani, P. F., von Kalckreuth, N., & Lamprecht, S. (2020).

Toward an integrative model of trust for digital

emergency communication. In Hughes A.L., McNeill

F., & Zobel C.W. (Eds.), Proc. Int. ISCRAM Conf.

(Vols 2020-May, pp. 1012–1021). Information Systems

for Crisis Response and Management, ISCRAM;

Scopus. https://www.scopus.com/inward/

record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85118609002&partnerID=

40&md5=b95f1d5c7b359a237c0d458392574811

Terry Morris, A., Maddalon, J. M., & Miner, P. S. (2020).

On the moral hazard of autonomy. AIAA IEEE Dig

Avionics Syst Conf Proc, 2020-October. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC50938.2020.9256682

VOSviewer. (n.d.). VOSviewer. Retrieved 26 April 2024,

from https://www.vosviewer.com//

Windelberg, M. (2016). Objectives for managing cyber

supply chain risk. International Journal of Critical

Infrastructure Protection, 12, 4–11. Scopus.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2015.11.003

Youssef, S. B. H., & Boudriga, N. (2022). A resilient micro-

payment infrastructure: An approach based on

blockchain technology. Intell. Comput. - Proc. Comput.

Conf., 49(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.48129/

KJS.V49I1.10578

Yuan, D., Lu, T., Yang, X., & Yan, L. (2010). A theory

analysis and model research on e-commerce credit risk

management. Proc. Int. Conf. E-Bus. E-Gov., ICEE,

2006–2009. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/

ICEE.2010.507

Zhang, X. A., & Cozma, R. (2022). Risk sharing on Twitter:

Social amplification and attenuation of risk in the early

stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in

Human Behavior, 126. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.chb.2021.106983

Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., & Ren, J. (2016). Transform farming

with the help of social media a pioneering Chinese

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm and its

micro blog usage. Pac. Asia Conf. Inf. Syst., PACIS -

Proc. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems,

PACIS 2016 - Proceedings. Scopus.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-

s2.0-85011022648&partnerID=40&md5=a2371fee33

eff1d4fb8b91ea1403d001

Trust and Risk Management Interplay: A Review in the Digital Context

195

Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use

of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers.

Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

FEMIB 2025 - 7th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

196