Systematic review reveals technological determinism limits consumer trust models in blockchain applications, highlighting the need for a multidimensional sociotechnical framework.
Blockchain technology is increasingly integral to domains such as finance, supply chain, commerce and tourism, yet consumer trust remains a pivotal barrier to its widespread adoption. Studies on trust in blockchain contexts have significant conceptual and contextual limitations that inhibit a holistic understanding of trust formation. In this study, we draw on the antecedents, decisions, outcomes and theory, context, methods (ADO-TCM) framework to systematically review 53 high-quality multidisciplinary studies. We identify three critical issues: (1) technological determinism that conflates technical capability with consumer trust, marginalising psychological, social and institutional factors; (2) theoretical convergence around acceptance models that obscures blockchain-specific trust phenomena; and (3) a narrow geographic and domain scope that creates self-reinforcing knowledge hierarchies limiting generalisability across applications and cultures. To address these gaps, we propose a multidimensional trust framework integrating three dimensions: technological architecture trust, information source trust and social actor trust, reflecting blockchain’s sociotechnical structure. Central to this framework is a four-paradigm typology that classifies trust into interpersonal, technology, institutional, and sociotechnical perspectives, revealing that the prevalence of technological determinism reflects theoretical inertia rather than genuine consensus. We complement this with three research themes: multi-level theoretical integration, innovative methodologies and contextual expansion. This study contributes to the information systems discourse by providing a theoretical foundation for understanding trust in complex sociotechnical systems beyond acceptance models. By conceptualising consumer trust as a dynamic, multidimensional construct shaped by interactions between users, technology, and institutions, we offer a research agenda with actionable directions for advancing blockchain trust theory and practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Day et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: