Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Engineering
ProcediaProcedia
Engineering 00 (2011)
Engineering 29 000–000
(2012) 1467 – 1470
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2012 International Workshop on Information and Electronics Engineering (IWIEE)

The Study on Consumer Trust Repair Based on the

Interaction of Person & Environment
Zhenglin Zhang∗
School of Management,Xi'an Polytechnic University; Xi'an 710048,China

Abstract

This paper put forward a conceptual model of consumers trust repair. The paper finds that propensity to forgive,
repair strategy and government trust have significantly positive influences on trust repair, Corporation trust mediates
the relationships between propensity to forgive, repair strategy and government trust with repurchase intention.
Finally this paper discusses the theoretical and practical implications.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: trust repair ; propensity to forgive ; repair strategy ; government trust ; repurchase intention

1. Introduction

These days have seen many transgressions of companies, which violated consumers’ trust. After the
food safety events Chinese people suspect the security of brands, repurchase intentions have greatly
decreased and food industry encounter an exceptional threat.
Although a number of literatures focus on the building and sustaining trust, which has extensive
benefits to individual, group and organizations[1]. While little research pay attention to the recovery of
trust after trust violation. Actually trust is so fragile that is often violated easily[2]. Whereas trust is the
essence of relationship[3], thus it is urgent to see how to repair trust for some companies to regain the lost
profit.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.:+862982203553; mobile：+8613772098025
E-mail address: zzl_jllj@126.com.

1877-7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.156
21468 Zhenglin
Author nameZhang / Procedia
/ Procedia Engineering
Engineering 29 (2012)
00 (2011) 1467 – 1470
000–000

Some researchers advocated lost trust cannot be recovered[4],while others illustrate that the lowered
trust can be repaired. After trust repair actions victims restore the trust worthies of the offenders, reduce
the hostilities and continue to depend on offenders[5, 6].

2. Conceptual model

Trust repair is a difficult process where a number of things entangled with each other. The factors
leading to trust recovery are mainly the characteristics of the victim and offender, such as the attribution
of the victim[7], the propensity of the victim to forgive [8] and the accounts of the offender[9]. In
addition there are some contextual factors including the severity of the violation[10], the relative status of
the offender and the victim[11],the types of violation[7], national culture[6].
According to CAPS(Cognitive Affective Personality System) theory[12], not only the personality
characteristics but also the contextual factors do good to the trust recovery. However, the broader context
factor such as government trust was scarcely considered, which is quite important for Chinese people,
what is more the government trust is the belief of Chinese people that government provide the platform
and rules of the market and punish the untrustworthy participants[13].
When companies do something wrong, the account strategy including apology or apology plus
promise convey the goodwill of offender and will help consumers to improve the positive image to trust
offender again. Secondly, consumers who has high propensity to forgive often appraise the negative event
more positively, are more likely to accept the offender’s goodwill and reduce the hostility and stop
revenging. Thirdly government limit the scope and set up the rules of participants, smooth operation of
market is subject to the high government trust when people clearly grasp the procedure and result of their
action. Finally the action of offender company will induce the cognitive responses of victim
consumers[14].According to Theory of Reasoned Action, if consumers believe the merchandise is
trustworthy they prefer to repurchase the merchandise[15], The conceptual model is followed as Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model

3. Discussion

When food transgressions happened, the company should instantly apologize for transgression to
facilitate the consumer antipathy. Actually consumers will not restore the trust because apology can only
 Zhenglin
Author Zhang
name // Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00
29 (2011)
(2012) 000–000
1467 – 1470 3 1469

show the regret for the past behaviour and can’t believe the company before actions. While promise
represent the intention in the future and increase the confidence of consumers, apology plus promise may
help rebuild trust better.
Why the same action can not gain the same recognition of all consumers? Maybe different people have
different propensity to forgive to some extent. As for those who has high propensity to forgive consumers
are easy to condone the offender and continue to buy the merchandise. As for those who has low
propensity to forgive it is unfortunate for the companies to regain the sales.
The interaction between consumers and companies can make sense of the process of trust recovery.
But some contextual factors can promote or hinder the process. The role of government trust. Chinese
government has played a dramatical role in economical life. It can influence the thoughts and actions of
most of Chinese people. Furthermore government trust is a kind of feeling of government that monitors
and supervises the participants as the third party[13].
Although consumers finally repurchase the merchandise, which does not mean the offender regained
the trust. In marketing channel if the distributor depends on the supplier very much, it will accept the
coercive power because of its weak strength in the channel[16]. For example, consumers have to buy milk
with so many ingredients which is good to consumers’ health.
Accordingly we had better to investigate the underling essence of the fact. Mediator must be
considered[17]. On the basis of the Theory of Reasoned Action, we add company trust belief as mediator
variable to test the real state of consumers’ repaired trust. Mayer has illustrate the relation of trust belief
and trust intention[18]. Only when consumer believe the company is benevolent ,competent and
predictable, he or she will build a trust intention and buy the company’s products.

4. Practical implications

Consumers can learn from this study that their propensities to forgive can influence the trust repair.
Sometimes this personality can offset the efforts of offender company. Although the company is really
sincere and remorseful consumers do not accept and stick to revenge them. Maybe that is not win-win
solution.
The results can help offender company to surpass the violation of trust. If a company want to live
longer, the most important thing is to maintain the consumers’ trust and loyalty. Account strategy can
calm down the angry consumers and lower the dislike of consumers and improve the favourable
impression of the offender company.
Furthermore the results explore the role of government trust in the trust repair. As a contextual factor
the government trust can offset the distrust of companies, the belief of bevelence and integrity of
government do increase the confidence of consumers. When consumers believe the third party can
successfully monitor and punish the wrong actions they feel safe and purchase the merchandise freely.
Chinese government should take continuous and reliable actions to make clear her bevelence and integrity,
which can help company to restore the lost trust.
While providing a foundation for future research, this study has limitations. we only take two kinds of
repair strategies into consideration, it is better to examine more repair strategies to find more to help
offender companies. we haven’t investigate the cultural influence, which affects consumers’ choice[19],
furthermore it is quite interesting to understand the trust recovery in different national cultures.

Reference
41470 Zhenglin
Author name Zhang / Procedia
/ Procedia Engineering
Engineering 29 (2012)
00 (2011) 1467 – 1470
000–000

[1]. Dirks, K.T. and D.L. Ferrin, Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice, in
Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002. p. 611-628.
[2]. Lewicki, R.J. and B.B. Bunker, Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships, in Trust in organizations:
Frontiers of theory and research B2 - Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler,
Editors. 1996, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 114-139.
[3]. Lewicki, R. and C. Wiethoff, Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair, in The handbook of conflict resolution:
Theory and practice B2 - The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, Editors. 2000,
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
[4]. Slovic, P., Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy, in Risk Analysis. 1993. p. 675-682.
[5]. Schweitzer, M.E., J.C. Hershey, and E.T. Bradlow, Promises and Lies: Restoring Violated Trust. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2006. 101(1): p. 1-19.
[6]. Ren, H. and B. Gray, Repairing Relationship Conflict: How Violation Types and Culture Influence the Effectiveness of
Restoration Rituals. Academy of Management Review, 2009. 34(1): p. 105-126.
[7]. Kim, P.H., K.T. Dirks, C.D. Cooper, and D.L. Ferrin, When More Blame Is Better Than Less: The Implications of
Internal Vs. External Attributions for the Repair of Trust after a Competence- Vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violation. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2006. 99(1): p. 49-65.
[8]. Sijun, W. and L.C. Huff, Explaining Buyers' Responses to Sellers' Violation of Trust. European Journal of Marketing,
2007. 41(9/10): p. 1033-1052.
[9]. Ferrin, D.L., P.H. Kim, C.D. Cooper, and K.T. Dirks, Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence in
Comparison to Apology and Denial for Responding to Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2007. 92(4): p. 893-908.
[10]. Tomlinson, E.C., B.R. Dineen, and R.J. Lewicki, The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim Willingness to
Reconcile Following a Broken Promise, in Journal of Management. 2004. p. 165-187.
[11]. Aquino, K., T.M. Tripo, and R.J. Bies, How Employees Respond to Personal Offense: The Effects of Blame Attribution,
Victim Status, and Offender Status on Revenge and Reconciliation in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001. 86(1): p.
52-59.
[12]. Mischel W, S.Y., Integrating Dispositions and Processing Dynam Ics W Ithin a Unif Ied Theory of Personality: The
Cognitive Affective Personality System (Caps ), in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, O. L A Pervin and John, Editors.
1999, Guilford, 1999: New York. p. 197-218.
[13]. Grayson, K., D. Johnson, and D.-F.R. Chen, Is Firm Trust Essential in a Trusted Environment? How Trust in the
Business Context Influences Customers. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 2008. 45(2): p. 241-256.
[14]. Dirks, K.T., R.J. Lewicki, and A. Zaheer, Repairing Relationships within and between Organizations: Building a
Conceptual Foundation. Academy of Management Review, 2009. 34(1): p. 68-84.
[15]. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, in Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research B2 - Belief,
attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 1975, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
[16]. Doney, P.M. and J.P. Cannon, An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 1997. 61(2): p. 35.
[17]. Baron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1986. 51(6): p. 1173.
[18]. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman, An Integration Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management.
The Academy of Management Review, 1995. 20(3): p. 709.
[19]. Hofstede, G., Culture’s Consequences:International Differences in Work-Related Values. 1980: Sage Publications.