Trust in B-to-B

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 of RAM, for his valuable advice and constructive comments.
They would also like to thank the anonymous RAMreviewers 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.
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 1
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 productive
relationships. 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 Akrout 2
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 2
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 on
an 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 might
initially 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 their
conceptualizations 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)
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 3
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 of
marketing.
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 the
truster 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 organization
and/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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 4
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, which
began 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 toward
the distinction between the cognitive and affective
forms of trust.
MODELING TRUST
Since the incorporation of trust into the different
marketing 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).
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 5
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) ; Nevins
Short-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) ; Geyskens
power (+) 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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 6
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 particularly
in 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 some
authors (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. The
recent 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, we
distinguish 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);
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 7
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 to
maintain 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. Whereas
authors 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)
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 8
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/supplier
relational 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 levels
of 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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 9
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 and
excludes 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)
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 10
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 (Tellefsen
and 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 the
seller 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, 72
Goodwill: 6 items) Goodwill : 0, 91
Inter-organisational trust: (Credibility: 4 items, Credibility : 0, 75
Goodwill: 4 items) Goodwill : 0, 87
Doney et Cannon (1997) Interpersonal trust: 7 items : 0, 90
Inter-organisational trust: 8 items : 0, 94
Chow et Holden (1997) Interpersonal trust: 3 items : 0, 87
Zaheer et al. (1998) Interpersonal trust: 5 items : 0, 766
Tellefsen et Thomas (2005) Interpersonal trust: 4 items : 0, 83
Payan (2006) Interpersonal trust: 3 items : 0, 86
Liu et al. (2008) Interpersonal trust: 4 items : 0, 80
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 11
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 applicability
of 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 several
respondents 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 the
degree 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.
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 12
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 studies
concerned 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 evolving
and 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 these
stages? 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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 13
stage is characterized by the development of both a
degree of interdependence and an acceptable level of
satisfaction between the exchange partners. The
maintenance stage is only possible once the two part-
ners are persuaded of both the advantages of the colla-
boration and of the other partners behavior.
Dissolution may occur at any point in the
relational process and marks the end of the collabora-
tion.
These two contributions on the life cycle of the
relationship are particularly illuminating. They pro-
vide a significant and essential basis for identifying
the stage in the B-to-B relationship, but they also
need to be further developed. The classification
would benefit from taking account of the decision-
making power assigned to the participants in the
organizational purchasing process according to the
stage of the process and the type of purchase (modified
or new).
Thus, by incorporating Lewicki and Bunkers
(1996) typology and the analytical framework develo-
ped by Dwyer et al. (1987), it would be possible to
distinguish the different forms of trust as well as their
antecedents (Akrout and Akrout, 2010).
To do this, we represent the different forms of
trust on a continuum running from the exploration
stage to the maintenance stage (See Figure 1). We
retain only three stages, which represent a productive
terrain for the development of trust, since the aware-
ness and dissolution stages are not part of the
exchange relationship and hence not germane to
trust. The exploration stage is characterized by calcu-
lated trust or trust based on calculation. Regarded as
a deterrent, this form of trust emerges on the basis of
external information (e.g., reputation), but mostly on
the basis of a comparison between the rewards asso-
ciated with being trustworthy and the penalties in the
event of willful violation of that trust.
Figure 1. Outline of an integrative model of the evolution of trust in B-to-B

Maintien
The participants
Customer
Individual characteristics (objectives,
expectations, participants'
experiences and cultural sensitivities)
Organizational characteristics
(organization, identity, culture)
International cultural context

Reputation

Stage I of the relationship
Exploration
Stage II of the relation
Expansion
Stage III of the relation
Consequences
Trusting behavior
Investment in the
relationship
Openness in
communication
Reduced monitoring
Shared value Exchange of
information
Similarity
Trusting behavior
Affective trust Cognitive trust Calculed trust
Communication
Resolution of
conflicts
Cost/Benefit
The relationship
Content of exchanges (service/product,
types of purchase, stage of the purchasing
process)
Level studied (interpersonal/inter-
organizational)
Type of relationship (marketing channel/
direct relationship/logistics chain)
Supplier
Individual charasteristics (objectives,
expectations, participants'
experiences and cultural sensitivities)
Organizational characteristics
(organization, identity, culture)
International cultural context
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 14
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 even
emotional 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 trust
and 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 the
individual 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 description
of 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 the
relationship) 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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 15
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 as
important 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 replaced
by 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 strengthen
and 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
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 16
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 dyadic
relationship). 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 and
commitment in international buyer-seller relationships: a
dyadic study in Australia and Thailand, 27
th
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 IMP
Conference: 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 issues
for 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 of
Research in Marketing, 12, 157-172.
Andaleeb S.S. (1996), An experimental investigation of
satisfaction 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 and
relationship development in business relationships: A
conceptual model for buyer-seller dyads, Industrial
Marketing Management, 35, 522-535.
Anderson E. and Weitz B.A. (1989), Determinants of
continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads,
Marketing Science, 8 (4), 310-323.
Anderson E. and Weitz B.A. (1992), The use of pledges to
build 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 empirical
assessment, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23(4), 364-50.
Anderson J.C. and Narus J. (1990), Model of distributor
firm and manufacturer firm working partner, Journal of
Marketing, 54, 42-58.
Ashwin W.J. (2009), Continuous Supplier Performance
Improvement: Effect of Collaboration, Communication
and Control, Journal of Marketing, 73, 1, 133-150.
Atuahene-Gima K. and Li H. (2002), When Does Trust
Matter? Antecedents and Contingent Effects of
Supervisee Trust on Performance in Selling New
Products in China and the United States, Journal of
Marketing, 66 (July), 61-81.
Aulakh P.S., Kotabe M. and Salay A. (1996), Trust and per-
formance in cross-border marketing partnerships: a
behavioral approach, Journal of International Business
Studies, 27, 5 (special issue supplement).
Belonax J.J., Newell S.J. and Plank R.E. (2007), The role of
purchase importance on Buyer perceptions of the trust
and expertise components of Supplier and Salesperson
credibility in Business-to-Business Relationships, The
Role of Purchase Importance on Buyer Perceptions of
the Trust and Expertise Components of Supplier and
Salesperson Creditability in Business-to-Business
Relationships, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, XXVII, 3 (Summer), 247-258.
Bharadwaj N. and Matsuno K. (2006), Investigation the
antecedents and outcomes of customer firm transaction
cost savings in a supply chain relationship, Journal of
Business 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 Processes
and Outcomes in Sales Manager-Salesperson
Relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 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 and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Child J. (2001), Trust: the fundamental bond in global
collaboration, Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4), 274-
288.
Chow S. and Holden R. (1997), Toward an understanding of
loyalty: the moderating role of trust, Journal of
Managerial Issues, 9 (3), 275-298.
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 17
Coote L., Forrest E. and Tam T. (2003), An investigation
into commitment in non-Western industrial marketing
relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, 32
(7), 595-604.
Coriat B. and Guennif S. (1996), Incertitude, confiance and
institution, in la confiance en question, A.D.S.E
Conference, Aix en Provence, March.
Corritore C.L., Kracher B., Wiedenbeck S. (2003), On-line
trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model,
International Journal of Human Computer Studies,
58(6), 737-758.
Crosby L.A., Evans K.R. and Cowles D. (1990), Relationship
quality in services selling: An Interpersonal influence
Perspective, Journal of Marketing, 54, July, 68-81.
Cova B. and Salle R. (2000), Rituals in managing extrabusi-
ness relationships in international project marketing: A
conceptual framework, International Business Review,
9(6), 669-685.
Currall S.C. and Judge T.A. (1995), Measuring trust bet-
ween organizational boundary role persons,
Organizational Behavior And Human Decision
Processes, 64, 2, 151-170.
Dahlstrom R. and Nygaard A. (1995), An Exploratory
investigation of interpersonal trust in new and mature
market economies, Journal of Retailing, 7, 4, 339-361.
Das T.K. and Teng B-S. (1998), Between trust and control:
developing confidence in partner cooperation in
alliances, Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 491-
512.
Dasgupta P. (1988), Trust as a commodity, in D. Gambetta
(ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 213-237.
Denize S. and Young L. (2007), Concerning trust and infor-
mation, Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 968-982.
Dion P. (1991), Fine tuning sales performance concepts:
the importance of buyer relevant mediating variables,
In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the
European Marketing Academy, 1235-1251.
Doney P.M. and Cannon J.P. (1997), An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of
Marketing, 61, 2, 35-51.
Doney P.M., Cannon J.P. and Mullen M.R. (1998),
Understanding the influence of national culture on the
development of trust, Academy of Management Revue,
23, 3, 601-620.
Dwyer F.R. and Oh S., (1987). Output sector munificence
effects on the internal political economy of marketing
channels, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 347-358.
Dyer J.H. and Chu W. (2000), The determinants of trust in
supplier-automaker relationships in the U.S., Japan,
and Korea, Journal of International Business Studies,
31, 2, 259-286.
Eggert A., Ulaga W. and Schultz F. (2006), Value creation in
the relationship life cycle: A quasi-longitudinal analysis,
Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 20-27.
Ernst H. and Teichert T. (1998), The R&D/marketing inter-
face and single informant bias in NPD research: an
illustration of a benchmarking case study,
Technovation, 18, 12, 721-739.
Fang E., Palmatier R.W., Scheer L.K. and Li N. (2008),
Trust at different organizational levels, Journal of
Marketing, 72, March, 80-98.
Fenneteau H. and Naro G. (2005), Contrle et confiance
dans lentreprise virtuelle: Illustrations logistiques,
Revue franaise de gestion, 156, 203-219.
Fenneteau H. (1998), Confiance, rputation et coopra-
tion : apports et limites de la thorie des jeux pour
ltude des relations interentreprises, Gestion et thorie
des jeux : regards croiss, ed. Jacques Thpot, Paris,
Vuibert.
Fenneteau H. and Guibert N. (1997), Buyer-seller relation-
ships: towards a dynamic Classification of trust antece-
dents, 13th IMP Group Conference Proceedings, Lyon.
Flaherty K.E. and Pappas J.M. (2000), The role of Trust in
Salesperson-Sales manager Relationships, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, XX, 4 (Fall),
271-278.
Friman M., Garlin T., Millett B., Mattsson J. and Johnston R.
(2002), An analysis of international business-to-busi-
ness relationships based on the commitment-trust
theory, Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 403-
409.
Gabarro J.J. (1978), The development of trust, influence
and expectations, in A. Athos & J.J. Gabarro (Eds),
Interpersonal behavior: Communication and
Understanding in Relationships, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ganesan S. (1994), Determinants of long term in buyer-seller
relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58, 1-19.
Ganesan S. and Hess R. (1997), Dimensions and levels of
trust: implications for commitment to a relationship,
Marketing Letters, 8, 439-448.
Ganesan S., Brown S.-P., Mariadoss B.-J. and Ho H.
(Dixon), (2010), Buffering and Amplifying Effects of
Relationship Commitment in B to B Relationships,
Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 2, 361-373.
Gao T., Sirgyb M.J. and Bird M.M. (2005), Reducing
buyer decision-making uncertainty in organizational
purchasing: can supplier trust, commitment, and
dependence help?, Journal of Business Research, 58,
397-405.
Garbarino E. and Johnson M.S. (1999), The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer rela-
tionships, Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.
Geyskens I. and Steenkamp J.B. (1995), An investigation
into the joint effects of trust and interdependence on
relationship commitment, in Proceedings of the 24th
Annual Conference of the European Marketing
Academy, 351-371.
Geyskens I., Steenkamp J.B., Scheer L.K. and Kumar N.
(1996), The effects of trust and interdependence on
relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13,
303-317.
Geyskens I., Stennkamp J.B., Kumar N. (1998),
Generalizations About A Trust in Marketing Channel
Relationships Using Meta-Analysis, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 223-248.
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 18
Gounaris P. (2005), Trust and commitment influences on
customer retention: insights from business-to-business
services, Journal of Business Research, 58, 126-140.
Granovetter M.S. (1985), Economic action and social
structure: The problem of embeddedness, American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 3, 481-510.
Guibert N. (1996), La relation client-fournisseur et les nou-
velles technologies de linformation : le rle des
concepts de confiance et dengagement, Doctoral
Dissertation in Management, CREGO-University
Montpellier II.
Guibert N. (1999), La confiance en marketing : fondements
et applications, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing, 14, 1, 1-19.
Handfield R.B. and Bechtel Ch. (2002), The role of trust
and relationship structure in improving supply-chain
responsiveness, Industrial Marketing Management, 31,
367-382.
Hawes J.M., Mast K.E. and Swan J.E. (1989), Trust
Earning 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-Seller
Dyad: Sales Management Implications, Journal of
Personal 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 managing
global marketing operations, Journal of Marketing, 65
(4), 51-66.
IMP Group. (1982), An Interaction Approach, International
Marketing and Purchasing Goods, Chichester, Wiley,
10-27.
Jap S.D. (1999), Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration pro-
cesses in buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of
Marketing Research, 36, 4, 461-475.
Jap S.D. and Ganesan S., (2000), Control mechanisms and
the relationship life cycle: implication for safeguarding
specific investments and developing commitment,
Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 2, 227-245.
Johnson D. and Grayson K. (2005), Cognitive and affective
trust in service relationships, Journal of Business
Research, 58, 500-507.
Johnson J.L., Cullen J.B., Sakano T. and Takenouchi H.
(1996), Setting the stage for trust and strategic integration
in Japanese-US Cooperative Alliances, Journal of
International 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 Marketing
Management, 38, 732-742.
Kim S.K. Stump R.L. and Oh C. (2009), Driving Forces of
Coordination Costs in Distributor-Supplier
Relationship: Toward a Middle-Range Theory, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 4, 384-399
Kingshott R.P.J. (2006), The impact of psychological
contracts upon trust and commitment within supplier-
buyer relationships: A social exchange view, Industrial
Korczynski M. (2000), The political economy of trust, The
Journal of Management Studies, 37, 1, 1-21.
Kreps D.M. (1990), Corporate Culture and Economic
Theory, ed. ALT and Shepsle, Perspective on Positive
Political Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 90-143.
Kumar N., Scheer L.K. and Steenkamp J.B. (1995), The
effects of perceived interdependence on dealer atti-
tudes, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 348-356.
Lagace Rosemary R. and Gassenheimer J.B. (1991), An
Exploratory Study of Trust and Suspicion toward
Salespeople: 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 the
Dyad?, Weilbaker and Ridnour, eds., National
Conference 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 in
cross-border industrial buyer-seller relationships,
Lewicki R.J. and Bunker B.B. (1995), Trust in relation-
ships: A model of trust development and decline, Ed
Bunker and Rubin, Conflict and Justice, San Francisco.
Lewicki R.J. and Bunker B.B. (1996), Developing and
maintaining trust in work relationships, in Kramer,
R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, 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 Marketing
Lohtia R.., Bello D.C. and Porter C.E. (2009), Building
trust in US-Japanese business relationships: Mediating
role of cultural sensitivity, Industrial Marketing
Mayer R.C., Davis J.H. and Schoorman F. D. (1995), An
Integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of
Management 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 Trust
Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships: An
Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology, International
Journal 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 three
facets of customer trust: a marketing model of
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 19
Japanese buyer-supplier relationship, Journal of
Business Research, 57, 3, 312-319.
Moore K.R. (1998), Trust and relationship commitment in
logistics alliances: a buyer perspective, International
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34,
1, 24-37.
Moorman C., Zaltman G. and Deshpande R. (1992),
Relationships between providers and users of market
research: the dynamics of trust within and between
organizations, 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-trust
theory 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 in
import channels of distribution, Industrial Marketing
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 of
Marketing 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 strategic
alliances: Resource and relational characteristics,
Journal of High Technology Management Research,
13(2), 177-202.
Orlan A. (1994), Vers un modle gnral de la coordination
conomique 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 marketing
relationnel : une mta-analyse, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 22, 1, 79-103.
Payan J.M. (2006), Multiple levels of trust and dependence
on 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 New
Measure, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, XIX, 3, 61-71.
Ratnasingam P. and Pavlou P.A. (2004), Technology Trust in
Internet-Based Interorganizational Electronic
Commerce, Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 1(1), 17-41.
Rempel J.B., Holmes J.G. and Zanna M.P. (1985), Trust in
close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1, 95-112.
Ring P.S., Van de Ven A.H. (1992), Structuring cooperative
relationships between organizations, Strategic
Management 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,
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 University
Press.
Sako M. (1997), Prices, Quality and Trust Inter-firm
Relations 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 industry
in Japan and the United States, Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 34, 387-417.
Scheer L.K. and Stern L.W. (1992), The effect of influence
type and performance outcomes on attitude toward the
influencer, Journal of Marketing Research, (February),
128-142.
Schoorman F.D., Mayer R.C. and Davis J H. (2007), An
integrative model of organizational trust: past, present
and Future, Academy of Management Review, 32, 2,
344-354.
Schurr Paul H. and Ozanne Julie L. (1985), Influences on
exchange processes: buyers preconceptions of a sel-
lers trustworthiness and bargaining toughness, Journal
of Consumer research, 11 (March), 939-953.
Selnes F. (1993), An examination of the effect of product
performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and
loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, 27, 19-35.
Selnes F. (1998), Antecedents and consequences of trust
and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships, European
Journal of Marketing, 32, 3/4, 305-322.
Seppanen R., Blomqvist K. and Sundqvist S. (2007),
Measuring inter-organizational trust a critical review of
the empirical research in 1990-2003, Industrial
Marketing 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 of
supplier 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 of
selling partner relationships, Journal of Marketing, 61,
January, 3-21.
Strutton D.E., Pelton L.E. and Tanner J.F. (1996), Shall We
Gather in the Garden: The Effect of Ingratiatory
Behaviors on Buyer Trust in Salespeople, Industrial
Swan J.E. and Trawick I.F. Jr. (1987), Building Customer
Trust in the Industrial Salesperson: Process and
Outcomes, Advance in Business Marketing, 2, 81-113.
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 20
Swan J.E., Bowers M.R. and Richardson D. (1999),
Customer trust in the salesperson: an integrative review
and meta-analysis of the empirical literature, Journal
of Business Research, 44, 93-107.
Swan J.E., Trawick I.F. Jr. and Silva D.W. (1985), How
Industrial Salespeople Gain Customer Trust, Industrial
Marketing Management, 14, 3, 203-211.
Swan J.E., Trawick I.F. Jr., Rink D.R. and Roberts J.
(1988), Measuring Dimensions of Purchaser Trust of
Industrial Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 8, 1-9.
Tellefsen T. and Thomas G.P. (2005), The antecedents and
consequences of organizational and personal commit-
ment in business service relationships, Industrial
Usunier J.-C. (2000), Un examen du concept de confiance
travers la littrature, FNEGE, Confiance et
Performance.
Vanhamme J. (2002), La satisfaction des consommateurs
spcifique une transaction : dfinition, antcdents,
mesures et modes, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing, 17, 2, 55-85.
Williamson O.E. (1993), Calculativeness, trust and economic
organization, Journal of Law & Economics, 36, 453-
486.
Wilson D. (1995), An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller
Relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23, 4, 335-345.
Young L.C. and Wilkinson I.F. (1989), The role of trust and
cooperation in marketing channels: A preliminary
study, European Journal of Marketing, 23-2, 109-122.
Zaheer A. and Venkatraman N. (1995), Relational gover-
nance as an inter-organizational strategy: an empirical
test of the role of trust in economic exchange, Strategic
Management Journal, 16, 373-392.
Zaheer A., McEvil Y.B. and Perroke V. (1998), Does trust
matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and
interpersonal trust on performance, Organization
Science, 9, 2, 141-159.
Zhao Y. and Cavusgil S.T. (2006), The effect of suppliers
market orientation on manufacturers trust, Industrial
Akrout (GB) 27/01/11 12:10 Page 21

Trust in B-to-B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust in B-to-B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trust in B-to-B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction into the field of marketing by

You might also like