Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business Sales: A New Measure Author(s): Richard E. Plank, David A.

Reid and Ellen Bolman Pullins Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 61-71 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40471734 . Accessed: 25/01/2013 20:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Methodsin Sales Research

JamesM. Comer,University ofCincinnati

Perceived Trustin Business-to-Business Sales: A New Measure

Pullins E. Plank,DavidA. Reid,and EllenBolman Richard
relied ongeneral inthe literature haveusually measures of trust from of trust Measures selling developed to fit or modified the sales sales then have been context. In which this contexts other management may within a business-to-business sales context as trust is three specifically conceptualized containing paper, andproduct/service A ten-item, trust. threecorrelated trust, trust, company salesperson components: theappropriate and validity thatdemonstrates for use in future factor scaleis developed reliability inbusiness-to-business ofperceived trust theconcept contexts. studies buyer-seller incorporating

Introduction
ofsuccessful A fundamental characteristic buyeras variousauthorshave noted sellerrelationships, (e.g.,Hawes,Mast and Swan 1989) is thatoftrust. and inthe widespread importance Unfortunately, and terestin trusthas also led to it beingdefined ofways.Thus,thereis in a variety operationalized oftrustnor any no trueconsensuson a definition paradigm. Many ofthe acceptedcross-disciplinary oftrust have treatedit solely definitions existing Resultsofmanyofthese construct. as a personality have frequently acrossmultiple studies, disciplines, had non-significant (Butler 1991). Butler findings do not take notesthatexisting conceptualizations nature of the into accountthe multidimensional as well as its manyantecedents. construct,
of NewYork) is Professor RichardE. Plank (Ph.D., University City at the HaworthCollege of Business, Western of Marketing has appearedintheJournal His research University. Michigan theJournal ofBusiofPersonal Sellingand Sales Management, theJournalofAcademy nessResearch, Science,the Marketing Industrial Journal Marketing ManageofMarketing, European and Materials andtheInternational Journal ment, of Purchasing His primary research interest is in others. among Management, and supply the integration of sellingand sales management management. of New York at David A. Reid (Ph.D., State University of Marketing at The is an AssociateProfessor Binghamton) has appearedin Industrial ofToledo. His research University the Journalof PersonalSelling and Marketing Management, Journal and theInternational Sales Management, ofPurchasing Materials amongothers. Management, is an Ellen Bolman Pullins (Ph.D., Ohio State University) at The University ofToledo. ofMarketing Assistant Professor are in theareas ofsalesperson Herresearch interests training, and buyer-seller Her reinteractions, buyer-seller negotiation. inJournal search has beenpublished oftheAcademy ofMarketingScienceand variousconference proceedings.

The purposeofthis paper is to report on the deof a multidimensional measure oftrust velopment in for use a sales context. The specifically paper is dividedintofourmajor sections.First,we review thesales literature on trust. This is followed bythe of the net and development nomological conceptual andoperational definitions oftrust usedinthestudy. We then presentthe studyand our analysis and conclude witha brief discussion oftheresearch and of managerialimplications the new measure.

LiteratureReview ConceptualizingTrust
As noted above, trust has been defined and invariety ofways,within and across operationalized These to and definitions, disciplines. according Dwyer can be in one of three (1986), Lagace conceptualized viewstrustas a personality traitor ways.The first Rotter The sec1967). generalized expectancy (e.g., ondtreats itas a predisposition toward another orbelief thatanother willbehavein a matter beneficial to the other Driscoll The third views it from 1978). party (e.g., thestandpoint ofrisking behaviors Schurr and (e.g., Ozanne 1985), whichreflects a willingness on the to acceptthe possibility ofvulnerpartofthebuyer on in the transaction. his/her ability part Numerous studies(e.g.,Schurrand Ozanne 1985; and Roberts 1988)have examSwan,Trawick, Rink, inedsomeaspect oftrust within thebuyer/seller dyad. This research has generally a linkage besuggested tween a setoftrust trust and sucearning components,
Journal ofPersonalSelling& Sales Management, Volume 3 (Summer1999,Pages 61-71). XIX,Number

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

62
in trust in sales has cess in sales. Research building for trust Swanand setsofcomponents offered building. thatbeing deTrawick (1987),for suggested example, customerhonest/candid, competent, pendable/reliable, wereall likely to lead to and likable/friendly oriented, the This ofthe salesperson trust by buyer. logically that doleadto that some behaviors salespeople suggests ofthebuyer. trust onthepart also indicates thatsellerswhodeSales research on thepartoftheir perception buyvelopa trusting to be successful thanthosewho ers are morelikely do not. It is widelyaccepted that trust and the in sellingconofa trusting perception development a necessaryingredient to long textsis considered term sellingsuccess(e.g.,Hawes 1994).Also,when buyersrank trustworthiqueried,organizational characteristics a ness as one ofthemostimportant sellercan have (Hayes and Hartley1989).

JournalofPersonal Selling & Sales Management

relations. Whilethesedifferobjectsin buyer-seller ent dimensions oftrustare likelyto be correlated, are uniquedimensions and needtobe captured. they It is also suggested thatcertain behaviors thatsalesto affect oneortheother of peopledo are morelikely thedimensions is (Plankand Reid1994).Thus,trust in thisstudy, as follows: defined, conceptually
Trustis a globalbelief on the partofthebuyer thatthe salesperson, and company will product fulfill their as understood obligations bythebuyer.

As notedabove,trustcan also be viewedas being relatedto multipleobjects.These individualcomfrom the buyer's can ponentsoftrust, perspective, be defined as follows: trust is thebelief thatthesalesSalesperson his/her personwill fulfill obligations as understood bythebuyer. Product trust is thebelief thattheproduct / willfulfill service its functions as understood bythebuyer. Companytrustis the beliefthat the comall its obligations as panywill fulfill understood bythebuyer. Thevarious dimensions oftrust areconceptualized as the fulfillment ofobligations or functions. Thus, we operationalize the constructs ofeach dimension the buyer's beliefs aboutthe object rebyobtaining latedtotheobligation-fulfilling characteristics.

Defining BuyerTrust
is fairly consistent onthedefiThe sales literature trust nition oftrust. Forthemostpart, interpersonal to a belief on the of the relates trusting part person are fulfilled. The Swan and Nolan thatobligations this.Specifically, reflects (1985) definition theydewhere "theindustrial fine trust as thesituation buyer onwhatthesalesbelieves and feels thathe can rely to do in a situation where personsays or promises honthebuyer is dependent uponthe salesperson's (Swan and Nolan 1985,p. 40). estyand reliability" andLagace's Asdefined, thisdefinition reflects Dwyer rather than oftrust as a predisposition (1986)notion in To date,however, behaviors. orrisking personality a the sales literature trusthas been viewedfrom of the as an overallimpression globalperspective the notionof global versus However, salesperson. trust is onethatneedstobe considsituation-specific ered.As notedbyButler(1991),thereis a trementhatsupports the impordous amount ofliterature much tanceofspecific measuresoftrust performing in prediction and explanation. better in In thebuyer-seller theobject oftrust literature, restudieshas been unidimensional. Specifically, oninterpersonal search hasconcentrated trust, purely when a that is trustof anotherperson.However, ofthesalestrust doesbusinesswitha seller, buyer ofobligation; s/healso personis onlyone category functhe obligations or expected needsto consider tionsassociatedwiththe product/service itself and theproduct/service. thecompany thatstandsbehind forthis studyis the measuredeveloped Therefore, based on the idea that trustis based on multiple

NomologicalNetwork
A nomological net of constructs was developed to thevalidity ofthenewly measures. support developed 1 shows theantecedents andconsequences that Figure wepropose arerelated toourconceptualization of trust. inthis wedonot test aredelineated Relationships study with thin lined arrows. The model thatsalesperson behaviors consuggests tribute tothedevelopment of trust. Itisalsoposited that inandofitself, is predictive ofsaleseffectiveness. trust, Plank and Reid (1994) suggestthatthequalityof behaviors is whatdrivessales performance, not just whetherthey were performed. Following their onewouldalso expectbehaviors todrive reasoning, trustsincethe buyer'sperception oftrustis likely to be based primarily on overtactions.While the sales literature on trusthas suggested a number of antecedents to trust,these have been general in natureand notlinkedto specific ofbehaviors. types A major category of behaviorsis communication whichcan be classifiedin a numberof behaviors, different thefollowing three broad ways.We suggest

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Summer1999
Figure 1 Net for Testing Trust Measure* Nomological

63

;?l_i^jv i/ / ""' 1 Eftectlveness 1 wSL '/* 8

Giving ^^ Information

Getting ^^^^^^^^> InformationP"1^^^^

r-

Salesperson I Trust |W

JX

Company Trust

Buyer'sTrust

untested Theoretical Predictions, tested ^^Theoretical Predictions,

*This model contains proposed relationships that could be used to test the validity of the three dimensions of trust. While theoretically there are multiple paths to test, due to the nature of the data collected, only those illustrated by thick solid lines are actually tested in this paper.

information, information, using categories: getting as capturing theessence of information andgiving face-to-face selling.In essence,communication inherent the strategic advantage primary represents and constitutes the in theuse ofpersonal selling role. most Thus, strategic salesperson's important ofsalespeople arelikely these behaviors onthepart notall behaviors or tobe linked totrust; however, would contribute totrust setsofbehaviors equally oftheobjects oftrust norto theperceptions (i.e., orcompany). thesalesperson, product,

The Study Measure Development

The measures weredeveloped the byreviewing itemsused in otherscales (Rotter 1967; Swan,

andRoberts and Trawick, Rink, 1988; Lagace1991) them to theoperational definitions decomparing While notusing of the indicators from veloped. any thesescales in theirentirety, the theyprovided for the current scale. conceptual underpinning indicators oftrust, seven for eachconTwenty-one werethendeveloped the authors to restruct, by flect thethree of All 21 trust. items were objects thensubjected to a seriesofsmallgroups ofcurstudents rently employed part-time graduate along withindividual interviews withthree All buyers. interviewed were asked to rate each participants as towhether itmetthedefinition ofthe question construct. Thispurification reduced the set process ofquestions to 15 items, ineachconstruct. five Thequestions were then tofour presented graduateclassescontaining 64 students from two universities. Most ofthese individuals were emcurrently

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64
witheither orsales backgrounds purchasing ployed and werethus feltto be appropriate giventhe natureofthe study(Lamb and Stem 1980).The individuals in this phase ofthe pretestwere asked to thateach questionfitinto, choosethebestcategory in case theyperceived it might be possibleto place thanonegroup ornogroup. thecategories intomore those items that were classified 90% Only correctly in All but ofthe timewere included the next set. twoitems wereclassified 100%ofthetime. correctly An opendiscussion followed. No ambiguity was felt tobe present. The sample of 15 indicators was thenpretested witha convenience of sample of 180 local buyers, which111responded. Resultsofan exploratory facthat the questionswereuntoranalysisindicated The trust derstandable and operatedas expected. itemswere scaled on a one to fivescale, withone disagree"and fivebeing"strongly being"strongly The appendix theactualquestions. agree." provides tospecific behaviors were included Fiveitems relating which for on thequestionnaire have implications the discussed for trust. were: They nomological validity asked probing This salesperson questions, to asThis salespersonused questioning sess myneeds, This salesperson listenedto me, and Thissalesperson listened carefully, very This salespersonperformed product/servicedemonstrations. on a Each indicator was scoredby the respondent scale ofonetofive withone representing highquallowquality.In addition, a ityand five representing could give an answer of 8 indicating respondent thatthe salespersondid not exhibit thatbehavior four so that the buyercould evaluate it. The first variableswereused to testthelinkageofquestionbehaviors to information) ingand listening (getting salespersontrust.The last itemwas used to test the linkageof doinggood demonstrations (giving to product trust. information) The sales effectiveness variable was obtained as a function of our data collection wherewe procedure collected onwhether thesalesperson responses gotthe order ornot. Half of thesample received a questionnaire them toevaluate who a salesperson theorder asking got ina recent whiletheother half were situation, buying askedtoevaluate a salesperson whodidnot.

JournalofPersonal Selling & Sales Management

50 statesandPuerto Rico.From thislist, 2324names were randomly selectedand mailed a finalquestionnaire. Giventhe study's a singlewave budget, with no or second reminder mailing pre-notification was used.Ofthetotalmailings, 9 wereundelivonly Of those erable,makingthe list 99.6% deliverable. 2315 actual deliveries, a totalof568 completed usable questionnaires werereceived for a response rate of24.5%. In orderto explorepossiblenonresponse was madeofearly(first bias,a comparison quartile) and late (last quartile) in terms oftheir respondents and on responsesto the trust demographic profile items.The resulting and ANOVA tests chi-square showedno significant whichsuggests a differences, lackofnonresponse bias. Two questionnaires were developed.Both were identicalwithrespectto the questionsasked, the asked onlydifference beingthatone questionnaire the buyerto evaluate a salespersonfrom a recent thatgotthe business.The otherquesnegotiation tionnaire asked thebuyer toratea salesperson who did notget the business.An equal number ofboth weresentoutbyrandomly thesample types dividing intothetwotypesofquestionnaires. Out ofthe568 291 (51.2%)wereresponses returned, questionnaires about successful salespeopleand 277 (48.8%) were aboutunsuccessful responses salespeople.1

Demographics
The sample included66.5% male and 33.5% female respondents. (56.3%) domiManufacturing natedthe industries in the sample.In represented termsof companysize, 76% of the firms representedhad morethan 100 employees. Respondents had an average often years ofpurchasing experience. Demographics ofthe sample were compared to publishedNAPM demographics forgenderand workexperience.2 A testofproportions on gender indicated a slightly female whilea higher response t-teston experience indicatedno statistically significant differences. We also testedto determine if the ratersofunsuccessful were differsalespeople entfrom theratersofsuccessful salespeopleon any ofthe eightdemographic typequestionswe asked. size and of were openCompany years experience endedquestions from whicha meanresponse could be determined. number of Average seen, salespeople timespentreadingprofessional material,and desize werecategorical, but had 5 or 6 catpartment and thus a mean couldbe egories category response calculated.In each ofthe above cases an ANOVA was used to determine ifthemeansweredifferent.

Data Collection
The NationalAssociation ofPurchasing Managementsupplieda listingof5000 members from all

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Summer1999 from .069for TheF probabilities time ranged spent material to .670 for average reading professional seen.In all casesthese were number ofsalespeople A testof above.05 and thuswerenotdifferent. was also undertaken and in all equal variances cases thevariances werestatistically equivalent. certification staTheother three variables gender, and SIC classification were tus, industry subjected ifthecategorical to chi-square teststo determine between thetwo differed response patterns groups. did not. it that thereis no Thus, appears They in demobias caused by differences significant across the ofunsucvariables raters type graphic cessful versus successful salespeople.

revised scales. Thestandardized alphafor company trust was .726,for trust was .767,andfor product trust was .874.Coefficient salesperson alphasare rather than LV reliabilities since are reported they andAnderson 1988). practically equivalent (Gerbing factor Confirmatory Next, Analysis. confirmatory to deteranalysis usingLisrel8 was undertaken mine whether ornotthethree-factor model fit the data.A one-factor thenullmodel, was run. model, Theinitial run a chi-square of 417.18 with provided 44 degrees offreedom the (p=. 00),thusindicating model didnotfit. A goodness offit index of.85,and offit index of.76anda Comparaadjusted goodness tivefitindex of.86 also attested to thepoorfit of the null model.Finally, the RMSEA of .15 also thisconclusion. supports 2 shows theresults oftheproposed threeFigure factor model. As can be seen,themodel is notsignificant due to (2=86.95, =.000),notsurprising thelarge size.4However, thegoodness of fit sample theadjusted offit (.97), (.95)andcomparagoodness tivefit(.98) indices are high, and theroot mean ofapproximation error (.058)is low.Overall, square theseresults indicate thata three-factor model is viable andthat thedatafit theproposed structure. In addition, becausewe propose thattrust is a multi-dimensional a second order model construct, wasrunwith trust as a latent variable indicated by the three subscales of trust. Results of this model are inFigure 3 andparallel theresults of the presented first order model. The variance extracted (AVE) average was.74, well above the .5andPhi-squared criteria.

oftheScale Testing
ofthescalewas accomplished in several Testing with an exploratory This stagesstarting analysis. was followed by a confirmatory analysisusing LISREL 8 and other which the analyses support ofthescale. validity We beganwith an explorExploratory Analysis. factor andan examination ofcoeffianalysis3 atory A scree subscales. cient testinalphafor proposed dicated thata three-factor solution was appropriate.Table 1 provides theinitial factor If solution. thescalehad factored as expected, items , 4, haveformed onesubscale, T7,T10,andT14would items T2,T5,T8,T12,andT15thesecond subscale, anditems While T3,T6,T9,Til, andT13thethird. T14loaded, itis weak, as areTil andT9. Items T2 andT7 didnotload cleanly. In general, however, thisinitial ourcontention that analysis supports thereare threeunderlying of trust: components and company trust. In addisalesperson, product, foreach tion,coefficient alphas wereexamined subscale.This examination that only suggested items be problematic. T2,T7,Til, andT14 might Lisrel 8 wasusedtoexamine thestandardNext, izedresiduals. Each subscale contained originally standardized residuals than2. On thisbagreater whichitemsshouldbe sis, it was determined in order to assurethatall standardized dropped residuals werebelow2. Consistent withthefindfactor ingsofthe exploratory analysisdropping items a satisfactory soluT2,T9,andT14provided tion.Next, AVE's foreach scale werecomputed. Becausetheaverage variance extracted (AVEs)of trust andsalesperson trust werebelow product .5, T5 and T10 wereeliminated. Additional AVE resultswillbe discussed in thevalidity section that follows. Chronbach's for alphaswere computed the

Issues Validity
inlooking at theitems face validFirst, retained, ityappearsclear. Second,discriminant validity acrossthethree subscales was tested usingthree tests. theaverage variance extracted separate Using thesalesperson (AVE)procedure, trust and product trust, as well as company trustand product trust differ from eachother at an acceptable level. Foreachofthese two of the pairs dimensions, averextracted exceeds .5 andthesquared age variance structure link between thedimensions([with SPTR/ PRTR's AVE=.59 [phi-squared=.18] and COTR/ PRTR's AVE=.66[phi-squared=.23]). While theAVEofsalesperson andcompany trust exceeds it is not (AVE=.6O) than the .5, greater phithephiwasconstrained (.71).Therefore, to squared one forthiscombination. The constrained model from chi-square (2=82.77, =.000)was subtracted the unconstrained modelchi-square(*=19.75,

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JournalofPersonal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1 Factor Results: Maximum Likelihood with Oblique Rotation Exploratory Analytic Itemif Factor 1 Loading COTRUST Factor2 Loading PRTRUST Factor 3 Loading SPTRUST Communality

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15

.30 -.10 .83 .21 .12 .94 .00 .09 .47 .04 .37 .06 .62 .29 -.01

-.00 .27 .03 -.00 .50 .01 .14 .60 .07 .02 .12 .76 .09 .06 .81

.58 .31 .01 .69 .08 -.02 .10 -.03 .26 .61 .17 -.00 .16 .40 .04

.66 .17 .73 .72 .39 .84 .04 .41 .51 .41 .34 .63 .64 .45 .67

Interfactor Correlations F1 & F2 = .562 F1 & F3 = .683 F2 & F3 = .403

Squared Canonical Correlations Factor 1 = .949 Factor2 = .731 Factor3 = .562

The difference (63.02)with1 dfwas sigp=.011). somesupport ofdiscriminant nificant, providing matrix ofall a correlation validity (p<.01).Finally, inTable2.Although some meaconstructs is shown between COTR and sureofdiscriminant validity that itshould benoted these SPTRisdemonstrated, to be close. two constructs psychometrically appear dimensions oftrust should be Each ofthethree To test related to the successofthe salesperson. thiswe used four regression procedures separate as theindependent with successful orunsuccessful dimensions variable and each ofthethree (calculated theindicators loadings bytheir byweighting inturn varias thedependent andsumming them) and are shownin able. Resultsweresignificant andtheoverall scaleof Table 3. Allthree subscales success of with the trust were related tothe salespeople, as more successful trustworthy being perceived people who were unsuccessful. than those salespeople Twospecific behaviors that arelikely tobe linked totrust ofthe"getting information" arethe as part

and listening behaviors onthepartof questioning the Both andlistening have salesperson. questioning notbeenstudied in sales contexts but extensively are thought to be veryimportant contributors to salesperformance andShepherd (e.g.,Castleberry andSohi1997). Following thatrea1993;Ramsey a regression was doneoftheeffect ofsesoning, lected item that dealt with listensingle questions on salesperson trust. Product ingand questioning demonstration behaviors are also proposed to be related toproduct trust. It would be expected that andlistening would rehigher quality questioning sultinhigher trust andhigher salesperson quality demonstrations toproduct trust. Table4 presents theresults ofthatanalysis. As thefindings and indicate, quality questioning behaviors have a significant on listening impact In addition, trust. demonstrasalesperson product tion wasproposed toberelated toproduct trust and thisrelationship is also significant. No behaviors related tocompany trust were collected specifically

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Summer1999
Figure 2 LISREL VIII- Full First Order Model

67

Sj- .69-> T8 *4-

/ PRTR '

< 5=.->4
E6=1.16->T7-4

"

" -- - ^

-^f

sptrA
'^/'y ^-^

/
'

I
/ 1 23=83 /
/

A6=79

'

-4 9=54->11

^Z^^^^

'^'y

+ Slo=.42->T13 ^
Variances oftheis: PRTR=.61; SPTR=1.12; COTR=.88

a deficiency in theconvergent andthisrepresents for thatdimension. validity

Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose ofthispaperwas to report on the of a trust scale for development specifically use in sales effectiveness research. The scalewas differentthanother scalesin thatit was specific tothe context and itwas a multiple factor scaleincorpooftrust comrating multiple objects (salesperson, and The scale factored as pany product/service). demonstrated internal and expected, consistency, was significantly related to sales effectiveness. It washighly correlated with antecedent behaviors such as listening andquestioning onthepart of thesalesAs the scale to be a robust, such, person. appears and valid measure. reliable, internally nomologically

Ofcourse, as with the usual any exploratory study, caveatsand limitations The are apply. findings basedononly onesample. It is always that possible thesample ofthepopumaynotbe representative lation ofindustrial at As buyers large. is thecase with all survey theresearch relied research, design onthememory oftherespondents andtherefore is to recall In issues. the subject possible addition, nettested was incomplete. Mostsignomological there were no behaviors that could be nificantly, linked tothecompany trust In addition, measure. other relationships, including possible moderators, werenot tested.Two additional limitations are worth Asmentioned there is a great noting. earlier, dealofshared variance between COTRandSPTR. Thisis a theoretically andrepinteresting finding resents an opportunity for additional investigation. was not assessedin this Also,criterion validity

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

68

JournalofPersonal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 3 USREL VIII- Full Second Order Model

Si=.69->T8 ^ 2=.35->12^

= 82

"

2=1.00^

~^-- *

'

^f

- ' PRTR V /V . Vjl^X f

3=.32->5*-^

1=10^'.

6=1.16->7^7
=.28->T3

"

'

'Vy

'

-1.74

/'}

^^^^^

yS

8=.26->6^-

9=.54-> 1+

,-1.00

"

_^" "

^- - _^^ '

/*

~^~

-=^=^^/ - *"~ -

C0TRVr31=1.9l

y/

'J'y
| 3=..3

- * =.42->13-4^=89

Variance of!=.25

How this multidimensional measure study. corresponds with other measures oftrust an area for represents Further isrecomfurther testing investigation. validity scale. mended for future studies this involving theresults wouldaptheselimitations, Despite the model offers a valuto three-factor pear suggest trust. The able and useful method for measuring with to the of the measure validity findings regards intheir were washighly own Trust interesting right. related to success at leastas measured bysimple It appearsthatcompany analysis usingANOVA. trust bethemost related while may product/service trust be less related. may a situation-specific multi-dimenBy providing sional measure of trust, many interesting questions inface-to-face about therole oftrust be selling may in the future. For is the relationexplored example, trust andperformance moderated between ship by

other factors suchas purchase situation oris comtrust linked to Are there pany always performance? times when trust or trust salesperson product may be more We alsobelieve thatitwillbe important? toexplore issuesassociated with thereimportant between the dimensions. Forinstance, lationships does salesperson trust overto trusting the carry ortheproduct? is there a typical company Finally, inwhich thethree dimensions aredevelsequence moreeffective? oped,or is a particular sequence Each ofthesequestions offers avenues interesting for future research. the scales helpful as well. Managers mayfind of comKnowledge which dimensions, salesperson, orproduct, arestrongest orweakest canhelp pany, indetermining where should they puttheir emphasis in positioning orin training In addidecisions. behaviors to dimensions or tion, relating specific

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Summer1999
Table 2 Correlations of Study Variables 1. Probingquestions 2. Assess needs 3. Listenedto me 4. Listenedcarefully 5. Demonstrations 6. COTR 7. PRTR 8. SPTR 9. Effectiveness 10. TRUST 123456789 .045* .293 .544 .399 -.242 -.231 -.293 -.205 -.314 .216 .078* .141 -.158 -.237 -.210 .053* -.215

69

.405 .621 -.425 -.246 -.548 -.343 -.508

.540 -.351 -.214 -.386 -.310 -.424

-.422 -.216 -.545 -.347 -.512

.580 .691 .588 .916

.449 .414 .694

.558 .895

.631

'Not significant; all other variables significant (p < .01)

Table 3 of Variance-Trust Scales by Success of Salesperson Analysis Variable Total Trust SP Trust CO Trust PR Trust Mean Success 23.02 7.77 6.20 9.05 Mean Unsuccess 34.25 11.78 10.27 12.20 F-Test 320.16 225.19 264.87 103.44 -Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 R Square .397 .310 .345 .170

Note: based on scoring direction, high trust is characterized by lower scores.

Table 4 Linear Regression of Listening and Questioning Behaviors on Trust Independent Variable 1. This salesperson asked probing questions. 2. This salesperson used to assess myneeds. questioning 3. This salesperson listenedto me. 4. This salesperson listenedverycarefully. 5. This salesperson performed demonstrations. product/service
'Significant (p < .01)

Dependent Variable SPTR SPTR SPTR SPTR PRTR

Coefficient SE -.687 -1.013 -1.407 -1.346 -.335 .100 .108 .097 .092 .061

df 498 498 498 498 499

F 46.82* 87.29* 210.30* 213.70* 29.78*

Adjusted R2 .084 .147 .295 .299 .054

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

70 assistinthedevelopment skills that oftrust canbe intraining accented as salespeople. Certainly new in this area will continue, developments managers be abletouse thescalesin further their assessing andweaknesses. salesforce's strengths

JournalofPersonal Selling & Sales Management

P.H. and J.L. Ozanne (1985), "Influence on Exchange Schurr, Processes: Buyers'Preconceptions ofa Seller'sTrustworthinessand Bargaining Journal Toughness," ofConsumer 11 (March), 39-53. Research, E. and Johannah JonesNolan(1985),"Gaining CusSwan,John tomer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for theSalesperson, Vourna/ and I. FredTrawick(1987),"Building Customer Trust intheIndustrial Process andOutcomes," Salesperson: in A. G. Woodside, ed., Advancesin BusinessMarketing, Vol.2, Greenwich, CT: JAIPress,81-113. David R. Rink,and Jenny J. , I. Fred Trawick, Roberts Dimensions ofPurchaser Trust (1988),"Measuring ofIndustrial Journal Salespeople," ofPersonal Sellingand Sales Management, 8 (May),1-9.
5 (2), 39-48. ofPersonalSellingand Sales Management,

References
J. K. (1991), "TowardUnderstanding and Measuring Butler, Conditions ofTrust: Evolutionof a Conditions of Trust Journal 17 (3), 643-663. Inventory," ofManagement, B. andDavidC. Shepherd (1993),"Effective Castleberry, Stephen and PersonalSelling," Journalof Interpersonal Listening Personal and Sales Management, 13 (1),35-49. Selling M to Dion,Paul A. and PeterM. Banting (1995), BuyerReactions Product Stockoute in Business-to-Business InMarkets," dustrial 24 (August), 341-350. Marketing Management, J.W.(1978),"Trust and Participation inOrganizational Drieooll, Decision ofSatisfaction," Makingas Predictors of Academy Management Journal, 21, 44-56. F. and R. Lagace (1986), "On the Natureand Role of Dwyer, ProTrust,"in Educators'Conference Buyer-Seller Ameri(T. Shimpand S. Sharma,eds.),Chicago, ceedings, can Marketing 40-45. Association, DavidW. andJamesC. Anderson (1988),"AnUpdated Gerbing, for Scale Development UnidimenParadigm Incorporating and Its Assessment," Journalof Marketing Resionality 25 (2), 186-192. search, Hawes,Jon(1994), "To Know Me is to TrustMe," Industrial 23 (August), 215-19. Marketing Management, , KennethE. Mast, and JohnE. Swan (1989), Trust Earning ofSellersandBuyers," Journal Perceptions 9 (1), 1-8. ofPersonalSellingand Sales Management, (1989),"HowBuyers Hayes,H. Michaeland StevenW. Hartley View Industrial Industrial ManSalespeople," Marketing 18 (1), 73-80. agement,

Endnotes
1Review of thedatarevealed some bad responses. Probably because ofthe length ofthe totalquestionnaire, some individuals with a string of appearedtohaveresponded thesameorsimilar without to responses fully attending theitems. Thiswas revealed whenreverse scored items were answeredin the same direction as otheritems. a rulewas determined for theelimination of Therefore, theseresponses. Ifa reverse scored item was notat least 2 responses different from anyother responses, excluding the midpoint (3), on the same subscale, then the respondent'sdata was eliminated. Two graduate assistants reviewed all 568 respondents' data, individually applyingthe rule. Their codingshared on 97% ofthe responses.Differences were agreement resolved Thiscoding resulted byoneoftheresearchers. intheelimination of50 respondents, orabout9% ofthe totaldata,resulting in a finalset of518 respondents. therespondents on demographic variables to 2Comparing thepublished information onNAPMmembership (Dion and Banting1995) showsthatthissamplehas slightly moreexperience (13.8yearsversus12.6years)and has a slightly (33.5% versus29%). higherfemalecontent Thesedifferences minimal andthesample are,however, oftheNAPM appearstobe a reasonable representation from wherethesamplewas drawnfrom. membership ^he initial factor method wasmaximum likelihood analytic with an oblique(promax) rotation. Maximum likelihood was used sincethe scale was new and as suchhad not beenpreviously tested. Anobliquerotation was used as thesubfactors wereexpected tobe correlated and thus theobliquerotation was theoretically moreacceptable. 4Results werererun withn=200totestthechi-square for the null model(2=160.58, was =.00), the chi-square stillnotsignificant. for thethree factor model However, was nowsignificant. (2=33.47, =.4),thechi-square

Lamb,CharlesW. and DonaldW. StemJr.(1980),"AnEvaluationof Studentsas Surrogates in Marketing J. Studies," in Consumer Vol VII, Ann Olsen,ed.,Advances Research, Arbor:Association for Consumer 796-799. Research, Moore,James R., Donald W. Eckrich,and LorryT. Carlson of Industrial (1986),"A Hierarchy SellingCompetencies," Journal 8 (Spring), 79-88. ofMarketing Education, Plank,RichardE. and David A. Reid (1994), 'The Mediating Role of Sales Behaviors: An Alternative of Perspective Sales Performance and Effectiveness," Journal ofPersonal 14 (Summer), 43-56. Sellingand Sales Management, P. and Ravipreet S. Sohi (1997),"Listening Ramsey, Rosemary to YourCustomers:The ImpactofPerceived Salesperson Behavior on Relationship Journal Outcomes," Listening of theAcademy ofMarketing Science.25 (2). 127-137. J.B.(1967),"A New Scale for theMeasurement ofInterRotter, Journal Trust," 35, 651-65. personal ofPersonality,

Lagace, RosemaryR. (1991), "An Exploratory Study of Reciprocal TrustBetween Sales Managers and Salespersons," Journalof PersonalSellingand Sales Management,11 (Spring), 49-58.

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Summer1999
Appendix Measures of Trust T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T1 1 T12 T13 T14 T15 This salesperson did everything possible forour company (SPTR) will notmeet our needs without The product/service question (PRTR) The companythissalesperson worksforwillstand behindus (COTR) This salesperson willalways use good judgment(SPTR) has the technicalattributes This product/service necessary to do the job (PRTR) withus (COTR) The companycan be counted upon to do right The salesperson is nota real expert(SPTR) willgive us little troublein use (PRTR) The product/service forthem (COTR) This salesperson's companyhas qualitypeople working The salesperson is likea good friend (SPTR) The salesperson's companyhas a poor reputation (COTR) willplease all those in our companywho use itor are responsibleforit (PRTR) The product/service The companywilldo what ittakes to make us happy (COTR) When the salesperson tells me somethingitmustbe false (SPTR) willdo everything we want itto do (PRTR) This product/service

71

SPTR=Trust ofsalesperson COTR=Trustofcompany PRTR=Trustof product/service The identification ofthese subscales did notappear in the actual questionnaire. Italicisedstatementsare reverse scored. inthe finalvalidatedscale. Note: Questions T2, T5, T9, T10, and T14 are not indicators

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions