Building bonds beyond the event: exploring attendees’ trust in peers and community mechanisms in business events

Business events, including conferences, conventions, trade shows, seminars, workshops and symposiums, remain essential platforms for professional networking, knowledge dissemination, collaboration and industry advancement. These gatherings enable attendees to exchange strategic insights and identify partnerships (Neuhofer et al., 2024). By driving innovation, these interactions contribute substantially to the economic vitality of the events sector (Vetrivel et al., 2024). In the post-pandemic landscape, in-person attendance has rebounded strongly. Recent surveys indicate that 80% of attendees, which is a 5% increase from the prior year, view in-person events as their most trustworthy information source. Furthermore, over half of event organizers report significant growth in attendance (Whitehead, 2025). As a result, the industry is facing intensified competition and rising expectations for meaningful, low-risk event experiences (Whitehead, 2025). To meet these demands and sustain long-term success, event organizers need to cultivate settings that strengthen trust both between attendees and within the broader event community. Such trust can ease lingering risk concerns while boosting emotional satisfaction and motivating repeat participation (Boo and Kim, 2022; Zhang et al., 2026). Business event experiences could be about both peer interactions and community ties (Li et al., 2025). As a result, organizers should prioritize strategies that cultivate trust at both levels. Doing so enhances hedonic well-being and fosters long-term loyalty through reattendance intentions (Boo and Kim, 2022; Zhang et al., 2026).

As mentioned, a key driver of sustained engagement in business events is the formation of trust among participants. Trust extends beyond mere satisfaction to encompass deeper relational and cognitive dimensions that influence behavioral intentions and emotional outcomes. For example, a previous study about festivals explicitly frames trust as critical because its “main function” is to reduce uncertainty and risk perception (Liu et al., 2023). Affective trust, rooted in emotional bonds, care and goodwill, often develops through peer-to-peer interactions, while cognitive trust, grounded in rational evaluations of competence, reliability and integrity, pertains more to perceptions of the broader event community (McAllister, 1995; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). Previous studies often explored trust in event contexts through lenses such as social support, which emphasizes informational (advice, insights) and emotional (empathy, encouragement) resources that enhance engagement and relational bonds (Cohen and Wills, 1985; Zhang et al., 2018); or social capital, which highlights structural (network ties), cognitive (shared norms and understandings) and relational (emotional quality of relationships) dimensions that facilitate cooperation and community-level trust (Chiu et al., 2006; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

Despite these contributions, prior research has largely conceptualized trust as a singular construct or examined interpersonal and community-level trust mechanisms separately. Therefore, it is hard to know that trusts at difference levels could influence attendees’ experiences simultaneously. This is important because business event experiences are inherently multilayered, and they involve both interpersonal peer dynamics (e.g. networking conversations, shared sessions) and community-level relationships (e.g. shared professional norms, collective reliability) (Li et al., 2025). This study integrates social support theory (stronger for peer-level affective processes) with social capital theory (better suited for community-level cognitive processes) to provide a holistic view of the role of trust in different levels in the context of business events. Individualism, or the prioritization of personal goals over group harmony, may also moderate the relationship between trust and event outcomes. However, limited studies have been conducted in understanding how attendees with different cultural orientations develop reactions to trust at different levels. This study explores individualism as a key boundary condition, an area currently overlooked in business events research (Han et al., 2017; Singelis et al., 1995).

To address these gaps and extend the literature, this study proposes a dual-path framework that integrates social support theory and social capital theory to examine how interpersonal and community-level dynamics foster trust and influence event outcomes. Specifically, informational and emotional support are posited to drive affective trust in peer attendees, while structural, cognitive and relational capital shape cognitive trust in the event community. These dual trust dimensions are then linked to intention to reattend and hedonic well-being, with individualism tested as a moderator. The objectives are: 1) to explore the formation of affective trust in peers and cognitive trust in community through their respective theoretical paths in business events, and 2) to investigate how these dual trust pathways contribute to reattendance intentions and hedonic well-being from a moderated perspective.

Social support theory suggests that individuals benefit from resources and assistance provided by their social networks, which can enhance functioning and buffer against adverse outcomes (Acoba, 2024; Cohen and Wills, 1985). Emphasized that social support can come from various sources, including family, friends, supervisors and colleagues, and encompasses different forms of assistance. It is a multidimensional construct that includes emotional support (expressions of care and empathy), instrumental or tangible support (practical aid), informational support (advice and guidance), appraisal support (feedback for self-evaluation), as well as network and esteem support. Considering the objectives and context of this study, this study focuses specifically on informational and emotional support.

Informational support refers to the provision of advice or detailed information that helps individuals address challenges or make informed decisions. In the context of conferences, trade shows or professional networking events, informational support can include sharing industry insights, market trends, strategic guidance or practical tips on navigating event opportunities (Vetrivel et al., 2024). By receiving timely and relevant information, participants can make better decisions, identify potential collaborators, and enhance their effectiveness in leveraging event resources (Liu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018). Moreover, the exchange of valuable information signals competence and reliability among participants, which can strengthen cognitive trust and foster meaningful professional relationships.

Emotional support refers to actions or behaviors that convey empathy, understanding and encouragement, thereby enhancing the well-being of individuals within a social or organizational context (Cohen and Wills, 1985). It involves expressing concern for others’ emotional needs, offering kindness and a sense of security, which can foster harmonious relationships and increase satisfaction in interactions. Emotional support contributes to creating a welcoming and supportive event environment, fostering trust, collaboration and satisfaction. When participants feel emotionally supported, they are more likely to engage actively and develop lasting professional relationships.

While social support theory provides valuable insights into the role of informational and emotional resources in enhancing participant engagement, relying exclusively on this framework in the context of business events presents several limitations. First, the theory predominantly emphasizes the benefits of support while underrepresenting the structural and relational dimensions of business events, such as the formal and organized aspects of networks and the quality of relationships and interpersonal connections formed, which play a critical role in facilitating interactions and fostering trust. Second, social support theory does not fully capture cognitive factors, including perceived competence, shared objectives and professional expertise, which are essential for the development of cognitive trust. To address these limitations, this study integrates social support theory with social capital theory offers a more comprehensive perspective.

Social capital theory, rooted in sociology, views social ties as valuable channels for gaining influence and information to achieve specific goals (Kwon and Adler, 2014). It provides a framework that emphasizes the importance of social networks, relationships and trust in facilitating cooperation and collective action within communities and organizations (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Social capital develops when members of a network, such as social media groups, online communities or organizational teams, interact frequently, share common goals, and cultivate trust and mutual respect (Jeong et al., 2021; Kumi and Sabherwal, 2018). The theory suggests that individuals and groups derive benefits not just from their personal resources, but also from their connections and the social networks in which they are embedded (Wong, 2023). These social networks serve as an important source of support, information and opportunities that can enhance well-being and overall societal functioning (Meek et al., 2019). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) conceptualize social capital as a multidimensional construct consisting of structural, cognitive and relational dimensions, each capturing a different aspect of social capital.

Structural capital refers to the network of relationships within a group or community, including the formal and informal ties between individuals, organizations and institutions (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It is reflected in the strength and frequency of interactions, such as communication, collaboration, and the exchange of knowledge and ideas (Cao et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020). Within a business context, structural capital can manifest through professional associations or industry networking events. For instance, frequent communication at corporate meetings and knowledge sharing during conferences all strengthen relational ties. These connections ultimately shape how efficiently information and resources flow within and across organizations, influencing collaboration, and overall performance.

Cognitive capital refers to the shared norms, values and understandings that shape how members of a social network interpret and interact with one another (Chiu et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2017). It represents the intangible resources that enable groups to develop common perspectives and foster mutual understanding. Cognitive capital often manifests as a shared language, collective vision and common narratives that guide behavior within the network (Meek et al., 2019). By providing a foundation for shared meaning, it facilitates effective knowledge exchange, strengthens collaboration, and enhances members’ sense of belonging. In organizational contexts, for example, cognitive capital may take the form of a unified corporate culture or shared strategic goals that align individuals toward collective success (Kroll et al., 2019). Similarly, in the business events context, cognitive capital can be seen in practices such as alignment on corporate strategies during workshops, or a shared understanding of objectives in networking sessions. These shared cognitive resources help participants communicate efficiently and feel a sense of belonging to the business community.

Relational capital refers to the quality of personal relationships and the emotional bonds that develop among individuals within a social network (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) highlight, joint efforts among individuals can be motivated by both confidence in a common goal and trust in others’ commitment to achieving it. In this sense, relational capital represents the resources embedded within social relationships that facilitate cooperation and coordination (Thomas and Gupta, 2021). Therefore, business events organizers can leverage relational capital to enhance attendee engagement and loyalty, fostering a sense of community that encourages reattendance.

Taken together, this study integrates social support theory and social capital theory to explore their impact on trust in attendees and community, which in turn, influence attendees’ intention to reattend and hedonic well-being. Combining these two theories provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how interpersonal and community-level social dynamics shape attendees’ experiences and behaviors.

Business events are typically short-duration, episodic experiences in which participants must quickly orient themselves to new and highly social environments (Schilbach et al., 2023). Such environments can heighten social anxiety, as participants are required to engage in rapid, often high-stakes interpersonal interactions with unfamiliar others, increasing concerns about self-presentation and evaluation (Zhong et al., 2025). In this context, psychological safety becomes a key mechanism through which trust operates. Therefore, creating a trust environment is critical. In the post-pandemic context, this need has become even more pronounced as the industry undergoes a renewed demand for connection. There has been a strong resurgence of in-person events, with participation levels approaching or even exceeding pre-pandemic norms, reflecting the enduring value of face-to-face interaction for networking and relationship building (Freeman, 2025). Moreover, the post-pandemic emphasis on maximizing the value of in-person time and fostering deeper engagement further elevates the role of trust as a foundation for effective networking and collaboration (Mateer, 2025).

In addition, prior research has largely examined trust in a fragmented manner. One stream emphasizes interpersonal interactions and social dynamics among attendees, highlighting how cocreated experiences and participant interactions shape event outcomes (e.g. Getz and Page, 2016; Mair and Weber, 2019; Wei et al., 2017). Another stream focuses on institutional trust, examining trust in event organizers, host destinations or governance structures (e.g. Lee and Fenich, 2018). While these studies provide valuable insights, they largely treat interpersonal and institutional trust as separate domains, with limited attention to how these dimensions coexist and interact within the socially intensive environment of business events. Building on this gap, we propose a dual-path trust formation framework that distinguishes between affective trust in fellow attendees and cognitive trust in the broader event community.

Affective trust refers to the emotional dimension of trust that is grounded in feelings of mutual care and emotional connection between individuals (McAllister, 1995; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). Unlike cognitive trust, which is based on rational assessments of another’s competence, reliability and integrity (Boo and Kim, 2022; Yang et al., 2019), affective trust develops through interpersonal interactions that foster emotional bonds and goodwill (Zhang et al., 2026). Affective trust in business events often forms through meaningful social interactions, such as networking conversations, shared experiences during sessions or workshops, and post-event communications that convey sincerity and warmth (Gill et al., 2024; López-Bonilla et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2026).

In service relationships, Johnson and Grayson (2005) suggested that affective-based trust reflects the feelings of care and emotional connection perceived by users, which are derived from the affect experienced through interactions with the service provider. This form of trust is primarily shaped by users’ interactive experiences rather than by objective or factual factors. It is uniquely rooted in personal experiences with the specific partner involved. In social commerce, informational support through peer recommendations or product reviews helps consumers make better decisions and strengthens trust in both peers and the community (Yang, 2021). Prior research also shows that emotional support fulfills psychological needs, enhances interpersonal understanding, and strengthens relational bonds (Tajvidi et al., 2020, 2021). Building upon this rationale, this study proposes that in a social interaction–driven setting like business events, where collaboration and networking are central, both informational and emotional support contribute to attendees’ perception of sincerity and benevolence in others. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were proposed:

Cognitive trust refers to an individual’s confidence in or willingness to rely on another party’s competence, reliability and integrity in performing expected tasks (McAllister, 1995; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). It is grounded in rational evaluation rather than emotion, emerging from observable evidence of consistent and dependable behavior. Affective-based trust is generally stronger in close, intimate relationships, such as those with peers, family and friends, whereas cognitive-based trust is more relevant in casual or less personal relationships, such as business communities, professional networks or event environments, where reliance is based on competence and reliability rather than emotional bonds (McAllister, 1995; Yang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2026). In other words, in a business event, attendees rely on logical assessments of whether others in the community can deliver on their promises, adhere to commitments, and contribute effectively to the event experience (Johnson and Grayson, 2005). Prior research shows that frequent interaction within social networks increases members’ perceived benefits, encourages cooperation, and triggers the development of trust (Wei et al., 2017). In addition, Muliadi et al. (2024) found that both structural capital and cognitive capital contribute to cognitive trust among students on social media. Therefore, we propose:

The intention to reattend business events has become an increasingly important topic in the post-COVID era, as the pandemic fundamentally altered how individuals perceive in-person gatherings and interpersonal trust (Boo and Kim, 2022). Specifically, a particular form of trust plays a critical role in reducing perceived risks and strengthening attendees’ intention to reattend events, especially during and after times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic (Boo and Kim, 2022). Therefore, understanding how trust mechanism, including affective and cognitive dimensions, drive reattendance intentions is essential for sustaining business event recovery and long-term growth.

Previous studies suggested that when participants perceive other attendees as trustworthy, they are more likely to feel comfortable and safe within the event environment (Zhang et al., 2026). This sense of psychological safety enhances enjoyment, leading to a higher likelihood of reattendance. On the other hand, (Phan Tan, 2024) found that customer trust in online brand communities significantly influences repurchase intention. The study highlights that when customers perceive an online brand community as reliable and trustworthy, they are more likely to continue purchasing its products. Similarly, Lee and Fenich (2018) found that in the context of association events, association trust significantly contributes to association loyalty. Based on previous studies, we propose that:

Hedonic well-being refers to individuals’ subjective experiences of happiness and life satisfaction, characterized by the pursuit of positive emotions and the avoidance of negative ones (Kahneman et al., 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2001; Huta and Waterman, 2014). In the context of events and tourism, hedonic well-being captures the immediate enjoyment attendees derive from participation, as well as the positive emotions sustained when recalling memorable experiences even after the event has concluded (Huang et al., 2024).

Affective trust among attendees enhances the quality of interpersonal interactions during events, which directly influences participants’ emotional experiences (Li et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2026). For example, Zhang et al. (2026) found that affective trust positively impacts business event attendees’ emotional well-being. When attendees develop trust in their peers, they experience enhanced emotional well-being, which can lead to beneficial outcomes such as forming stronger professional connections.

Community trust is also a powerful predictor of one’s well-being. For example, Chou and Yuan (2015) argued that service-driven social communities enhance well-being by fulfilling psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness. This satisfaction fosters collective commitment and inter-customer support, which in turn sustains members’ positive experiences of living well. Despite this insight, relatively few studies have explored the mechanisms linking community trust with hedonic well-being. More empirical research is needed to clarify how trust-based interactions within communities create lasting psychological and emotional benefits. Thus, we put forth:

Individualism, as a cultural and personal value, reflects the degree to which individuals prioritize personal goals, autonomy and self-expression over collective goals and group obligations. In tourism and hospitality, research on individualism has been conducted from both employee and customer perspectives. From the employee perspective, individualism influences work attitudes, motivation and interpersonal dynamics (Ayoun et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2022). Employees with higher individualistic orientations tend to value autonomy and personal achievement, which can enhance job satisfaction and loyalty (Guo and Ayoun, 2025; Wen et al., 2018). From the customer perspective, individualism shapes travel motivations, service expectations and consumption behaviors (Han et al., 2017; Zhong et al., 2025). Individualistic customers often seek unique, self-enhancing and experience-driven activities that allow for personal fulfillment and differentiation (Iversen et al., 2016), whereas collectivist customers may prioritize group harmony, shared experiences and social approval in their travel decisions (Wang et al., 2023). However, the role of individualism in the business events context was ignored.

In the context of business events, individualistic attendees may approach social interactions and engagement differently from those with more collectivist orientations. Individualism, emphasizes personal goals and independent decision-making, reflecting an independent self-construal. According to self-construal theory, individuals with an independent self-construal define themselves primarily through personal preferences and internal states rather than relational ties or group norms (Singelis et al., 1995). As a result, highly individualistic attendees may be less influenced by affective or cognitive trust in others when deciding whether to reattend or when evaluating hedonic outcomes, because their decisions rely more on personal evaluations and less on social or communal cues. Thus, the hypotheses can be stated as:

Figure 1 presents our research model.

The questionnaire underwent a comprehensive review and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of a southern university in the USA. This approval confirms that the survey complies with ethical standards, ensures participant confidentiality, and meets the required research protocols. Section 1 of the survey was the consent form, which provided participants with detailed information about this study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits. The consent form ensured that participants fully understood the study before agreeing to take part, and it was designed to protect their autonomy and confidentiality throughout the research process. Following the consent form, participants were asked whether they had attended “at least one in-person business event in the past 12 months.” For the purposes of this study, business events are defined as off-site gatherings, including conventions, congresses, conferences, seminars, workshops and symposiums, that bring people together for the purpose of sharing information. Only participants who responded “Yes” were deemed eligible to continue with the survey.

All constructs were measured by items adapted from previous studies and modified to fit this study’s context. Specifically, social capital was measured by three dimensions: structural capital (4 items, Chiu et al., 2006), cognitive capital (3 items, Chang and Chuang, 2011; Chiu et al., 2006) and relational capital (5 items, Chiu et al., 2006; Sohaib and Han, 2023). Informational support (3 items) and emotional support (4 items) were sourced from Zhang et al. (2018). Affective trust in attendees was measured using seven items from Gefen et al. (2003), while cognitive trust in the community was assessed using four items from Ardyan et al. (2018). Finally, hedonic well-being (4 items) and intention to reattend (3 items) were sourced from Kim (2024) and Youn et al. (2020), respectively (see Appendix 1 in Supplementary Materials).

Data collection was conducted in October 2024 through Prolific, an online crowdsourcing platform known for providing high-quality and diverse research participants. To ensure data reliability and relevance, we implemented several screening measures. Participants were first prescreened based on their demographic profiles (e.g. above 18 years old and reside in the USA) and eligibility criteria, including prior attendance at an in-person business event within the past 12 months. Given the length of the survey, responses completed in less than 100 s were considered insufficient, as such a short completion time suggests limited attention and potentially low data quality (e.g. straight-lining or insufficient reading of items). Additional attention checks were embedded within the survey to maintain data quality and filter out inattentive responses. All participants were compensated fairly according to Prolific’s guidelines. A total of 412 responses were collected. After removing 59 responses that failed the attention check questions, 353 valid responses remained, yielding a usable response rate of 90.78%.

Common method variance refers to the potential bias that arises when data for both independent and dependent variables are collected using the same method or source, which may lead to inflated or artificially high correlations between variables. We employed Harman’s single-factor test to assess the potential impact of common method variance. In our analysis, the explanatory power of the single-factor model was found to be 37.25%, which is below the 50% threshold. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also conducted in which all items were specified to load on a single latent factor, and the model fit was compared with the proposed measurement model. The chi-square difference test indicated that the one-factor model fit the data significantly worse than the proposed model (Δχ²[9] = 2633.83, p < 0.001). Thus, common method variance is not a concern in this study.

We employed partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the data. This method allowed us to simultaneously assess the measurement model (i.e. the reliability and validity of the constructs) and the structural model (i.e. the hypothesized relationships between constructs), ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of our research framework.

In this study, total 353 qualified respondents are utilized for analysis. More than half of the respondents are male (55.2%) and about 50% were married (49.6%). Regarding the age, majority of them were aged between 30 and 39 (37.4%), followed by those aged between 40 and 49 (27.5%). 72.2% identified as Caucasian. Around 70% of the respondents held a bachelor’s degree or higher and earned between $40,001 and $100,000 (see Appendix 2 in Supplementary Materials).

According to the results of the outer model assessment, all factor loadings of measurement items surpass the cut-off value of 0.60 (Mohammed et al., 2021). Regarding the internal consistency of the measurement model, this study examined Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values. All constructs met the recommended threshold of 0.70, excepting the cognitive capital. For this construct, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were calculated at 0.62 and 0.66, respectively, which is slightly below the generally accepted standard. Nonetheless, considering the exploratory nature of this study and the theoretical significance of the construct, these values were considered acceptable (Kamis et al., 2020; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs surpassed 0.50 and valid for convergent validity measurement. Finally, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) values were all below 0.85, confirming that there were no issues regarding discriminant validity. Detailed results of outer model assessment and discriminant validity are shown Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

This study evaluated the inner model using PLS-SEM to test the significance of the relationships between constructs with 10,000 replications. Demographic characteristics, including gender, age, education level, annual income and race, were taken as control variables. The results showed a satisfactory model fit, as standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was 0.05, which is below the recommended threshold of 0.07. In addition, the explanatory power of the model was evaluated using R² values, and all values, ranged from 0.26 to 0.57, higher than the cut-off values of 0.25. Thus, the overall explanatory power of the model was considered appropriate. In addition, all Q² values were greater than 0, confirming appropriate predictive accuracy.

According to the results of PLS-SEM (see Table 3), informational support (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) and emotional support (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) have positively influenced affective trust in attendees, providing support for H1a and H1b, respectively. However, structural capital (β = 0.03, p = 0.68) did not significantly affect cognitive trust in community. Thus, H2a was rejected. Cognitive capital (β = 0.14, p < 0.05) and relational capital (β = 0.42, p < 0.001) positively impact on cognitive trust in community, supporting H2b and H2c. Furthermore, affective trust in attendees (β = 0.22, p < 0.001) and cognitive trust in community (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) have positive effect on intention to reattend, confirming H3 and H4. Finally, affective trust in attendees (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) and cognitive trust in community (β = 0.45, p < 0.001) positively predicted hedonic well-being, supporting H5 and H6.

This study assessed the moderating role of individualism in the relationship between affective trust in attendees and both intention to reattend and hedonic well-being, as well as between cognitive trust in community and both intention to reattend and hedonic well-being. As shown in Table 3, the results of PLS-SEM with 10,000 bootstrapping samples indicate that individualism moderates the relationship between affective trust in attendees and intention to reattend (β = −0.18, p = 0.029, 97.50% CI = [−0.34, −0.03]). According to Figure 2, when event attendees have higher levels of individualism, affective trust in other attendees is less likely to lead to intention to reattend. Therefore, H7a was supported. On the other hand, no significant moderating effects of individualism were found in the relationships between affective trust in attendees and hedonic well-being, nor between cognitive trust in community and both intention to reattend and hedonic well-being.

This study examined how social support and social capital shape business event attendees’ hedonic well-being and their intentions to reattend. Trust in peer attendees and trust in the business event community were tested as mediators, and the moderating role of individualism was examined in the relationships between trust and the outcome variables. The findings showed that both informational and emotional support positively predicted affective trust in peer attendees. This suggests that when attendees receive helpful informational support from peer attendees and event staff, such as strategic guidance and practical tips about event opportunities, they are more likely to develop trust in other attendees and, by extension, the event community (Yang, 2021). In addition, emotional support developed through satisfying attendee interactions can strengthen affective trust by enhancing relational bonds (Tajvidi et al., 2020, 2021).

Although structural capital did not significantly predict cognitive trust in the community, both cognitive capital and relational capital were positively associated with cognitive trust. This pattern is consistent with Muliadi et al. (2024) and implies that cultivating shared values, knowledge and norms, while also facilitating meaningful interpersonal interactions, can help attendees build stronger cognitive trust in the event community and ultimately improve event outcomes. The nonsignificant structural capital effect further indicates that interaction frequency alone may be insufficient to strengthen community level cognitive trust, whereas interaction quality, reflected in relational capital, appears more influential.

Moreover, affective trust in peer attendees and cognitive trust in the community positively influenced attendees’ hedonic well-being. These findings suggest that fostering affective trust among attendees and cognitive trust toward the business event community is important for promoting positive emotions and enhancing the overall event experience (Phan Tan, 2024; Zhang et al., 2026). Such trust can also strengthen events’ financial outcomes by increasing attendee loyalty (Lee and Fenich, 2018) and reattending intentions (Phan Tan, 2024; Zhang et al., 2026).

Finally, the moderating effect of individualism on the relationship between affective trust and reattending intention was supported, however, was not significant on the relationship between affective trust and hedonic well-being. This might be because affective trust directly contributes to positive emotions (Zhang et al., 2026). These emotional benefits are closely aligned with the nature of hedonic well-being, which focuses on pleasure and affective experiences. The positive effect of affective trust in peer attendees on reattending intention was stronger among attendees with lower individualism, that is, a more collectivistic orientation. This aligns with prior research suggesting that individuals from more collectivistic cultures prioritize group harmony, shared experiences and social approval (Wang et al., 2023), which can increase their motivation to rejoin the same group activity when they have developed relational ties during the event. However, the moderating effects of individualism on the relationship between cognitive trust in the community and reattending intention and hedonic well-being were not supported. Unlike affective trust, which is emotion-driven (Zhang et al., 2026), cognitive trust reflects a more rational and competence-based evaluation of the event community and may be less contingent on cultural orientation. As such, it appears to exert a consistent influence on attendees’ behavioral outcomes, regardless of whether individuals hold more individualistic or collectivistic orientations.

This study contributes to customer experience management literature in several ways. First, drawing on social support theory, it shows that informational and emotional support at business events can foster affective trust in peer attendees. Although prior research has applied social support theory primarily to document the benefits of support in business event settings, our findings demonstrate that the theory also helps explain how support translates into trust formation and shapes customer experiences in socially intense environments. Accordingly, this study advances experience management research by clarifying the role of social support in building peer-based trust in business events, where interactions are highly social and stressful for attendees.

Second, this study integrates social support theory and social capital theory to explain trust formation across interpersonal and community levels in business events. The results show that social support processes are important for peer-level affective trust, whereas relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital are important for community-level cognitive trust. By examining these mechanisms simultaneously, this study extends experience management research by conceptualizing trust as a multilevel outcome of event social dynamics rather than as a single, isolated evaluation.

Third, this study identifies individualism as a cultural boundary condition that shapes when peer based affective trust is most influential for reattending intention. Although individualism has been examined in hospitality and service contexts from both employee and customer perspectives (Guo and Ayoun, 2025; Han et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2025), its role in business events remains underexamined. Our findings indicate that attendees with lower individualism, that is, a more collectivistic orientation, are more likely to translate affective trust in peers into intentions to reattend, clarifying when social trust is most consequential in socially intensive event environments.

This study offers several practical implications for event and experience management professionals. First, providing informational and emotional support can foster business event attendees’ affective trust in peer attendees, which in turn can enhance hedonic well-being and strengthen intentions to reattend. Accordingly, event operators should design conditions that encourage mutual help among attendees. For example, operators can adopt value co-creation practices, such as transparent communication and attendees’ ability to modify the event offerings, to strengthen attendees’ psychological ownership of the event and motivate supportive behaviors toward other attendees (Zhang et al., 2024). For example, informational support can be facilitated through structured knowledge-sharing mechanisms, such as peer-led discussion sessions and online discussion forum for attendees to share experiences and knowledge. Emotional support can be cultivated through small-group formats, such as peer mentoring programs and first-time attendee receptions.

Second, the findings indicate that ties among attendees within business events, conceptualized as structural capital, were not significantly associated with cognitive trust toward the event community. In contrast, relational capital, reflecting the quality of interaction and relationships, was positively associated with cognitive trust. This suggests that organizers may gain more by designing meaningful, high-quality engagement rather than relying on Co. presence or simply increasing interaction frequency. To operate this, relational capital can be cultivated through facilitated interaction formats that require collaboration, such as team-based challenges, where attendees could develop shared outcomes and deeper interpersonal understanding. Furthermore, organizers may compare interaction-focused designs that promote relational capital with exposure-based formats that primarily increase structural capital. Consistent with the nonsignificant effect of structural capital observed in this study, such evaluations can help identify whether high-quality interactions, rather than mere exposure, are more effective in building trust and enhancing attendee outcomes.

In addition, cognitive capital was positively associated with cognitive trust in the community. Therefore, organizers should intentionally cultivate shared purpose, norms and values. For example, organizers can communicate a clear event mission in marketing materials and reinforce it throughout the program to strengthen attendees’ cognitive capital, thereby enhancing attendees’ shared understanding of the community’s goals and values.

Third, both affective trust in peer attendees and cognitive trust in the community positively influenced attendees’ hedonic well-being and reattending intentions. This highlights the importance of creating a safe and inclusive environment that supports not only interpersonal interactions, but also attendees’ sense of connection to the broader event community. Therefore, event organizers should adopt clear evaluation metrics to assess whether designed experiences effectively foster trust and social capital. For example, post-session surveys can be used to measure affective trust and cognitive trust; network engagement quality indicators, such as perceived usefulness of interactions, depth of conversation, and follow-up intentions; and survey items capturing clarity of shared norms, values and event purpose. Transparent communication, friendly attendee interactions, and clearly articulated shared values and goals are therefore essential elements of experience design (Wong, 2023; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2026).

Finally, the results show that among attendees with lower individualism, affective trust in peer attendees has a stronger effect on attendees’ reattending intentions. This reveals the importance of cultural orientation in experience design. For attendees from more collectivistic cultural backgrounds, such as many Asian countries, event managers should place particular emphasis on fostering peer-based affective trust and reducing social stressors to support positive experiences and long-term loyalty (Shao et al., 2026). This can be achieved through cohort-based participation and repeated small-group interactions across sessions. By doing so, the relational bonds among attendees could be strengthened. By strengthening these relational foundations, organizers may be more likely to encourage repeat attendance in subsequent years (Zhang et al., 2026). The insignificant moderating effect of individualism between cognitive trust in community and reattendance intention and hedonic well-being implies that cognitive trust may serve as a universal foundation for attendee retention across diverse cultural groups. Therefore, event experiences may need to balance standardized elements that reinforce attendees’ perceived competence with more relation-based designs that cater to expectations of those who hold different culture backgrounds.

This study has several limitations that offer directions for future research. First, the study relied on attendees’ retrospective reports of prior event experiences. As a result, it remains unclear how social support and social capital shape attendees’ longer-term relationships with an event and whether these effects translate into actual post event behaviors. Future studies should adopt longitudinal research designs because they can better capture how relationships and behavioral intentions evolve over time. For example, researchers could measure informational and emotional support during the event to capture real-time perceptions, assess trust shortly afterward once initial impressions have formed, and then evaluate reattendance intentions several weeks or months later to understand longer-term behavioral outcomes.

Second, although business events are often designed for knowledge sharing, industry communication and education (Zhang et al., 2026), it is still unclear whether the observed relationships vary across different event types and formats, such as workshops, conferences, conventions, exhibitions and similar settings. Because these formats differ in structure, intensity of interaction, and opportunities for community building, future research should compare event types to assess how social support and social capital influence trust in peers and the community, as well as subsequent behavioral outcomes, across contexts with varying levels of social interaction.

Finally, this study examined individualism as a moderator, but additional work is needed to understand how culture interacts with the cultural climate of the event itself. Building on Shao et al. (2026), future research could test cultural value congruence by examining whether attendees develop stronger trust and more positive experiences when the event environment reflects values aligned with their own cultural orientation, compared with environments that emphasize different values. In addition, the limited moderation effects of individualism in this study suggested that not all trust mechanisms are equally sensitive to cultural orientations. Future studies could further explore additional boundary conditions, such as event type and cultural value congruence, to better understand when these effects are amplified or attenuated.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.