The role of trust in customer relationships: asking the right questions
Deborah L. Cowles, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
Takes an in-depth look at the meaning of trust in customer relationships by drawing from the economics and communications literatures, where researchers distinguish between concepts of trustworthiness and trusting
behaviour. Develops a typology of trust based on whether a marketing entity is considered trustworthy and whether a behaviour can be considered trusting, and offers the managerial implications of ideas presented, along with six propositions for future research. The perspective presented here suggests that marketing researchers must first come to terms with the meaning of trust in customer relationships before they can begin to understand its role in more comprehensive, explanatory models of customer behaviour.
Reissued from Asia-Australia
Marketing Journal, Vol. 4
No. 1, 1996.
Management Decision
35/4 [1997] 273–282
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0025-1747]
The marketing literature reflects an ongoing interest in the central role that trust plays in the discipline. The emergence of the relationship paradigm in marketing (e.g. Cravens, 1995; Gronroos 1990, 1993; Hunt and Morgan, 1994) has heightened scholarly interest in the subject of trust, given the pivotal role that trust is thought to play in the development and maintenance of business relationships. At the same time, the potentially broad scope of the domain of relationship marketing – including not only customer, but also non-
customer and personal relationships – has complicated research efforts in this area.
Trust has been studied extensively in business-to-business settings (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Ganesan, 1994; Hunt and Morgan, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Salmond, 1994; Wilkinson and Young, 1994) and relational retail settings (e.g. Crosby, Evans and Cowles, 1990; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987; Schurr and Ozanne, 1989). Interest has also developed apropos of the role that trust may play in transactional retail settings (e.g. Cowles, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). Despite a considerable amount of attention, the literature provides no definitive position on either the meaning or the role of trust in
marketing thought and practice. A review of the marketing literature suggests at least two shortcomings regarding the state of knowledge and understanding of this apparently important construct, trust. First, neither scholars nor practitioners agree on a single model of trust that applies to all marketing contexts (e.g. industrial, retail, person-toperson, interfirm). Second, there is not even agreement that trust is an important concept in all marketing settings. The aim of this paper is to integrate a number of different perspectives to develop a better understanding of the concept of trust and to contribute to the development of a comprehensive model of trust for the marketing discipline. This goal will be accomplished by posing a series of questions not addressed specifically before in the marketing literature, which provide the framework for the discussion presented here:
1 In what way is the term “trust” being used?
2 What constitutes a trusting behaviour in a marketing setting?
3 When does trust explain a customer’s behaviour.
However, the discussion begins with a brief overview of competing perspectives of trust from a variety of literatures.
Consensus appears to exist in the marketing literature that trust is a crucial concept in industrial marketing settings (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Ganesan, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust also has been thought to be relevant in the context of relational retail relationships that mirror person-to-person relationships in industrial settings, e.g. service provider-client (Crosby et al., 1990; Dwyer et al., 1987; Schurr and Ozanne, 1989). Such studies overwhelmingly have focused first on the meaning of trust, and then on the role that trust – as a measurable construct – plays in specific marketing settings. The current marketing literature has less to say about the relevance of trust in discrete, transactional retail settings, although it has been treated as being relevant (e.g. Cowles, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). Assuming the relevance of trust in a variety of contexts, marketing researchers generally have attempted to learn what determines whether a customer will trust a marketing entity and then how that trust influences behaviours and other outcomes.
“The elusive notion of trust” (Gambetta, 1988, p. ix) has also perplexed other disciplines (e.g. economics, sociology, law, communications) and other areas of business (e.g. management, human resources) and has been discussed widely in academe. In particular, perspectives of trust in two literatures – communications and economics – offer potentially valuable insights for marketers as they contemplate the role of trust in relationship marketing. Relevant discussions in this literature suggest that the relevance of trust cannot always be assumed, regardless of the context or behaviour. Moreover, researchers in both areas have criticized the use of the term “trust” in less than definitive ways (e.g. Craswell, 1993; Williamson, 1993). For example, in the communications literature, Pearce (1974) distinguishes between “trustworthy” and “trust” to develop a model of the construct in person-to-person relationships. Interestingly, his discussion parallels concerns raised by Craswell (1993) in the economics literature, who distinguishes between trust as an explanandum (i.e. what is being explained) and trust as explanans (i.e. the explanation). Both of these perspectives suggest
a need for marketing researchers to explore more fully the various ways the term “trust” can be used to define marketing phenomena.
The scope of this paper is necessarily limited to the extent that it focuses on the role of trust in customer relationships which stand at the heart of marketing thought and practice. At the same time, the ideas developed here cover a broad territory since they do not distinguish between relational and transactional marketing settings. Rather, they consider the person-to-person interactions which can comprise any customer decision-making setting in marketing.
In what way is “trust” being used? Although numerous definitions of the term trust have been offered over the years, many of them are not unlike that offered by Giffin (1967) in the communications literature such that trusting behaviour occurs when a person:
1 relies on another;
2 risks something of value; and
3 attempts to achieve a desired goal.
This definition is quite similar to that offered by Rotter (1967), who is cited frequently in the marketing literature (e.g. Crosby, Evans and Cowles, 1990; Moorman, Deshpande and Zaltman, 1993; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) “… [trust is] a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word of another … can be
relied on” (Rotter, 1967, p. 651).
Drawing on the work of Kee and Knox (1970) in the communications literature, Pearce (1974) points out that many theorists and researchers do not distinguish between trusting behaviour and trust itself, which he defines as “the subjective probability that the other will behave trustworthily” (p. 238):
This approach [i.e. making the distinction between trusting behaviour and trust] … [allows researchers] to distinguish between trusting behavior in which the person has little hope that the other will respond trustworthily (which they likened to the lifestyle of “Peanuts” character Charlie Brown) and trusting behaviour in which the person has virtually complete confidence in the other’s trustworthiness.
In light of this view, Pearce’s model of trust in person-to-person relationships differentiates between cognitive trust (i.e. the ter m he uses to describe the extent to which an individual assesses the subjective probability of trustworthiness) and trusting behaviour. According to Pearce (1974), it would be possible for a person to engage in trusting behaviour without having reached “a cognitive state of trust”. Conversely, an individual’s cognitive trust in another person does not relegate all subsequent behaviours with the other person to the category of “trusting”. The other elements comprising Pearce’s model, as well as the implications of his assertions, are discussed below.
Pearce’s distinction between cognitive trust and trusting behaviour mirrors a more recent discussion in the economics literature, which recognizes two different uses of the term “trust” (Craswell, 1993, p. 487):
(1) X loaned some money to Y. What might explain X’s act of trust?” (2) “X loaned some money to Y because he trusted her.” In the first example, “trust” is used merely to label the behavior for which an explanation is being sought. In the second, “trust” is put forward as an explanation of that behavior.In the first context, Craswell (1993) labels trust as “explanandum”, whereas, in the second context, he labels trust as “explanans” (p. 487). A marketing parallel using trust in the first sense would be: Mr Smith, a consumer, took his car to Fred’s service station where Fred installed new brake pads. What might explain Mr. Smith’s apparently trusting behaviour? A competing version of that marketing situation in which trust would be considered an explanans would be: Mr Smith, a consumer, took his car to Fred’s service station for new brakes because he trusts Fred. From Craswell’s perspective, trust may or may not explain Mr Smith’s trusting behaviour in the first scenario; in the second scenario, trust would indeed explain Mr Smith’s behaviour which may or may not be an act of trust The significance of Pearce’s and Craswell’s observations for marketers is that studies focusing on trusting behaviour, or acts of trust, typically assume that trust is at least in part responsible for the behaviour. Likewise, if customers are found to trust a marketing entity (e.g. service provider), studies typically treat all subsequent behaviour as trusting, or an act of trust. Although Pearce’s and Craswell’s arguments are not identical, each implies that it would be possible for a customer to engage in any of the categories of behaviour.
What constitutes an act of trust? What constitutes an act of trust?
A typology of trust situations
Taken together, the perspectives presented above suggest that marketing researchers must make two determinations when contemplating the role of trust in customer relationships. First: what constitutes an act of trust, or trusting behaviour? Second: when does trust explain a customer’s behaviour, trusting or otherwise? Each of these questions will be addressed in turn.
According to Coleman (1990), in the economics literature: “Situations involving trust constitute a subclass of those involving risk. They are situations in which the risk one takes depends on the perfor mance of another
actor” (p. 463). This perspective embraces most views presented in the marketing literature in as much as it focuses on reliance – the extent to which a customer must rely on the marketer (i.e. the perfor mance of a marketing entity) to be sure that a marketplace offering meets needs and wants. Coleman’s definition is consistent with the first element in Pearce’s (1974) model of trust which asserts that “it is meaningful to speak of trust in situations in which there is some form of contingency between the truster and the trusted …” (p. 241).
In addition to contingency (i.e. risk) Pearce asserts that cognitive trust and trusting behaviour can only occur when “the truster has some confidence in his expectations for the other’s behaviour [predictability]” (p. 241)
and the truster has alternative options, or choice. Apropos of these three dimensions – risk, predictability, and choice – Sheth and Parvatiyar (1994, 1995) have defined a relationship marketing model in similar terms: customers “reduce the choice set to be in a relationship” by evaluating the “risk of switching” and the “value of the relationship” (p. 3). Thus, relationships – defined in terms of choice, value and risk – by definition present situations in which it may be meaningful to speak of trust. At the same time, no perspective
presented thus far suggests that customer relationships necessarily involve trust. This recognition is demonstrated in the following proposition: Proposition 1: A relationship between a customer and a marketing entity (i.e. specific person) creates situations in which it may be meaningful to speak of trust; however, neither trust in the marketing entity nor trusting behaviour is necessarily a component of any given situation.
Is there a trust threshold?
Although Coleman’s (1990) definition focuses on when an act of trust does occur, it implies that a customer would not be engaged in trusting behaviour insofar as the customer faced no risk and/or did not have to rely on the marketing entity. The extent to which any behaviour might be considered an act of trust would be deter mined by the amount of risk faced by the customer, as well as the extent to which a customer had to rely on the performance of the marketing entity.
The conceptualization of trusting behaviour makes it possible for one to consider whether a threshold might
exist on either or both axes of the diagram. For example, it may be reasonable to assume that at a very low level of risk or potential
Trusting behaviour as a function of reliance and risk harm (point X), it may not be practical or “worth it” for a customer to be concerned about whether a particular marketplace offering will meet needs and wants. In a similar way, it may be reasonable to assume that if a customer perceives a very low level of reliance on a marketer (point Y) to be sure that a marketplace offering will meet needs and wants, trust simply may not be part of the decision either to begin or to remain in a relationship. It asserts that below the threshold level (the
unshaded area) behaviours would not be considered acts of trust, whereas behaviours occurring above the threshold level (the shaded area) would be considered trusting in nature. These assertions are offered with the assumption that the customer perceives alternatives to be available in the marketplace.
If the concept of a “trust threshold” is valid, such thresholds may well vary from customer to customer, as well as across product categories and situations. In other words, a specific behaviour could be labelled an “act of trust” for one customer, yet may not at all be an “act of trust” for another. It also holds open the possibility that in the case of much retail decision making, many behaviours fall below the threshold level and, thus, would not be considered acts of trust. Finally, consistent with Pearce’s model (1974), as well as Craswell’s assertions (1993), the threshold concept suggests that it would be possible for a customer to feel that a marketer or other marketing entity is trustworthy in situations where trusting behaviour does not occur.
The following propositions address this perspective:
Proposition 2a: To the extent that a customer perceives risk in situations resulting from a relationship with a marketing entity and/or must rely on the marketing entity to achieve the desired outcome of any given situation, it may be possible to define the customer’s behaviour as trusting.
Proposition 2b: Customer characteristics and situational factors may influence the threshold level at which perceived risk and reliance on the marketing entity make any specific behaviour an act of trust.
Is the customer’s behaviour “calculative” or “non-calculative”? In addition to the notion of a threshold for trust, Williamson (1993) sheds some light in the economics literature on the question of what constitutes an act of trust. According to Williamson, it is necessary to consider the calculativeness of a behaviour before one can determine whether the behaviour is trusting. He contrasts calculative behaviour with non-calculative behaviour such that the latter is characterized by “(1) the absence of monitoring, (2) favourable or forgiving predilections, and (3) discreteness. Such relations are clearly very special” (pp. 483-4). Further, he argues that “calculative relations should be described in calculative terms, to which the language of risk [not trust] is exactly suited” (pp. 485-6). Although Williamson’s (1993) narrow view of what can be labelled trust has been criticized (Craswell, 1993) and will be addressed below, his discussion of calculative behaviour contributes to an understanding of what constitutes trusting behaviour in marketing settings.
Williamson’s (1993) distinction between “risk” and “trust” is especially important to marketers, since marketplace decisions generally are thought to involve risk (e.g. Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1994). He points out that some economists refer to “contractual safeguards, or their absence, rather than trust, or its absence” (p. 463). Williamson asserts that “it is redundant at best and can be misleading to use the ter m ‘trust’ to describe commercial exchange for which cost-effective safeguards have been devised in support of more efficient exchange” (p. 463). He argues essentially that contractual safeguards preclude the need for trusting behaviour. Although the potential implications of this assertion for marketers are numerous, one that stands out is the possibility that many routine customer decisions in the marketplace could be classified as commercial exchanges “for which cost-effective safeguards have been devised” (e.g. guarantees, warranties, other implicit or explicit promises).
If it is the case that a customer could interpret such safeguards as a means of minimizing or eliminating vulnerability, risk, or reliance on “the word of another” (Rotter, 1967, p. 651), one must then consider what
would cause a customer to have confidence in the safeguards. Williamson (1993) addresses this issue explicitly in a lengthy discussion of calculativeness in general and “institutional economics” (p. 457) in particular. Although some of his key points are discussed below, the full scope of his discussion is worthy of
further consideration in the development of relationship marketing thought.
Are environmental safeguards at work?
Williamson’s (1993) discussion of “institutional trust” (p. 486) provides additional insight concer ning the topic of contractual safeguards and their impact on customer behaviour. Rejecting the notion that the construct should be labelled “trust” at all (preferring either “institutional safeguards” or "environmental safeguards”), Williamson acknowledges that in the economics and sociology literatures, institutional trust “refers to the social and organizational context within which contracts are embedded” (p. 486). According to this view, institutional environments provide general-purpose safeguards which relieve the need for added transaction-specific supports, and include at least five population-level effects (societal culture, politics, regulation, professionalization and networks) and one organizational-level effect (corporate culture). An example of such a safeguard in a marketing setting would be the retail sale of gasoline to individual consumers. In most cases, consumers are not able to ascertain whether a gasoline pump actually dispenses the amount of fuel indicated at the time of sale or whether a particular octane level of gasoline is dispensed. Without a competing explanation, one would have to label this situation involving risk and reliance as an act of trust, insofar as the risk and reliance together were sufficient to exceed any potential threshold level. In Williamson’s terms, however, these customers would not be considered to have engaged in trusting behaviour insofar as they relied on the institutional safeguards of state and federal regulation and inspection of retail gasoline pumps – as opposed to relying on the marketing entity – to evaluate the weights-and-measures aspects of the retail decision.
With regard to the specific issue of regulatory safeguards, Williamson suggests that “regulation can serve to infuse trading confidence into otherwise problematic trading relations” (p. 477). Although he acknowledges that, in some situations, “institutional trust has the appearance of being noncalculative” (p. 486), he maintains that to the extent that transactions are “organized (governed) with reference to the institutional context (environment) of which they are a part” (p. 486) calculativeness is a part of decision making and the concept of trust is not relevant. This perspective is presented in the form of a proposition below:
Proposition 3: To the extent that a customer relies on population-level environmental, or institutional, safeguards to be sure that needs and wants are met by a specific marketing entity (i.e. person), the behaviour should not be categorized as an act of trust.
It is important to note that Proposition 3 does not address organizational-level safeguards. Moreover, it addresses only the issue of trusting behaviour; it does not suggest that a customer engaged in such behaviour could not perceive the marketer or marketing entity to be trustworthy. Each of these issues is addressed below in sequence.
How does corporate culture affect trusting behaviour?
Although the implications of regulatory and other population-level safeguards are numerous, especially as they pertain to customer decisions about marketplace offerings, they could be viewed as a backdrop against which all marketers in any given context compete. On the other hand, the influence of organizational-level safeguards (i.e. corporate culture) could be thought of as more strategic in nature since a customer’s perception of the safeguard would likely vary from one marketer to another.
Williamson (1993) acknowledges that determining the role that corporate culture plays in decision making is problematic apropos of the issues of calculativeness and trust. His observations concer ning corporate culture in this context alternate between insisting that “calculativeness characterizes even such apparently ‘soft’ notions as corporate culture” (p. 479) to recognizing the possibility that one might be able to speak of organizational-level safeguards in ter ms of trust “in a hyphenated form” (p. 486). This discussion argues that Pearce’s concept of cognitive trust, discussed below, contributes to reconciling these competing views. Thus, the following proposition is set forth:
Proposition 4: To the extent that a customer relies on organizational-level safeguards to be sure that needs and wants are met by a specific marketing entity (i.e. person), the behaviour should not be categorized as an act of trust.
When does trust explain a customer’s behaviour? The second key question that marketers must answer when considering the role of trust in customer relationships involves “trust as explanans” (Craswell, 1993, p. 492), or trust as an explanation for customer behaviour. As noted above, Williamson (1993) restricts the concept of trust to a narrow category of non-calculative behaviour; “…trust, if it obtains at all, is reserved for very special relations between family, friends, and lovers. Such trust is also the stuff of which tragedy is made. It goes to the essence of the human condition” (p. 484). Subscribing to the view that trust is not based on an expectation of its justification, Williamson (1993) concludes: “Commercial relations do not qualify” (p. 486) under the rubric of trust.
Focusing on the importance of precise linguistic and conceptual tools for advancing human understanding, Williamson maintains that the term “trust” should “be reserved for noncalculative personal relations” (p. 486) and, as noted earlier, “possibly, in a hyphenated form, to describe differences in the institutional environment” (p. 486). Although Craswell (1993) criticizes this narrow view by distinguishing between trusting behaviour, or acts of trust, and trust as an explanation for behaviour, most of his critique focuses on trust as an explanandum, not trust as an explanans. Pearce’s (1974) concept of cognitive trust could be viewed as filling this void.
Has the customer achieved a cognitive state of trust?
According to Pearce’s model of interpersonal trust, “a cognitive state of trust exists when one person assumes without adequate evidence that the other’s behavior will not confer unacceptably negative outcomes upon him” (p. 246). Further, he asserts that the trusting individual bases the assumption on perceptions of “the other’s knowledge, competence, and motive” (p. 246). For example, the model suggests that, in a typical retail setting, a customer could judge a retail salesperson to be trustworthy to the extent that the contact person was perceived as being adequately knowledgeable, competent, and well intentioned. If these three elements determine customers’ perceptions of marketers’ trustworthiness, and if such perceptions can influence subsequent behaviour, trusting or otherwise, then one must consider how customers achieve a state of cognitive trust.
Although both the concept of cognitive trust in general and how customers might achieve a state of cognitive trust in particular are areas worthy of much greater consideration in the future, two potentially valuable perspectives are discussed briefly below. The first draws from the consumer behaviour and relationship marketing literatures on the influence of customer memory, and the second refers back to the concept of institutional, or environmental safeguards and their potential influence on customer decision making.
How does customer memory influence cognitive trust?
The consumer behaviour and relationship marketing literatures both underscore the important role that memory plays in customer decision making (e.g. Alba, Hutchinson and Lynch, 1991; Madhaven, Shah and Grover, 1994). Focusing on trust as an element of customer decision making, Customer experience with a marketer or marketing entity, along with other factors, as influencing a customer’s memory which, in turn, shapes customer perceptions of whether the marketer or marketing entity is knowledgeable, competent, or well-intentioned. According to Pearce, these perceptions determine whether the marketer or marketing entity is thought to be trustworthy (i.e. whether a customer achieves a cognitive state of trust). Proposition 5 addresses this perspective:
Proposition 5: A customer draws from memory, past experience, and other factors to evaluate the knowledgeability, competence, and motives of a specific marketing entity (i.e. person). These evaluations, in turn, influence whether a customer develops a cognitive state of trust apropos of the marketing entity.
The concept of trustworthiness has been addressed in the marketing literature, largely in the context of ongoing, relational marketing contexts (e.g. Crosby et al., 1990). In such studies, the length of a relationship (i.e. past experience with the marketing entity) typically has been shown to be related positively to a customer’s perceptions of the trustworthiness of the other individual.
Although the role of trust in transactional marketing settings has been discussed recently (Cowles, 1995a, 1995b), the concept of memory and its role in the development of trust in such contexts has not been treated as fully compared to ongoing marketing relationships. This discussion argues that just as institutional, or environmental safeguards may influence whether a customer’s behaviour can be categorized as trusting, such
factors – specifically, organizational-level safeguards – may impact on a customer’s cognitive state of trust.
Do organizational-level safeguards influence cognitive trust?
Proposition 4 suggests that, to the extent that customers rely on organizational safeguards (e.g. corporate culture) to be sure that needs and wants are met by specific marketing entities, resulting behaviour should not be classified as an act of trust. This discussion argues that corporate culture can also influence a customer’s cognitive state of trust, although the influence would be significantly different compared to its impact on trusting behaviour. According to Williamson (1993), a primary function of corporate culture is to foster and maintain a “feeling of personal integrity, of self-respect, and independent choice” (p. 479) among employees. In one respect, customer awareness of relevant organizational safeguards could be considered one of the “other factors”. If customers are aware of a specific firm’s corporate culture, this awareness should influence the components of cognitive trust.
A positive evaluation of corporate culture would permit a customer, in Pearce’s terms, to assume “without adequate evidence that the other’s behavior will not confer unacceptably negative outcomes upon him” (p. 246). This potential relationship between corporate culture and cognitive trust is the focus of the sixth proposition:
Proposition 6a: To the extent that a customer is aware of a firm’s corporate culture, the customer will use that awareness to make assumptions about the knowledge-ability, competence and motives of a specific marketing entity representing that firm. In turn, these assumptions influence the customer’s cognitive state of trust, or perceptions of the firm’s and the marketing entity’s trustworthiness.
Do other safeguards influence cognitive trust?
Although organizational-level safeguards would probably influence cognitive trust most directly, it is possible that one or more of the other, population-level safeguards also could influence customer perceptions of knowledge-ability, competence and motive. For example, Williamson (1993) defines professionalization as the “obligation to fulfill the definition of a role” (p. 478) and notes that many of the professions are “supported by entry limitations (such as licensing), specific ethical codes, added fiduciary obligations, and professional sanctions” (p. 478). As such, it is argued here that an environmental safeguard like professionalization could serve as a basis for making assumptions about an individual’s knowledgeability, competence and motive, even in the absence of past experience and memory related to the other person:
Proposition 6b: To the extent that a customer is aware of relevant population-level safeguards, the customer will use that awareness to make assumptions about the knowledgeability, competence and motives of a specific marketing entity representing a firm. In tur n, these assumptions influence the customer’s cognitive state of trust, or perceptions of the marketing entity’s trustworthiness.
The ideas conveyed here in response to the series of questions set forth in this paper hold numerous implications for marketers as they consider the role of trust in customer relationships. Although many of these implications deserve further scrutiny in the future, a number of the key considerations are discussed below. In particular, the distinction between trusting behaviour and cognitive trust holds considerable promise for marketers seeking to understand trust in a wide variety of marketing settings. Moreover, the potential impact of environmental, or institutional safeguards vis-a-vis the influence of trust in customer decision making warrants attention in future research in relationship marketing. Although the theoretical implications of the conceptualization of trust presented here are significant, the managerial aspects of these ideas are at least as important.
Managerial implications
If future research finds the distinction between trusting behaviour and cognitive trust to be valid, then marketing practitioners should benefit from insights made possible as a result of this distinction. For example, minimizing the customer’s perceived risk and/or reducing customer perceptions of reliance on the marketing entity can serve to preclude the need for trusting behaviour, while not having an adverse impact on the customer’s perceptions of the trustworthiness of the marketing entity. Marketers have a wide variety of tools and tactics available to them to influence such perceptions (e.g. warranties, guarantees, customer participation strategies). Indeed, in some marketing contexts, a more competitive strategy might be to make trusting behaviour on the part of the customer unnecessary. From at least one perspective, such a strategy could influence positively a customer’s cognitive state of trust, especially concer ning perceptions of a marketer’s motives. The concept of a cognitive state of trust also holds practical insight for marketers. For example, a firm aiming to increase customers’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of contact personnel faces very different marketing and/or training challenges depending on whether weaknesses in this area are found to be the result of customer perceptions of the knowledgeability, competence, or motives of the contact personnel.
Finally, if customers use environmental, or institutional safeguards either to minimize perceived risk and/or reliance on the marketer, or to draw assumptions about the trustworthiness of customer contact personnel, then marketers must develop an in-depth understanding of such safeguards, as well as their impact of customer decision making. For example, while corporate culture has been recognized as a potent force in business, it has largely been thought of in managerial terms. Although the business literature has recognized the indirect impact of corporate culture on customers, the ideas presented here suggest that it may influence customers directly via their evaluations of trustworthiness and as a determinant of the need for trusting behaviour.
Institutional safeguards also have public policy implications. In particular, to the extent that it can be argued that regulatory safeguards are intended to “infuse trading confidence into otherwise problematic trading relations” (Williamson, 1993, p. 477), policy makers could be called on to focus on this role for regulation for the benefit of consumers and the firms that serve them.
Directions for future research
As in all areas of marketing theory and practice, the measurement of key concepts comprising the view of trust presented here remains an issue of foremost importance. With regard to the concept of trusting behaviour, a number of measures of perceived risk currently exist (Bruner and Hensel, 1992) which could be used as a starting point for making determinations about this concept. On the other hand, the subject of reliance – customer perceptions of reliance on the marketing entity to ensure needs and wants are met – has not been treated as extensively in the marketing literature. Given the apparent agreement among the definitions of trust contained in the marketing literature – that customer reliance or dependence on the marketer is a key component of trust – the need to develop adequate measures of customer perceptions of reliance is paramount.
Future research into the issue of reliance may benefit from findings in the communication literature which identify control as one of three dimensions of personal relationships, along with trust and intimacy (Rogers and Millar, 1988). It is possible that to the extent that customers can control the outcome of marketing situations (e.g. guarantees, warranties, customer participation in a service process or production of a product) then trust may not be as relevant to any given relationship. Future studies could show whether any correlation exists between intimacy and the other two relationship dimensions, control and trust. This direction for future research may hold particular promise for studies examining the role of trust in business-to-business or other complex, ongoing relationships.
One of the more intriguing areas worthy of future research is the potential relationship between the concepts of cognitive trust and trusting behaviour. For example, an ongoing relationship between a customer and a specific individual representing a marketer would create the memories drawn on to assess trustworthiness. Similarly, an ongoing relationship with a specific marketer would increase customer awareness of organizational-level safeguards (i.e. corporate culture) which, in turn, may influence perceptions of knowledgeability, competence and motive.
From at least one perspective, the characteristic of trustworthiness, resulting from assumptions based either on past experience or organizational-level safeguards, could influence a customer’s perception of risk and reliance on the marketing entity (i.e. the determinants of trusting behaviour). In general, some of the concepts presented in this paper (e.g. perceived risk; reliance on the marketing entity; population-level safeguards; corporate culture; memory; perceptions of knowledgeability, competence and motive) have all been recognized as influencing trust and customer relationships, but the theoretical underpinnings of the constructs
have not been well understood in this context.
Finally, because trust is thought to be relevant across the marketing domain, future research into the conceptualization of trust presented here will have to address trusting behaviour and cognitive trust in a wide variety of settings. As stated at the outset of this discussion, the goal of this paper has been to contribute to developing a comprehensive model of trust, applicable in all customer relationship contexts. Future research based on the ideas presented here will determine whether this goal has been achieved.
References
Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W. and Lynch, J.G. Jr
(1991), “Memory and decision making”, in
Robertson, T.S. and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds),
Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 1-49.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of
distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Anderson, J.C. and Weitz, B.A. (1989), “Determinants
of continuity in conventional industrial
channel dyads”, Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 310-23.
Bruner, G.C. II and Hensel, P.J. (1992), Marketing
Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item
Measures, American Marketing Association.
Coleman, J. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory,
cited in Williamson, O.E., “Calculativeness,
trust, and economic organization”, Journal of
Law & Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, Part 2, April,
pp. 453-86.
Cowles, D.L. (1994), “Relationship marketing for
transaction marketing firms: viable strategy
via command performance”, in Sheth, J.N. and
Parvatiyar, A. (Eds), Relationship Marketing:
Theory, Methods, and Applications, 1994
Research Conference Proceedings, Center for
Relationship Marketing, Goizueta Business
School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Cowles, D.L. (1995a), “Parasocial relationship
theory in transaction marketing settings:
exploratory research findings”, in Grant, K.
and Walker, I. (Eds), Proceedings of the
Seventh Bi-Annual World Marketing Congress,
Vol. VII-I, Melbourne, July.
Cowles, D.L. (1995b), “Toward a comprehensive
model of trust in retail relationships”, unpublished
working paper, presented at the 3rd
International Colloquium in Relationship
Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne,
July.
Craswell, R. (1993), “On the uses of ‘trust’: comment
on Williamson, ‘Calculativeness, trust,
and economic organization’ ”, The Journal of
Law & Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, Part 2, April,
pp. 487-500.
Cravens, D.W. (1995), Special Issue on Relationship
Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 23, Autumn.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990),
“Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 68-81.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.
Gambetta, D. (1988), “Can we trust trust?”, in
Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations, cited in Williamson,
O.E., “Calculativeness, trust, and economic
organization”, Journal of Law & Economics,
Vol. 36 No. 1, Part 2, April, pp. 453-86.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term
orientation in buyer-seller relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 1-19.
Giffin, K. (1967), “The contribution of studies of
source credibility to a theory of interpersonal
trust in the communication process”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 68, pp. 104-20.
Ginsburg, G.P. (1988), “Rules, scripts, and prototypes
in personal relationships”, in Duck, S.W.
(Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships,
Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 23-39.
Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and
Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in
Service Competition, Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA.
Gronroos, C. (1993), “From marketing mix to
relationship marketing: towards a paradigm
shift in marketing”, Management Decision,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-20.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1994), “Relationship
marketing in the era of network competition”,
Marketing Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Kee, H.W. and Knox, R.E. (1970), “Conceptual and
methodological considerations in the study of
trust and suspicion”, Journal of Conflict Resolution,
Vol. 14, pp. 357-66.
Madhaven, R., Shah, R.H. and Grover, R. (1994),
“Relationship marketing: an organizational
process perspective”, in Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar,
A. (Eds), Relationship Marketing:
Theory, Methods, and Applications, 1994
Deborah L. Cowles
The role of trust in
customer relationships:
asking the right questions
Management Decision
35/4 [1997] 273–282
Research Conference Proceedings, Center for
Relationship Marketing, Goizueta Business
School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G.
(1993), “Relationships between providers and
users of market research: the role of personal
trust”, working paper, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA, as cited in Morgan,
R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38..
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commit-
ment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
Pearce, W. B. (1974), “Trust in interpersonal relationships”,
Speech Monographs, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 236-44.
Rogers, L.E. and Millar, F.E. (1988), “Relational
communication”, in Duck, S.W. (Ed.), Handbook
of Personal Relationships, Wiley & Sons
Ltd, pp. 293-305.
Rotter (1967).
Salmond, D. (1994), “Refining the concept of trust
in business-to-business relationship theory,
research, and practice”, 1994 Research Conference
Proceedings, Relationship Marketing:
Theory, Methods, and Applications, in Sheth,
J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (Eds), Roberto C.
Goizueta Business School, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA.
Schurr, P.H. and Ozanne, J.L. (1985), “Influences
on exchange processes: buyers’ preconceptions
of a seller’s trustworthiness…”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 939-53.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1994), “Relationship
marketing: a customer perspective”,
presentation at the 1994 Research Conference,
Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods, and
Applications, 1994 Research Conference Proceedings,
Center for Relationship Marketing,
Roberto C. Goizueta Business School, Emory
University, Atlanta, GA.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship
marketing in consumer markets:
antecedents and consequences”, in Cravens,
D.W. (Ed.), Special Issue on Relationship Marketing,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-71.
Weitz, B.A. (1994), Discussion at Relationship
Marketing Research Conference, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA, June.
Wilkinson, I. and Young, L. (1994), “Business
dancing: the nature and role of interfirm relationships
in business strategy”, Asia-Australia
Marketing Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, August,
pp. 67-80.
Williamson, O.E. (1993), “Calculativeness, trust,
and economic organization”, The Journal of
Law & Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, Part 2, April,
pp. 453-86.
No comments:
Post a Comment