Trust in B-to-B

8/11/2019 Trust in B-to-B

1/21

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction into the field of marketing by

the IMP (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing)

Group, trust has continued to attract the attention of

researchers. The many benefits of trust reducing

transaction costs, creating value, improving satisfac-

tion and corporate performance have been fre-

quently recorded and demonstrated by marketing

researchers.

There are numerous studies on the notion of trust.

They are sometimes concerned with its antecedents

and consequences, and sometimes with its concep-

tualization and its role in business. At the same time,

the areas of application of trust in marketing have

widened, including sales (industrial and service sec-

tors), marketing channels (customer/supplier rela-

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 26, n 1/2011

Trust in B-to-B:

Toward a Dynamic and Integrative Approach

Wafa Akrout

Assistant Professor of Marketing

Universit Paris-Est

Houcine Akrout

Professor and Researcher of Marketing

INSEEC Business School

Laboratoire de recherche INSEEC

The authors warmly thank Jean-Louis Chandon, Editor ofRAM, for his valuable advice and constructive comments.They would also like to thank the anonymousRAMreviewers for their comments and suggestions, which have helped improve this paper.The authors can be contacted at the following e-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The concept of trust in B-to-B has evolved in many directions. This split has created a rich diversity of research development

but has also hampered the construction of a coherent theory. The purpose of this article is to present a clear and critical synthe-

sis based upon empirical work on this concept over the last twenty years. While explaining agreements on various definitions,

models and measures of the concept, we highlight their main weaknesses. New opportunities to clarify the status of trust are also

proposed.

Key words : trust, BtoB, relationships, calculated trust, cognitive trust, affective trust, dynamic approach.


2/21

tions and partnerships, alliances and joint ventures),

retail, consumer behavior (brand and service) and

e-commerce.

However, as Child (2001) notes, despite its see-

ming value, the notion of trust remains largely under-

exploited. It is, in Childs words, under-theorized,under-researched. Thus, apart from advances made

over the past twenty years the distinction between

inter-organizational trust and interpersonal trust it

remains a relatively blurred and fragmentary concept

and in need of overall coherence. Indeed, the accu-

mulation of definitions, models and measurement

scales has by no means eliminated the uncertainty

and confusion often associated with this concept. Far

from wanting to close the half-century-long debate

around the conceptualization of trust, our intention is

to clarify some obscure areas and to open up and

clear the way for future research.The aim of this paper is therefore to put forward,

on the basis of various studies on trust in B-to-B, a

synthetic, coherent view, in order to propose new ele-

ments that may lead to a deepening of the concept.

The B-to-B framework is justified by researchers

growing interest in the concept of trust in B-to-B

marketing. This interest has been aroused by the pre-

eminence of the notion of risk in regard to

customer/supplier relations. Indeed, companies

increasingly see the potential contribution of trust in

setting up and developing lasting and productiverelationships. Apart from these considerations, the

actors in the B-to-B relationship are distinguished

not only by their small number switching costs are

high and prohibitive but also by strong interdepen-

dence and the almost invariable use of long and com-

plex purchase decision processes.

Our study covers the period from 1982 to the pre-

sent. The first studies of the IMP Group on exchange

in an industrial setting the precursors to research on

trust in B-to-B mark the beginning of this work of

synthesis.

The paper is organized in three parts. The first

presents the main ways that the notion of trust is

understood in B-to-B, by distinguishing its various

components and dimensions.

In the second part, we develop the modeling of

trust through the analysis and taxonomy of its deter-

minants and consequences. The third part addresses

the way in which researchers operationalize the

concept. We conclude the paper by pointing out the

main limitations of the study and by emphasizing the

contribution of a dynamic, integrative approach.

The method we adopted for this work of synthesis

involved consulting the ABI/Informs and Business

Source Premier electronic databases and selecting

papers on the basis of three criteria: the notion of trust must be the central theme of

the paper;

the paper must have been published during the

period 1982-2009;

the paper must come within the field of B-to-B .

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TRUST

Examination of studies on trust reveals a large

number of definitions and evident conceptual vague-

ness. By focusing on the meanings of this construct,

we note two main approaches: trust treated as a psy-

chological variable and trust treated as a behavioral

variable.

Trust: a polysemic concept

Derived from social psychology, the first

approach to trust is interested more in its founda-

tions. Trust is thus seen either as an expectation

(Dwyer et al., 1987; Sako, 1997; Zaheer et al., 1998):

Trust refers to a partys expectations that another

desires coordination, will fulfill its obligations, and

will pull its weight in the relationship (Dwyer and

Oh et al., 1987), or as a belief in relation to the partner

(Schurr and Ozanne, 1985; Anderson and Narus,

1990; Kumar et al., 1995): one partys belief that its

need will be fulfilled in the future by actions underta-

ken by the other party (Anderson and Weitz, 1989).

The second approach to trust emphasizes solely

its behavioral effects (Currall and Judge, 1995;

Strutton et al., 1996). Trust is thus treated from two

standpoints. On the one hand, it is viewed as a beha-

vior intention and/or trusting behavioral actions. In

this instance, it refers to the risk involved in trusting

Wafa Akrout, Houcine Akrout2


3/21

someone: an individuals behavioral reliance on

another person under a condition of risk (Currall

and Judge, 1995). On the other hand, trust is treated as

a wish to be vulnerable and to count on the exchange

partner (Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1995; Doney,

Cannon, and Mullen, 1998): a willingness to rely onan exchange partner in whom one has confidence

(Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1995).

Other so-called integrative approaches have

also been proposed by such authors as Moorman et

al., (1992, 1993) and Smith and Barclay (1997).

These authors view trust both as a belief and/or

expectation and/or feeling and as a behavioral inten-

tion: trust as a cognitive expectation or affective

sentiment and trust as risk-taking behavior or a

willingness to engage in such behavior (Smith and

Barclay, 1997).

These definitions do not lead, however, as mightinitially be assumed, to a unifying approach. Nor do

they retain the different meanings of trust, either in

its conception (as expectation, feeling, belief, wish or

behavior) or in its content (with its cognitive, affective

and conative components). A fortiori, no definition

takes account simultaneously of these three separate

components. Even the above-mentioned definition by

Smith and Barclay (1997) links the affective compo-

nent to motivations and intentions (benevolence),

which are ultimately integrated into the perception of

reliability (cognitive component).

Table 1 shows the pre-eminence of the cognitive

component in B-to-B marketing, reflecting a general

tendency to view trust as an expectation/belief.

Conversely, there are very few studies that refer to

the affective component. As for the conative compo-

nent, its status remains unclarified.

In fact, as in other areas of marketing research,

trust is dominated by cognitivist approaches. Indeed,many approaches are based on knowledge and

mechanisms of information processing from beliefs

and perceptions.

Although the impact of affective states is recogni-

zed as essential for understanding trust, especially in

interpersonal contexts (Andaleeb, 1992; Ganesan,

1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997), little interest has

been shown in such states in the conceptualization

and measurement of this construct.

Even those researchers (Andaleeb, 1992; Kumar

et al., 1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997) claiming to

have incorporated the affective aspect into theirconceptualizations have not hesitated to introduce a

new dimension to the formulated beliefs and expecta-

tions in regard to the reliable individual, identified by

the term benevolence (expressed by good intentions

and taking the partners interest into account in the

exchange relationship). In our view, this dimension

does not systematically capture the affective aspects in

all circumstances. The fact that the seller intends res-

pecting the interests of the buyer does not necessarily

mean that he feels affection for him or that he shows

lasting emotional attachment to him; it may arise

from an enlightened approach in which he impose

restrictions on himself and is careful to maintain a

Trust in B-to-B: Toward a Dynamic and Integrative Approach 3

Table 1. Different meanings of trust

Cognitive approach

(expectation/belief)

Schurr and Ozanne (1985) ; Dwyer et al.

(1987) ; Young and Wilkinson (1989) ;

Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Anderson and

Narus (1990) ; Crosby et al. (1990) ;Lagace and Gassenheimer, (1991) ; Scheer

and Stern (1992) ; Andaleeb (1992) ;

Ganesan (1994) ; Morgan and Hunt (1994);

Kumar et al. (1995) ; Johnson et al. (1996) ;

Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Ahmed et al.

(1998) ; Sako and Helper, (1998) ;

Nicholson et al. (2001) ; Nevins and Money

(2008) ; Lohtia et al. (2009)

Behavioral approach

(wish, behavioral

intention)

Hawes et al. (1989) ; Currall et Judge

(1995) ; Dahlstrom et Nygaard,

(1995) ; Strutton et al. (1996)

Integrative approach

Swan et al. (1988) ;

Moorman et al. (1992,

1993) ; Andaleeb, (1995) ;

Smith et Barclay (1997)


4/21

sufficient degree of mutual satisfaction in order to

sustain the relationship over time and continue to

benefit from the advantages of cooperation. Belief in

the right reasons for choosing the reliable individual

are an integral part of the cognitive dimension of

trust, as McAllister (1995) and Schoorman et al.(2007) point out.

It should also be recognized that studies in the

field of management research have shown the most

interest in the affective form of trust (McKnight and

Chervany, 2001, Corritore et al., 2003). According to

McAllister (1995), affective trust is synonymous

with a close relationship between the partners, invol-

ving very frequent interactions. This view seems

appropriate in the context of buyer/seller relation-

ships in B-to-B and incorporates the proposals of

Andersen and Kumar (2006) for taking into account

affective and emotional states in trust in the area ofmarketing.

As regards the behavioral component of trust, we

consider there to be weaknesses in how it is speci-

fied. Indeed, although the dimension of behavioral

intention (in regard to continuity or purchase) has

been retained and tested as the consequence of trust by

several researchers, including Morgan and Hunt

(1994) and Andaleeb (1995), trusting behavior has

long been the subject of debate between those the

behaviorists in favor of incorporating it into trust

and those who view it rather as its consequence.

Proponents of the first position consider trusting

behavior to be actions stemming from the affective

and cognitive components of trust (Johnson and

Grayson, 2005). Those favoring the second position

(Currall and Judge, 1995 and Smith and Barclay,

1997) adopt variables such as investment in the rela-

tionship, openness of communication and reduced

opportunism as an integral part of trust, with a signifi-

cant effect on its consequences. The first conception

seems to us to be the more consistent, since trusting

behavior is an indicator of taking the risk of trusting

someone and hence is the result of the attitude of thetruster and not an intrinsic component of trust.

From a dynamic perspective, trusting behavior may

be a factor reinforcing affective trust that arises in the

later of stages of the relationship.

Is trust a one-dimensional, two-dimensional

or three-dimensional concept?

Researchers also disagree as to the dimensiona-

lity of trust (Swan et al., 1999). In fact, we note three

different conceptions: one-dimensional, two-dimen-sional and three-dimensional.

The one-dimensional conception, incorporating

several aspects of trust into an overall definition, has

been most often used by researchers. Some authors,

such as Morgan and Hunt (1994), Geyskens and

Steenkamp (1995) and Kumar et al. (1995), have

attempted to get away from this conception, but have

accepted, after validating their models, the holistic

aspect of the construct.

The two-dimensional conception comprises, on

the one hand, benevolence or goodwill linked to

the motives and intentions of the parties in the

exchange and, on the other, credibility, which refers to

the partners honesty and expertise. This conception is

increasingly used by B-to-B researchers (Ganesan,

1994; Johnson et al., 1996; Doney and Cannon,

1997; Nicholson et al., 2001).

Finally, certain authors, including Sako (1992)

and Miyamoto and Rexha (2004), have favored a

three-dimensional approach: belief in the goodwill of

the other party (benevolence), belief that the partner

will respect ethical standards (honesty or integrity),

and belief in the competences of the other organizationand/or its representative.

Faced with this plurality of definitions, resear-

chers have tended to choose conceptions and dimen-

sions in an almost arbitrary way, without real justifi-

cation apart from differences in the marketing studies

context (Seppanen et al., 2007). Such significant fac-

tors as levels of trust and the relationships stage of

development are not taken into account to explain

this diversity.

In regard to levels of trust, the marketing litera-

ture reveals the existence of interpersonal trust and

inter-organizational trust. Interpersonal trust

concerns the relationship between two individuals

representing their respective companies (e.g.,

buyer/seller, buyer/retailer, retailer/seller, etc.). Inter-

organizational trust refers to the relationship between

two organizations and was recognized and differen-

tiated from interpersonal trust in B-to-B only in the

1990s (Doney and Canon, 1997; Ganesan and Hess,

1997; Zaheer et al., 1998). The empirical studies by



5/21

Ganesan and Hess (1997) provide an initial insight

into how buyers distinguish the two levels of trust:

trust in the seller (interpersonal trust) and trust in the

company (inter-organizational trust). Similarly,

Doney and Cannon (1997) show that interpersonal

trust and inter-organizational trust are two very dis-tinct, though interlinked, constructs that mutually

influence each other.

In the same vein, Zaheer et al. (1998) analyze the

relationship between the two levels of trust. They

show that these levels play distinct roles and have

different relations with other constructs: interperso-

nal trust is a key factor in the construction of inter-

organizational trust, even though it has a smaller

impact on the results of the exchange. Other studies

(Payan, 2006; Liu et al., 2008) confirm the distinc-

tion between the two levels of trust and their link

with other constructs such as commitment, depen-dency and conflict. We note, moreover, that authors

discussing the inter-organizational level define trust

as a psychological state (Aulakh et al., 1996; Sako

and Helper, 1998) and that those studying the inter-

personal level are more oriented toward conceptions of

trust based as much on expectations and beliefs as on

trusting behavior (Crosby et al., 1990; Anderson and

Narus, 1990; Strutton et al., 1996).

As regards the stages of development of trust,

most researchers (Geyskens et al., 1998; Dyer and

Chu, 2000, Seppanen et al., 2007) recognize the evo-lutionary aspect of this concept, though without

incorporating it into their work.

In fact, sociological studies (Rempel et al., 1985;

Shapiro et al., 1992; Lewicki and Bunker, 1995;

1996) have allowed this development to be more

clearly defined. Despite their theoretical orientation,

such studies have the merit of underlining the trans-

formation of trust according to the different stages of a

relationship.

Insofar as B-to-B buyer/seller relations take place

over time and put not only organizational factors to

the test but also and especially human factors

(contact personnel), we think that these authors fin-

dings can be profitably deployed in B-to-B marke-

ting. In this area, the way trust is conceptualized is

strongly influenced by the stage of the relational pro-

cess in which it occurs: trust means something very

different according to whether the relationship is in

an early stage or at more advanced stage, following

several years of collaboration between the partners.

Finally, to summarize how the conceptualization of

trust has evolved, it should be noted that the analytical

effort has intensified as the interest expressed in this

concept by researchers and practitioners has grown.

We now propose to identify three stages in the

conceptualization of trust. The first stage, whichbegan in the mid-1980s (in particular with the work of

Swan et al., in 1985), addresses the role of trust in

exchange relationships and the definition of the

concept in the different areas of marketing (negotia-

tion, selling, marketing, partnerships and alliances, e-

commerce).

The second stage began in the late 1990s and was

characterized by a growing interest in the differentia-

tion of the two levels of trust (interpersonal and inter-

organizational), thus revealing the distinctive features

of each level. The third stage, starting in the 2000s,

saw the beginnings of a research orientation towardthe distinction between the cognitive and affective

forms of trust.

MODELING TRUST

Since the incorporation of trust into the differentmarketing specialties, three analytic perspectives

have been favored. The first, focused on explaining

the causes of trust, has endeavored to identify its

antecedents (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Dyer and

Chu, 2000); the second is represented by researchers

seeking a better understanding of its role and to iden-

tify its consequences (Schurr and Ozanne, 1985;

Lagace and Marshall, 1994; Ruyter et al., 2001); and

the third perspective, adopted by many researchers,

has attempted to unify the two previous perspectives

into a global approach incorporating both the antece-

dents and consequences of trust (Morgan and Hunt,1994; Ganesan, 1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997).

The antecedents of trust

A review of the literature on trust reveals a diversity in

the analysis of its antecedents (Fenneteau and Guibert,

1997; Geyskens et al., 1998; Seppanen et al., 2007).



6/21


Table 2. Antecedents of trust in B-to-B

Antecedents Authors

Antecedents focused on the individual

Sympathy (+) Swan et al. (1988) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Nicholson et al. (2001)

Ethics (+) Lagace and Gassenheimer (1991) ;Fairness (+) Moore (1998) ; Kumar et al. (1995)Similarity (+) Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Crosby et al. (1990) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ;

Nicholson et al. (2001)Competence (+) Swan et al. (1988); Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Selnes (1998)Expertise, experience (+) Lagace and Gassenheimer (1991) ; Crosby et al. (1990) ; Ganesan and Hess (1997) ;

Belonax et al. (2007)Race, gender (+) Henthorne et al. (1992)Power (+) Doney and Cannon, 1997

Antecedents focused on the company

Reputation (+) Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Anderson and Weitz (1992) ;Sako (1992) ; Ganesan (1994) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Smith and Barclay (1997) ;Liu et al. (2006) ; Keh and Xie (2009)

Size (+) Doney and Cannon (1997)Objectives (+) Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Smith and Barclay (1997)Environnemental uncertainty () Kumar et al. (1995) ; Ganesan and Hess (1997); Geyskens et al. (1998)Performance (+) Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Ruyter et al. (2001) ; Bharadwaj and Matsuno (2006) ;Purchase importance Belonax et al. (2007)Market orientation (+) Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Siguaw et al. (1998) ; Zhao and Cavusgil (2006) ; NevinsShort-term orientation () and Money (2008)Similarity, cultural sensitivity,cultural context (+) Liu et al. (2008) ; Nevins and Money (2008) ; Lohtia et al. (2009)

Antecedents focused on the relationship

Duration of the relationship, Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Ganesan (1994) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Aulakh et al.age of the relationship (+) (1996) ; Dyer and Chu, 2000 ; Liu et al. (2008)Cooperation (+) Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Crosby et al. (1990) ; Guibert (1996) ; Ruyter et al. (2001)

Dependency, interdependence, Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Moorman et al. (1993) ; Kumar et al. (1995) ; Geyskenspower (+) et al. (1998) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Nicholson et al. (2001) ; Handfield

and Bechtel (2002) ; Leonidas et al. (2008)Economic results; satisfaction Ganesan (1994) ; Guibert (1996) ; Ganesan and Hess (1997) ; Geyskens et al. (1998) ;linked to previous results, Ruyter et al. (2001) ; Miyamoto and Rexha (2004) ; Gao et al. (2005) ; Ryu et al.prices and competences; (2007) ; Leonidas et al. (2008)performance (+)Conflicts () Moore (1998) ; Ruyter et al. (2001) ; Leonidas et al. (2008)Control () Aulakh et al. (1996) ; Smith and Barclay (1997)Continuity (+) Aulakh et al. (1996) ; Dyer and Chu (2000)Commitment (+) Moore (1998) ; Miyamoto and Rexha (2004) ; Gao et al. (2005)Flexibility (+) Aulakh et al. (1996)Relationnal standards (+) Ryu et al. (2007)Communication, information Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Morgan and Hunt (1994) ;

exchange (+) Aulakh et al. (1996) ; Guibert (1996) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Geyskens et al.(1998) ; Moore (1998) ; Selnes (1998) ; Ruyter et al. (2001) ; Friman et al. (2002)

Opportunism () Morgan and Hunt (1994) ; Friman et al. (2002) ; Brashear et al. (2003)Shared values, similarity (+) Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Crosby et al. (1990) ; Morgan and Hunt (1994) ; Guibert

(1996) ; Nicholson et al. (2000) ; Friman et al. (2002) ; Brashear et al. (2003) ; Liu et al.(2008)

Interaction frequency, Crosby et al. (1990) ; Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Dyer and Chu (2000) ; Nicholson et al.proactive behaviour (+) (2001)

(+) :positive effect () : negative effect


7/21


Three antecedent categories emerge from Table 2:

characteristics centered on the (individual) seller,

characteristics centered on the company, and charac-

teristics centered on the relationship.

The category associated with the individual, used

in the context of interpersonal trust and particularlyin the area of sales, concerns the moral, technical and

relational characteristics of the companys represen-

tative.

The moral aspects comprise the partners fairness

and ethics. They refer to the behavior of the companys

representative, in relation to the codes and rules of

conduct established by his organization.

Furthermore, the technical characteristics, covering

the representatives competence and expertise, have

been approached in various ways in the study of trust

(Swan et al., 1988; Crosby et al., 1990 and Selnes,

1998). Whereas competence is viewed by someauthors (Crosby et al., 1990; Doney and Cannon,

1997) as an antecedent of trust, other authors see it as

an integral part of the concept (Smith and Barclay,

1997). Finally, the relational aspects include the

notions of sympathy and courtesy, which cover both

the spontaneous positive feeling and the emotional

and affective attachment felt by one partner for the

other.

The characteristics of the company have in parti-

cular been studied through inter-organizational trust

(in the area of alliances and customer/supplier rela-tions), where reputation is the most significant

variable. Facilitating the emergence of trust between

two organizations that have never previously interac-

ted, reputation has been used in different ways by

researchers. Ganesan (1994) and Doney and Cannon

(1997) maintain that this notion acts on the sellers

credibility in a positive way, whereas Sako (1992)

focuses more on another type of reputation, linked to

the organizations competence.

Considered to be determinants of both interperso-

nal and inter-organizational trust, the characteristics

of the relationship include several components: the

nature of the exchange (dependency, duration, conti-

nuity and centralization), the quality of the relationship

(communication, frequency of interaction, satisfac-

tion linked to previous results, shared values, flexibi-

lity) and the partners behavior (opportunism,

conflicts, investment in the relationship).

In terms of the quality of the relationship, com-

munication and shared values are generally prepon-

derant (Ashwin, 2009) and are the determinants of

trust that have been most studied in B-to-B. A number

of studies (Aulakh et al., 1996; Doney and Cannon,

1997; Selnes, 1998; Ruyter et al., 2001) have indeed

empirically demonstrated the existence of a positive

relationship between communication and trust. Therecent meta-analysis by Palmatier et al. (2007) corro-

borates the findings of previous studies: communica-

tion has the highest relative impact. However, in our

opinion, this relationship still raises important ques-

tions since, on the one hand, some researchers conti-

nue to view communication as an antecedent of trust

(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Morgan and Hunt,

1994), while others see it as the consequence of trust

(Geyskens et al., 1996; Ruyter et al., 2001).

Furthermore, rather different aspects of communica-

tion have been taken into account to explain trust.Anderson and Narus (1990), for example, use the

quality of the formal exchange of information;

Moorman et al. (1993) emphasize the speed of

exchange of information; and Morgan and Hunt

(1994) stress the importance of the frequency and the

quality of communication. As regards the positive

link between shared values representing the funda-

mental beliefs and practices in peoples behavior

and trust, a consensus appears clearly to be emerging

among researchers.

The consequences of trust

The majority of studies show the positive effect

of the consequences of trust on the relationship

(Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Ganesan, 1994; Geyskens et

al., 1998; Smith and Barclay, 1997; Doney and

Cannon, 1997). Nevertheless, there is disagreement

as to which variables are the most significant for ope-

rationalizing them.

In the analysis of trust in B-to-B marketing, wedistinguish two categories of consequences:

On the one hand, relational consequences, used

frequently by researchers: the prospects for the

relationship (continuity, commitment, orienta-

tion), the behavior of the partners (cooperation,

opportunism, conflicts) and the quality of the

relationship (communication, coordination,

satisfaction);


8/21

On the other hand, economic consequences

much less taken into account by researchers

based on the evaluation of the relationship.

These include the companys performance

(negotiation cost, transaction cost) and the

increase in its sales (effectiveness of sales, pur-chasing intention and use of the products).

In addition, relational variables such as commit-

ment, continuity of the relationship and satisfaction

have also been treated as direct consequences of trust

(Ganesan, 1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997; Geyskens et

al., 1998; Zhao and Cavusgil, 2006).

Commitment, considered in relational marketing

to be a determining factor in the customer/supplier

relationship, (Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan and Hunt,

1994; Wilson, 1995), has been associated with a rela-

tionship based on trust. Initially defined as a wish tomaintain a long-term relationship (Dwyer et al.,

1987; Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Moorman et al.,

1992), the concept of commitment has been given

two meanings, sometimes being described as an eco-

nomic constraint that entails consenting to personal

efforts (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and sometimes as

an attachment freed from all other constraints.

While the trust-commitment link has been confir-

med by a majority of authors, the literature also

reveals contradictions as to its nature. Whereasauthors such as Anderson and Weitz (1989) and

Morgan and Hunt (1994) see trust as having an overall

effect on commitment, Ganesan and Hess (1997)

argue for a differentiated effect depending on the

levels of trust interpersonal (buyer/seller) and orga-

nizational (buying company and selling company)

and/or the dimensions (goodwill and credibility).

Moreover, as for the concept of communication,

commitment has been understood as the consequence

of trust (Andaleeb, 1992; Ganesan, 1994; Selnes,

1998; Flaherty et al., 2000) as well as its antecedent

(Moore, 1998; Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004).Similarly, the continuity of the relationship denoted

by orientation toward the long term (Ganesan, 1994;

Geyskens et al., 1998; Anderson and Weitz, 1989),

the expectation of continuity (Kumar et al., 1995), or


Table 3. Consequences of trust in B-to-B

Relational consequences Authors

Conflict resolution (+) Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Morgan and Hunt (1994)Conflicts () Zaheer et al. (1998)Satisfaction (+) Anderson and Narus (1990) ; Andaleeb (1992) ; Lagace and Gassenheimer (1991) ;

Lagace and Marshall (1994) ; Smith and Barclay (1997) ; Geyskens et al. (1998) ;Flaherty et al. (2000) ; Brashear et al. (2003)Communication (+) Geyskens et al. (1996) ; Ganesan and Hess (1997) Moore (1998) ; Ruyter et al. (2001) ;

Gounaris (2005) ; Leonidas et al. (2008)Commitment (+) Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Moorman et al. (1992) ; Andaleeb (1992) ; Ganesan

(1994) ; Selnes (1998) ; Geyskens et al. (1998) ; Flaherty et al. (2000) ; Friman et al.(2002) ; Kingshott et al. (2006) ; Zhao and Cavusgil (2006) ; Ryu et al. (2007) ;Leonidou et al. (2008) ; Keh and Xie (2009)

Continuity and long-term Anderson and Weitz (1989) ; Morgan and Hunt (1994) ; Andaleeb (1995) ; Selnes (1998) ;orientation (+) Heweand and O Bearden (2001) ; Brashear et al. (2003)Cooperation (+) Andaleeb (1995)Opportunism () Smith and Barclay (1997)Integration (+) Johnson et al. (1996) ; Heweand and O Bearden (2001)Involvement (+) Moorman et al. (1992)

Control () Andaleeb (1995)Loyalty intention (+) Ruyter et al. (2001)

Economic consequences Authors

Performance (+) Dahkstrom and Nygaard (1995) ; Aulakh et al. (1996) ; Smith and Barclay (1997) ; Sako(1997) ; Dion (1991) ; Easterling and Miller (1995) ; Heweand and O Bearden (2001) ;Kwaku and Li (2002) ; Nevin and Money (2008)

Sales efficiency (+) Crosby et al. (1990) ; Plank et al. (1999)Choice and purchase intention (+) Doney and Cannon (1997) ; Sharma, (1990) ; Keh and Xie (2009)Product use (+) Lagace and Marshall (1994)Negotiation cost () Zaheer et al. (1998)


9/21

the wish to continue (Andaleeb, 1992) has been vie-

wed as the outcome of a relationship founded on

trust (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Geyskens et al.,

1998). Garbarino and Johnson (1999) have opted for

the triptych trust/commitment/satisfaction, which

they see as the dimensions of the customer/supplierrelational quality, and conclude that this has a posi-

tive effect on maintaining the relationship.

We should emphasize that the link between trust

and satisfaction is long established (Morgan and

Hunt, 1994). However, the causal link between the

two constructs still remains controversial.

Satisfaction is sometimes viewed as the antecedent of

trust, and associated with previous results, profitability

and product performance (Ganesan, 1994; Morgan

and Hunt, 1994). It is also sometimes seen as the

consequence of trust and deriving from the sum total

of the experiences undergone during the relationship(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Geyskens et al., 1998;

Brashear et al., 2003).

Following this taxonomy of the antecedents and

consequences of trust, two key points emerge and

merit attention: first, the large number of variables

characterizing trust and the confusion among them,

and second, the type of variables used in B-to-B

research.

In regard to the first point, this heterogeneity, like

the various definitions of trust, is justified by the

diversity of application contexts, the different levelsof trust and the dynamic aspect of this concept.

Indeed, the many contexts studied in B-to-B research

(industry, services, retail and sales) have resulted in

this wide range of trust characteristics. For example, in

the area of sales, emphasis is placed on the sellers

behavior; in retail, the characteristics of the exchange

and the quality of the relationship are seen as determi-

nants of trust; and in alliances and networks, the

authors concerned introduce variables characterizing

the exchange environment. Similarly, the two levels

of trust have given rise to further explanatory

variables linked respectively to the characteristics of

the supplying company, of the relationship with the

supplier, of the sellers profile and of the relationship

with the seller. Some studies (Doney and Cannon,

1997; Liu et al., 2008) have attempted to demonstrate

the distinction between the antecedents of these two

levels of trust. Doney and Cannon (1997) link inter-

organizational trust with reputation, the size of the

supplier and its capacity to adapt to its customers,

and link the creation of interpersonal trust to the

salespersons competence, his sympathy, his points

in common with the customer and the frequency of

interactions. However, many authors fail to mention

the level of trust being studied, which makes the

structuring of the different models of trust difficult.This confusion may be attributable to the static

approach to trust adopted by most authors, while in

fact trust is a dynamic process that evolves, changes its

character over time and is characterized by recipro-

city. Thus, variables such as satisfaction, communi-

cation, commitment and continuity are positioned in

various ways in the different models.

Even if the authors do not specify the stage of the

relationship at the time of data collection, it is our

opinion that the specifications adopted of these

variables such as calculated commitment, overall

satisfaction, the frequency and rapidity of communi-cation and long-term orientation are the conse-

quences of the trust perceived solely by one of the

partners, in the case of a relationship occurring at the

beginning of the exchange process. Other specifica-

tions such as affective commitment, satisfaction linked

to previous results, the quality and the transparency

of communication and the expectation of continuity

can be viewed as the antecedents of another form of

trust perceived by both partners, in the case of a rela-

tionship that is at an advanced stage.

Consequently, it becomes essential, while speci-fying the level of confidence being studied, to adopt a

dynamic approach that will allow the evolution of the

concept of trust in a broader temporal perspective to be

a perceived. Doing so will help clarify the conceptua-

lization and justify appropriately the use of the ante-

cedents and consequences of trust. We shall return

later and in more detail to this approach.

In regard to the second point, most studies use

sociological variables in their modeling of trust

(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Dyer and Chu, 2000;

Leonidas et al., 2008), while economic explanations

remain largely marginal. Although this approach can, a

priori, be justified in the context of friendly or amo-

rous relationships, the exclusive use of predomi-

nantly cognitive variables taken from psychosocio-

logy in the analysis of the antecedents of trust in

B-to-B may prove to be insufficient. Indeed, without

denying the importance of sociological aspects in

dealings between companies, we think that reference

to the interests of the two actors, who are pursuing



10/21

economic objectives, cannot be ignored. At this

point, a question arises: why have researchers excluded

from their analyses variables such as profit, specific

investment or economic performance?

While it is true that Williamson (1993) views

exchange as the result of a strict calculus andexcludes the use of the notion of trust in the commer-

cial relationship particularly because of the opportu-

nism of economic actors, it is no less true that this

approach has been challenged by other economists

(Orlan 1994; Coriat and Guennif, 1996) who stress

the perfect compatibility of trust with the advantage or

profit that the agent expects to obtain from the colla-

boration. In this sense, the models proposed by

Dasgupta (1988) and Kreps (1990), which account

for the initial emergence of trust through reputation

and cooperation, make a significant contribution to

explaining the rational dimension of trust.While recognizing the limitations of these

models, particularly for understanding the affective

form of trust, we believe, following Fenneteau

(1998), that this approach based on mutual identifica-

tion can contribute to the deepening of marketing

models by incorporating the specific investments

made by companies to generate trust or to acquire

sufficient knowledge of their partners interests.

MEASUREMENT OF TRUST

In order to measure trust, most studies (Morgan

and Hunt, 1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997;

Nicholson et al., 2001; Ryu et al., 2007) adopt a

cross-sectional static approach. They invariably use

questionnaires with measurement scales and often

question customers.

Measurement scales

The literature reveals the existence of a wide

spectrum of measurement tools for trust, reflecting

the conceptual vagueness referred to earlier. We dis-

tinguish two types of measurement scales: global

measures and multidimensional measures. Global

measures were used at the outset by a number of

researchers (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Crosby et

al., 1990; Moorman et al., 1992) and are currently

acquiring renewed interest. Most of these scales are

multi-item, including several dimensions of trust,such as goodwill and honesty. Some single-item

scales measuring the level of trust have also been

used (Selnes, 1998), but suffer from poor psychometric

qualities.

Multidimensional measures made their appea-

rance in the mid-1990s. These scales basically cap-

ture the characteristics of the reliable individual, such

as goodwill, honesty and credibility precisely the

dimensions often favored by B-to-B marketing

researchers. Honesty, viewed as the basic quality of

someone meriting trust, corresponds to belief that

the trustworthy party is reliable and has high inte-grity (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Goodwill or benevo-

lence, often considered by many authors to be the

affective component of trust (Andaleeb, 1992;

Ganesan, 1994; Kumar et al., 1995, Doney and

Cannon, 1997), refers to the partners motivations

and intentions. Credibility was introduced more

recently (Ganesan, 1994) and denotes both the com-

petence and reliability of the other party.

Other dimensions, such as integrity, competence

or indeed the contract have been validated empiri-

cally (Johnson et al., 1996; Ahmed et al., 1998).Whether the scales be global (Anderson and

Narus, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) or multidi-

mensional (Geyskens et al., 1996; Kumar et al.,

1995), most of them were inspired by studies in

social psychology, in particular the scales developed

by Larzelere and Huston (1980) and by Rempel et al.

(1985) in relation to interpersonal trust between hus-

band and wife. The partial transposition of these

measures to the inter-company context has led to

confusion, since these measurement tools are based

more on a cognitive definition of trust that only takes

account of belief in the partners moral qualities (res-

pectively, belief in their benevolence and honesty for

Larzelere and Huston 1980 and belief in their predic-

tability, reliability and faith for Rempel et al., 1985).

Furthermore, for a long time confusion persisted

around the level of analysis of trust. Inter-organiza-

tional trust was mostly measured by means of inter-

personal trust scales and vice versa. This limitation,

pointed out by such authors as Zaheer et al. (1998)



11/21

and Korczynski (2000), has now been overcome,

since studies conducted in the late 1990s confirm this

separability and argue in favor of a systematic dis-

tinction, both operational and conceptual, between

the two levels of trust.

The party questioned

The people questioned are often customers in

contact with suppliers, for instance the purchasing

manager (Zaheer et al., 1998; Miyamoto and Rexha,

2004; Ryu et al., 2007) or the buyer (Chow and

Holden, 1997; Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2002) in

industrial companies, or the retail buyer (Ganesan,

1994; Ganesan and Hess, 1997) or dealer (Kumar et

al., 1995; Flaherty et al., 2000) in the retail sector.

Members of the companys management (Tellefsenand Thomas, 2005) or marketing managers in the ser-

vice sector (Hewett and Bearden, 2001) have also

sometimes been approached by researchers to answer

questions about inter-organizational trust.

The viewpoint adopted (key source)

In general, studies of trust adopt a monadic

approach (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Guibert, 1996;

Nicholson et al., 2001). Yet, in the exchange relation,

the perceptions and opinions of the two parties of the

dyad are also important, since there may be diver-

gences of viewpoint. As Ganesan (1994) shows, the

retailers perception of the sellers reliability is diffe-

rent from the sellers perception of the retailers relia-

bility. The retailer looks to the reputation and fairness

of the seller to determine his reliability, whereas theseller is more inclined to favor internal parameters

such as satisfaction in relation to previous dealings. It

is therefore necessary to develop a dyadic approach

to trust that allows opinions to be compared. Thus,

Zhao and Cavusgil (2006) have measured the percep-

tions of the two parties using a dyadic approach

based on data from two separate surveys. In the first

survey, the manufacturer answered questions about a

specific supplier, who was in turn questioned in a

second survey. These authors showed that the sup-

pliers behavior increases the manufacturers trust in

the supplier (according to a trust-building principle)and that mutual trust (reciprocity) in the exchange

relation increases the probability of a long-term

orientation on the part of the manufacturer in favor of

that supplier.

In fact, such reciprocity has long been the subject

of management studies (Butler, 1983, Ring and Van de

Ven, 1992). It was identified as a necessary condition

for the strengthening of trust by creating a virtuous

circle, formulated by Das and Teng (1998) as: I trust

because you trust. It is thus a matter of an interde-

pendence that reduces opportunistic behavior and

creates a dynamic relationship.


Table 4. Measurement scales of interpersonal trust and inter-organizational trust

Authors Number of items Reliability

Ganesan et Hess (1997) Interpersonal trust: (Credibility: 7 items, Credibility : 0, 72Goodwill: 6 items) Goodwill : 0, 91Inter-organisational trust: (Credibility: 4 items, Credibility : 0, 75Goodwill: 4 items) Goodwill : 0, 87

Doney et Cannon (1997) Interpersonal trust: 7 items : 0, 90Inter-organisational trust: 8 items : 0, 94

Chow et Holden (1997) Interpersonal trust: 3 items

: 0, 87Inter-organisational trust: 3 items : 0, 81

Zaheer et al. (1998) Interpersonal trust: 5 items : 0, 766Inter-organisational trust: 5 items : 0, 879

Tellefsen et Thomas (2005) Interpersonal trust: 4 items : 0, 83Inter-organisational trust: 3 items : 0, 81

Payan (2006) Interpersonal trust: 3 items : 0, 86Inter-organisational trust: 3 items : 0, 78

Liu et al. (2008) Interpersonal trust: 4 items : 0, 80Inter-organisational trust: 4 items : 0, 86


12/21

Further, the great majority of studies (Anderson

and Narus, 1990; Kumar et al., 1995; Ruyter et al.,

2001) use the viewpoint of one person in the com-

pany (usually the buyer, purchasing manager or a

member of the companys management board),

which can reduce the validity and general applicabilityof the findings (Ernst and Teichert, 1998). The use of

the multitrait and multimethod approach (Campbell

and Fiske, 1959), which involves measuring separate

constructs (such as trust, commitment and satisfac-

tion) with the aid of two or more different methods,

can, if implemented using real-time data collection

(See pp. 20-21), reduce bias in measuring trust.

Indeed, this data collection method based on a classi-

fication of respondents (having similar profiles and

belonging to comparable companies) according to

the same stages of the relationship allows the conver-

gence/divergence of the perceptions of severalrespondents participating in different relational

stages to be assessed.

Similarly, studies rarely mention the characteristics

of respondents and their capacity to answer the ques-

tions put to them, in particular for studies concerned

with inter-organizational trust (Seppanen et al.,

2007). Are these respondents capable of speaking

objectively on behalf of the company? Are they in a

close relationship with the other party? Some

authors, including Ryu et al. (2007) and Liu et al.

(2008), have admittedly tried to check their respon-

dents competences by introducing questions on the

length of the relationship and the informers expe-

rience and by auto-evaluation of their knowledge of

the supplier through a Likert scale. However, as Jap

(1999) emphasizes, a more rigorous examination of

respondents capacities and experience before sen-

ding out the questionnaire is in our opinion essential.

The reliability and validity of responses could be

improved, on the one hand, by combining global

selection criteria such as the respondents length of

time with the company and in the present job, the

duration of the interaction with the supplier and thedegree of involvement in decision making, with speci-

fic criteria such as his predisposition to trust or his

knowledge of the issues in question and, on the other

hand, by including members of management in the

selection process.

The study context

With a few exceptions, (Smith and Barclay, 1997;

Gounaris, 2005; Guibert, 1999; Coote et al., 2003), the

published studies have often been carried out in an

exclusively national context (i.e., the United States).Very few studies have taken account of cultural diffe-

rences in perceptions of intercompany trust at an inter-

national level (Sako and Helper, 1998; Dyer and Chu,

2000). In a cross-cultural and multicultural study

(concerned with French-German relations), Usunier

(2000) confirms the existence of national differences

between the Germans and the French in the perception of

suppliers reliability the level of trust is higher bet-

ween German customers and suppliers than between

French customers and suppliers. In the context of a

similar problematic and by drawing on national studies

implemented at the same time in the United States and

Japan, Kim et al. (2009) showed the influence of the

cultural context on retailers perceptions of a loss of

control to the advantage of their suppliers.

The inclusion of cultural specificities and adap-

ting measurement scales according to the resear-

chers country will allow errors to be avoided in mea-

suring trust. Furthermore, the industrial sector has

long been favored by researchers in studies on trust.

Although in the early 1990s a single sector was often

used as the field of study (Morgan and Hunt, 1994;

Kumar et al., 1995), progress has since been made.Currently, research is carried out with companies

belonging to sectors as varied as automobiles, IT,

electric power, metallurgy, etc. (Miyamoto and

Rexha, 2004; Ryu et al., 2007). We should point out,

however, that very little information is provided

about these sectors (environmental uncertainty) or

the characteristics of the companies selected (work

force, products, recency, duration of the relationship,

etc.). This lack of precision makes any intersectoral

comparison difficult and therefore limits the generali-

zation of the empirical findings.

Whatever the difficulties mentioned, the prolife-

ration of studies in different cultural contexts and/or

presenting varied (high-low) risks tends to improve

our understanding of trust. In this perspective, some

authors (Seppanen et al., 2007; Palmatier et al.,

2007) rightly recommend that particular attention be

paid to the service sector, an area where there is a

perception of high risk and a marked need for reassu-

rance among customers.



13/21

CONCLUSION

Over the past twenty years, trust has become a

significant area of marketing research. Nevertheless,study of this concept still suffers from too many

shortcomings and unresolved issues. As well as the

difficulties mentioned earlier, we would emphasize

in particular two main pitfalls hampering the emer-

gence of a dynamic, integrated view of trust. The first

of these concerns the omission of the temporal

aspect, and the second the absence of the affective

dimension in existing conceptualizations.

The dynamic approach

Despite general recognition that trust changes

over time, the dynamic approach has attracted little

attention from marketing researchers. Most empirical

studies in B-to-B marketing continue treating trust

from a static, transversal perspective.

The dynamic approach to trust has been more in

evidence in social psychology and sociology through

the identification of its stages of development

(Gabarro, 1978; Rempel et al., 1985; Shapiro et al.,

1992; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996). The studiesconcerned report a clear change in trust and its ante-

cedents according to the stages of the relationship,

and throw considerable light on how trust develops.

The study by Rempel et al. (1985), based on attri-

bution theory, reveals the existence of three forms of

trust that develop over time, which they term predic-

tability, dependability and faith in. However,

the authors focus more on individual relationships, as

they rely on predictability of behavior and dismiss

any notion of risk in the dynamic approach they

adopt.

The studies by Shapiro et al. (1992) and Lewicki

and Bunker (1996) are, in our view, more suited to

commercial relationships in an industrial context.

These provide a typology of the development of trust

that incorporates risk and uncertainty and offers a

view of trust progressively following distinct stages.

The authors emphasize three types of trust, viewed as

interdependent in the sense that the emergence of

each stage is made possible by the accomplishment

of the preceding stage. (i) Trust based on calculation is

the first stage in the formation of trust in a relationship

and results from a comparison of the hoped-for gains if

the relationship is successful and the costs involved

in maintaining the relationship. (ii) Trust based on

knowledge takes account of the two parties know-ledge of each other. Built up from information and

through interaction between the individuals concer-

ned, it enables each party to predict the future behavior

of the other party. Finally (iii), trust based on identifi-

cation occurs when the two parties begin to like each

other and share the same values and expectations. In

this stage, the partners are able to understand and

predict each others behavior, and act taking account of

the interests, concerns and needs of their exchange

partner.

It should be underlined that these studies, which

are among the few to have incorporated the evolvingand many-sided character of trust, allow us to

understand better the emergence and development of

trust. They also shed light on its strongest and most

advanced form, which has certain similarities with

trust based on identification in that it corresponds to an

evaluation of mutual knowledge leading to strong

emotional links.

Nevertheless, although these studies help us to

identify forms of trust according to the stages of the

relationship, they provide no information about the

relational stages used in this research. What are thesestages? What are their characteristics? What are the

factors enabling one stage to lead on to the next?

To go straight to the point, we would raise two

main questions that have still been barely addressed in

this dynamic approach to trust. The first concerns the

identification of the stage of development of the rela-

tionship, and the second is associated with the empiri-

cal analysis of trust.

In regard to the first point, we believe that other

conceptual frameworks can be deployed, for example

the analysis of the relationships life cycle used by

Dwyer et al. (1987) or the scale developed by Jap

and Ganesan (2000). According to these authors, the

B-to-B exchange relationship comprises five stages:

awareness, exploration, expansion, maintenance and

dissolution. Awareness is expressed by the desire to

enter into an exchange relationship with a particular

partner. The exploration stage allows the partners to

find and test each other by mutually assessing their

respective capacities and advantages. The expansion



14/21


15/21

Affective trust, a concept very close to trust

based on identification, occurs in the stage of main-

tenance of the relationship. Situated at the other end of

the continuum, it is based on similarity, shared values

and standards, and loyalty between the partners. It is

thus characterized by the primacy of personal or evenemotional links, and by long-term orientation.

Between the two extremes is cognitive trust, cor-

responding to a combination of transactional and

relational elements, which is expressed by personal

expectations and/or beliefs. This form of trust, ter-

med trust based on knowledge by Lewicki and

Bunker (1996), is largely based on internal information

that aims to enhance the predictability of the other

party. It is characterized by communication, informa-

tion exchange and conflict resolution.

As well as these three forms of trust, we view

trusting behavior both as the consequence of trustand as a factor reinforcing it. Its main dimensions are

investment in the relationship, and reduced monito-

ring and openness in communication. It should be

noted here that these dimensions also represent the

consequences of cognitive trust, but to a lesser

extent.

As regards trusting behavior resulting from calcu-

lated trust, we believe it is limited to a decrease in

opportunism. In addition, factors such as the relation-

ship context (the content of the exchange, the level

being studied, and the type of relationship) and theindividual and organizational characteristics of the

two participants (customer/supplier) could be seen as

moderating variables of these different forms of trust.

This classification needs to be further explored

and confirmed, especially as it is situated within the

line of research arguing that the move from cognitive

trust to affective trust involves a greater degree of

trust in the relationship (Lewis and Weigert, 1985).

McAllister (1995) recognizes the pre-eminence of

cognitive confidence at the start of the relationship.

However, once the relationship has developed

and its emotional basis has been strengthened,

cognitive trust would then be incidental and secon-

dary.

As regards data collection methodology, although

longitudinal studies are a suitable tool for understan-

ding the development of trust according to the stages

of the relationship, it seems that this methodology

has been little used because of the difficulties asso-

ciated with data collection over very long periods.

To overcome these methodological limitations,

we prefer an alternative method consisting of collec-

ting all the data in real time at a given moment. More

specifically, it first involves, when the questionnaire is

distributed, allocating each respondent to a particular

stage of the relationship. To do this, a brief descriptionof each stage should be given to the respondents so

that they can decide for themselves which stage they

are in (in the context of their relations with sup-

pliers).

In a second step, this information should be classi-

fied according to the stages of the relationship so as to

facilitate the implementation of a longitudinal analysis

(Anderson, 1995). This approach has been success-

fully tested by Eggert et al. (2006) in the study of

value creation in B-to-B customer-supplier relation-

ships. To process the data, multi-group analysis

(three groups corresponding to the three stages of therelationship) using structural equation models (with

different variables at each stage) could be applied.

Thus, the study of trust within a dynamic pers-

pective would enable us first to provide answers to

questions around the links between the concept of

trust and certain variables (communication, commit-

ment, satisfaction and continuity). It should then elu-

cidate the different meanings of trust and clarify its

status by distinguishing its various forms while speci-

fying the role of trust in each stage of the relation-

ship.From a managerial standpoint, this approach

should help managers to better understand the trust

creation process and provide them with valuable

information for monitoring the evolution of their

relationships with their suppliers.

The affective aspect

A consensus seems to be emerging among resear-

chers for looking at the affective basis of trust in a

different, though complementary, way from its

cognitive basis (Ganesan, 1994; Doney and Cannon,

1997; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). However, while

the cognitive basis has long been the subject of

extensive research and has been defined as the

assessment of the reliability of the trustee or the

beliefs or perceptions in relation to him, the affective

basis, on the other hand, variously referred to as

relational trust (Rousseau et al., 1998) or partner



16/21

trust (Ratnasingam et al., 2004), merits further

investigation.

In marketing, the need to explore the affective

form is answered by the findings of studies that

reveal the presence of non-economic aspects such as

feelings, atmosphere or positive emotions seen asimportant for the establishing, sustainability and

consolidation of the customer/supplier relationship.

Cova and Salle (2000) stress that the reciprocity of

interests of the two parties to the exchange allow an

atmosphere to be created, over time, conducive to

maintaining the relationship, a sort of emotional

superstructure having a positive impact on the custo-

mer/supplier relationship. In the context of strained

relations, the work of Ganesan et al. (2010) has

recently highlighted the salience and the boomerang

effect of the affective form of commitment in cases

where the supplier behaves in a flagrantly opportu-nistic way.

It is true that Swan et al. (1988) and Guibert

(1999) have treated trust in B-to-B as a feeling of

security and that Johnson and Grayson (2005) and

Akrout and Akrout (2007) have, for their part, distin-

guished two forms of trust. Nonetheless, apart from

Andersen and Kumars (2006) contribution, there are

still few studies that have explicitly examined the

affective aspect of trust in marketing. At best, this

aspect is represented through belief in the partners

goodwill. This situation probably pertains because,as Vanhamme (2002) points out in regard to a different

topic, we have less control over the affective

aspect than the cognitive aspect and that the

measurement of affective variables is much more

complex.

According to Andersen and Kumar (2006), affec-

tive trust, with its basis of positive emotions, creates a

reciprocal attachment between the buyer and seller

favoring the formation of strong, more durable perso-

nal links. In this situation, one can say that the slightest

weakness in terms of the perceived reliability of the

suppliers products or services could certainly affect

(the more conditional) cognitive trust, but would be

likely to be more easily corrected because affective

trust, without being blind, appears to be more tole-

rant and resilient. Conversely, the more affective trust

is undermined by negative emotions, the more the

cost of repairing the relationship become problema-

tic, thereby augmenting the cost of managing the

relationship and compromising its continuation.

Following the distinction made between interper-

sonal trust and inter-organizational trust, a clear dis-

tinction between the cognitive and affective aspects

is therefore needed. Calculated trust is essential

during the first commercial exchanges, but it remains

superficial and fragile and may quickly be replacedby a more cognitive form. Positive experiences will

confirm that the initial trust is well-founded and thus

contribute to changing the form of this trust as results

accumulate. Rooted in the cognitive base, affective

trust emerges and develops as the exchanges evolve

and the interactions proliferate. The linkage between

the cognitive and affective forms of trust has rarely

been addressed by researchers, probably due to the

inherent limitations of cross-sectional studies, which

do not permit the evolution of the relationship to be

traced. Indeed, the shift from cognitive trust to affec-

tive trust can be lengthy and of indeterminate dura-tion. Furthermore, this shift does not always occur

and in some cases affective trust is never attained. It is

conditioned both by the existence of a certain simila-

rity of values and shared standards between the part-

ners and by the development of trusting behavior

through transparency and the spontaneous exchange

of information on all aspects of the relationship

(Fenneteau and Naro, 2005), reduced monitoring,

and investment in the relationship.

Effective management of affective trust through

mastery of emotions is therefore essential to strengthenand sustain the relationship between buyer and seller.

As the emotional relations gradually deepen, trust in a

partner may exceed what is justified by the cognitive

elements available (cognitive trust). It then creates

friendly attachments conducive to the flourishing of

the relationship.

Driven by positive emotions, affective trust tends

progressively, throughout the stages of the relation-

ship, to replace cognitive trust. This tendency justifies

the use of a dynamic approach in any study of trust in

order to improve understanding of the factors that ini-

tiate, develop, sustain or lead to the dissolution of trus-

ting relationships between customers and suppliers.

Thus, taking into account and coordinating the

affective aspect with other forms of calculated and

cognitive confidence would appear to a promising

route to take for the emergence of an integrative,

temporal view.

Finally, given the economic and financial turmoil

facing the business world, approaches that take



17/21

account of the behavior of all those involved in orga-

nizational exchange will provide managers with

greater clarity and transparency and better solutions.

The study of trust as a lever of the exchange relation-

ship ought to go beyond the traditional view of the

functioning of the channel (focused on the dyadicrelationship). It should also adopt a wider and more

global viewpoint, incorporating the various actors at

both an inter-organizational and intra-organizational

level, thereby forming a network of interpersonal

relationships (Granovetter, 1985). An application is

found in the management of the logistics chain,

where the objective is to integrate the added value

activities of the various links, and where trust is an

essential factor for establishing a framework conducive

to collaboration between all the actors in the chain.

The paper by Fang et al. (2008) stresses the advan-

tage of such a multi-level approach for the study of

trust. This could be a fruitful and intellectually

rewarding path for future research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmed F., Styles C. and Patterson P. (1998), Trust andcommitment in international buyer-seller relationships: adyadic study in Australia and Thailand, 27th

Conference Proceedings, 1, eds., Per Anderson,

Stockholm School of Economics, 131-145.Akrout H. and Akrout W. (2007), Interpersonal trust in

BTB buyer/supplier relationship: An empirical study of

French industrial sector, Proceedings of the 23rd IMPConference: Exploiting the B2B knowledge network:

New perspectives and core concepts, Manchester.Akrout W. and Akrout H. (2010), Relations entre acheteur et

vendeur: les catalyseurs dune confiance durable,Dcisions Marketing, 57, 53-61.

Andaleeb S.S. (1992), The trust concept: research issuesfor channels of distribution,Research in Marketing, 11,

1-11.Andaleeb S.S. (1995), Dependence relations and the mode-

rating role of trust implications for behavioral inten-tions in marketing channels, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, 12, 157-172.

Andaleeb S.S. (1996), An experimental investigation ofsatisfaction and commitment in marketing channels,

the role of trust and dependence, Journal of Retailing,72, 77-93.

Andersen P.H. and Kumar R. (2006), Emotions, trust andrelationship development in business relationships: Aconceptual model for buyer-seller dyads, IndustrialMarketing Management, 35, 522-535.

Anderson E. and Weitz B.A. (1989), Determinants ofcontinuity in conventional industrial channel dyads,

Marketing Science, 8 (4), 310-323.Anderson E. and Weitz B.A. (1992), The use of pledges tobuild and sustain commitment in distribution channels,Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 18-34.

Anderson J.C. (1995), Relationships in business markets:exchange episodes, value creation, and their empiricalassessment, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 23(4), 364-50.

Anderson J.C. and Narus J. (1990), Model of distributorfirm and manufacturer firm working partner,Journal ofMarketing, 54, 42-58.

Ashwin W.J. (2009), Continuous Supplier PerformanceImprovement: Effect of Collaboration, Communicationand Control,Journal of Marketing, 73, 1, 133-150.

Atuahene-Gima K. and Li H. (2002), When Does TrustMatter? Antecedents and Contingent Effects ofSupervisee Trust on Performance in Selling NewProducts in China and the United States, Journal ofMarketing, 66 (July), 61-81.

Aulakh P.S., Kotabe M. and Salay A. (1996), Trust and per-formance in cross-border marketing partnerships: abehavioral approach,Journal of International BusinessStudies, 27, 5 (special issue supplement).

Belonax J.J., Newell S.J. and Plank R.E. (2007), The role ofpurchase importance on Buyer perceptions of the trustand expertise components of Supplier and Salespersoncredibility in Business-to-Business Relationships, TheRole of Purchase Importance on Buyer Perceptions of

the Trust and Expertise Components of Supplier andSalesperson Creditability in Business-to-BusinessRelationships, Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, XXVII, 3 (Summer), 247-258.

Bharadwaj N. and Matsuno K. (2006), Investigation theantecedents and outcomes of customer firm transactioncost savings in a supply chain relationship, Journal ofBusiness Research, 59, 1, 62-72.

Brashear T.G., Boles J.S., Bellenger D.N. and Brooks C.M.(2003), An Empirical Test of Trust-Building Processesand Outcomes in Sales Manager-SalespersonRelationships, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 31, 2, 189-200.

Butler J.K. (1983), Reciprocity of trust between professio-

nals and their secretaries, Psychological Reports, 53,411-416.

Campbell D. T. and Fiske D.W. (1959), Convergent anddiscriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethodmatrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Child J. (2001), Trust: the fundamental bond in globalcollaboration, Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4), 274-288.

Chow S. and Holden R. (1997), Toward an understanding ofloyalty: the moderating role of trust, Journal ofManagerial Issues, 9 (3), 275-298.



18/21


19/21

Gounaris P. (2005), Trust and commitment influences oncustomer retention: insights from business-to-businessservices,Journal of Business Research, 58, 126-140.

Granovetter M.S. (1985), Economic action and socialstructure: The problem of embeddedness, AmericanJournal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481-510.

Guibert N. (1996), La relation client-fournisseur et les nou-velles technologies de linformation : le rle desconcepts de confiance et dengagement, DoctoralDissertation in Management, CREGO-UniversityMontpellier II.

Guibert N. (1999), La confiance en marketing : fondementset applications, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 14, 1, 1-19.

Handfield R.B. and Bechtel Ch. (2002), The role of trustand relationship structure in improving supply-chainresponsiveness,Industrial Marketing Management, 31,367-382.

Hawes J.M., Mast K.E. and Swan J.E. (1989), TrustEarning Perceptions of Sellers and Buyers, Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management, 9 (Spring), 1-8.Henthorne T.L., LaTour M.S. and Williams A.J. (1992),

Initial Impressions in the Organizational Buyer-SellerDyad: Sales Management Implications, Journal ofPersonal Selling & Sales Management, 12, 57-65.

Hewett K. and Bearden W.O. (2001), Dependence, trust,and relational behavior on the part of foreign subsi-diary marketing operations: Implications for managingglobal marketing operations, Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 51-66.

IMP Group. (1982),An Interaction Approach, InternationalMarketing and Purchasing Goods, Chichester, Wiley,10-27.

Jap S.D. (1999), Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration pro-

cesses in buyer-supplier relationships, Journal ofMarketing Research, 36, 4, 461-475.

Jap S.D. and Ganesan S., (2000), Control mechanisms andthe relationship life cycle: implication for safeguardingspecific investments and developing commitment,Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 2, 227-245.

Johnson D. and Grayson K. (2005), Cognitive and affectivetrust in service relationships, Journal of BusinessResearch, 58, 500-507.

Johnson J.L., Cullen J.B., Sakano T. and Takenouchi H.(1996), Setting the stage for trust and strategic integrationin Japanese-US Cooperative Alliances, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Special issue, 981-1004.

Keh H.T. and Xie Y. (2009), Corporate reputation and custo-

mer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identifica-tion and commitment, Industrial MarketingManagement, 38, 732-742.

Kim S.K. Stump R.L. and Oh C. (2009), Driving Forces ofCoordination Costs in Distributor-SupplierRelationship: Toward a Middle-Range Theory,Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 4, 384-399

Kingshott R.P.J. (2006), The impact of psychologicalcontracts upon trust and commitment within supplier-buyer relationships: A social exchange view,IndustrialMarketing Management, 35, 724-739.

Korczynski M. (2000), The political economy of trust, TheJournal of Management Studies, 37, 1, 1-21.

Kreps D.M. (1990), Corporate Culture and EconomicTheory, ed. ALT and Shepsle, Perspective on PositivePolitical Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, 90-143.

Kumar N., Scheer L.K. and Steenkamp J.B. (1995), Theeffects of perceived interdependence on dealer atti-tudes,Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 348-356.

Lagace Rosemary R. and Gassenheimer J.B. (1991), AnExploratory Study of Trust and Suspicion towardSalespeople: Scale Validation and Replication,American Marketing Association Proceedings(Winter), 121-127.

Lagace Rosemary R. and Marshall Greg G. (1994),Buyers Trust of Salespeople: Does It Go Beyond theDyad?, Weilbaker and Ridnour, eds., NationalConference in Sales Management, 44-48.

Larzelere R. and Huston T. (1980), The dyadic trust scale:toward understanding interpersonal trust in close rela-

tionships, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 595-604.

Leonidas L.C., Talias M.A. and Leonidas C. N. (2008),Exercised power as a driver of trust and commitment incross-border industrial buyer-seller relationships,Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 92-103.

Lewicki R.J. and Bunker B.B. (1995), Trust in relation-ships: A model of trust development and decline, EdBunker and Rubin, Conflict and Justice, San Francisco.

Lewicki R.J. and Bunker B.B. (1996), Developing andmaintaining trust in work relationships, in Kramer,R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations:Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, 114-39.

Lewis J.D. and Weigert A. (1985), Trust as a social reality,Social Forces, 63 (4), 967-985.

Liu Y., Li Y., Tao L. and Wang Y. (2008), Relationship stabi-lity, trust and relational risk in marketing channels:Evidence from China, Industrial MarketingManagement, 37, 432-446.

Lohtia R.., Bello D.C. and Porter C.E. (2009), Buildingtrust in US-Japanese business relationships: Mediatingrole of cultural sensitivity, Industrial MarketingManagement, 38, 239-252.

Mayer R.C., Davis J.H. and Schoorman F. D. (1995), AnIntegrative model of organizational trust, Academy ofManagement Review, 20, 709-734.

McAllister D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust

as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organi-zations,Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

McKnight D.H. and Chervany N.L. (2001), What TrustMeans in E-Commerce Customer Relationships: AnInterdisciplinary Conceptual Typology, InternationalJournal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35-59.

McKnight D.H., Cummings L.l., Chervany N.-L. (1998),Initial trust formation in new organizational relation-ships,Academy of Management Review, 23, 473-490.

Miyamoto T. and Rexha N. (2004), Determinants of threefacets of customer trust: a marketing model of



20/21

Japanese buyer-supplier relationship, Journal ofBusiness Research, 57, 3, 312-319.

Moore K.R. (1998), Trust and relationship commitment inlogistics alliances: a buyer perspective, InternationalJournal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34,1, 24-37.

Moorman C., Zaltman G. and Deshpande R. (1992),Relationships between providers and users of marketresearch: the dynamics of trust within and betweenorganizations,Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314-328.

Moorman C., Zaltman G. and Deshpande R. (1993),Factors affecting trust in market research relationship,Journal of Marketing, 57, 81-101.

Morgan R.M. and Hunt S.D. (1994), The commitment-trusttheory of relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing,58, July, 3-16.

Nevins J.L. and Money R.B. (2008), Performance implica-tions of distributor effectiveness, trust, and culture inimport channels of distribution, Industrial Marketing

Management, 37, 46-58.Nicholson C.Y., Compeau L.D. and Rajesh S. (2001), The

role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships,Journal of The Academy ofMarketing Science, 29, 1, 3-15.

Nooteboom B., Berger H. and Noorderhaven N.G. (1997),Effects of trust and governance on relational risk,Academy of Management Journal, 40, 2, 308-338.

Norman, P. M. (2002), Protecting knowledge in strategicalliances: Resource and relational characteristics,Journal of High Technology Management Research,13(2), 177-202.

Orlan A. (1994),Vers un modle gnral de la coordinationconomique par les conventions, Analyse conomique

des conventions, under the direction of Orlan A.,Presse Universitaires de France.

Palmatier R.W., Dant R.P., Grewal D. and Evans R. (2007),Les facteurs qui influencent lefficacit du marketingrelationnel : une mta-analyse, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 22, 1, 79-103.

Payan J.M. (2006), Multiple levels of trust and dependenceon supplier-distributor coordination: an empirical test,Marketing Management Journal, 16 (1), 125-137.

Plank R.E., Reid D.A. and Pullins Bolman E. (1999),Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business Sales: A NewMeasure, Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, XIX, 3, 61-71.

Ratnasingam P. and Pavlou P.A. (2004), Technology Trust in

Internet-Based Interorganizational ElectronicCommerce, Journal of Electronic Commerce inOrganizations, 1(1), 17-41.

Rempel J.B., Holmes J.G. and Zanna M.P. (1985), Trust inclose relationships, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49, 1, 95-112.

Ring P.S., Van de Ven A.H. (1992), Structuring cooperativerelationships between organizations, StrategicManagement Journal, 13, 483-498.

Rousseau D.M., Sitkin S.B., Burt R.S. and Camerer C.(1998), Not so different after all: a cross-discipline

view of trust, Academy of Management Review, 23,393-404.

Ruyter K.D., Moorman L. and Lemmink J. (2001),Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer-sup-plier relationships in high technology markets,Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 271-286.

Ryu S., Park J.E. and Min S. (2007), Factors of determi-ning long-term orientation in inter-firm relationships,Journal of Business Research, 60, 1225-1233.

Sako M. (1992), Price, quality and trust, Inter-firm rela-tions in Britain and Japan, Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sako M. (1997), Prices, Quality and Trust Inter-firmRelations in Britain and Japan, Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press (1st Edition 1992).

Sako M. and Helper S. (1998), Determinant of trust in sup-plier relations: evidence from the automotive industryin Japan and the United States, Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 34, 387-417.

Scheer L.K. and Stern L.W. (1992), The effect of influence

type and performance outcomes on attitude toward theinfluencer,Journal of Marketing Research, (February),128-142.

Schoorman F.D., Mayer R.C. and Davis J H. (2007), Anintegrative model of organizational trust: past, presentand Future, Academy of Management Review, 32, 2,344-354.

Schurr Paul H. and Ozanne Julie L. (1985), Influences onexchange processes: buyers preconceptions of a sel-lers trustworthiness and bargaining toughness,Journalof Consumer research, 11 (March), 939-953.

Selnes F. (1993), An examination of the effect of productperformance on brand reputation, satisfaction andloyalty,European Journal of Marketing, 27, 19-35.

Selnes F. (1998), Antecedents and consequences of trustand satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships,EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 32, 3/4, 305-322.

Seppanen R., Blomqvist K. and Sundqvist S. (2007),Measuring inter-organizational trust a critical review ofthe empirical research in 1990-2003, IndustrialMarketing Management, 36, 2, 249-265.

Shapiro D., Sheppard B.H. and Cheraskin L. (1992),Business on a handshake, Negotiation Journal, 8 (4),365-377.

Siguay J.A., Simpson P.M. and Baker T. (1998), Effects ofsupplier market orientation on distributor market orien-tation and the channel relationship: the distributor pers-pective,Journal of Marketing, 62, July, 99-111.

Smith B.J. and Barclay D.W. (1997), The effects of organi-zational differences and trust on the effectiveness ofselling partner relationships,Journal of Marketing, 61,January, 3-21.

Strutton D.E., Pelton L.E. and Tanner J.F. (1996), Shall WeGather in the Garden: The Effect of IngratiatoryBehaviors on Buyer Trust in Salespeople, IndustrialMarketing Management, 25, 151-162.

Swan J.E. and Trawick I.F. Jr. (1987), Building CustomerTrust in the Industrial Salesperson: Process andOutcomes,Advance in Business Marketing, 2, 81-113.



21/21

Documents

Trust in B-to-B