See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239781149

Determinants of digitally instigated insurance relationships

Article  in  International Journal of Bank Marketing · October 2011

DOI: 10.1108/02652321111177803

CITATIONS READS
13 717

2 authors:

Mikael Gidhagen Sabine Gebert Persson

Uppsala University 1) Uppsala University2) Mid Sweden University
15 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ciritical episodes in insurance relationships View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mikael Gidhagen on 04 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

Determinants of
Determinants of digitally relationships
instigated insurance relationships
Mikael Gidhagen
Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, and 517
Sabine Gebert Persson
CER, Department of Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual model for explaining insurance
customers’ intentions towards using the internet as a channel for communication and interaction with
insurance companies by integrating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and trust.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper seeks to conceptually develop an integrated
framework for studying and measuring the perceptions of customers towards using the internet as
a source of communication and interaction. The TAM model is taken as a point of departure where
trust and trustworthiness, being essential in insurance relationships, have been included in the model.
Trust is divided into perceived competence, perceived benevolence and perceived integrity, which in
turn affect whether the customer will find the firm trustworthy or not. A second dimension that is
developed in this paper is the disposition to trust, which is defined as a customer-related factor. This
disposition to trust is in turn affected by the customer’s internet knowledge and product knowledge.
Findings – The paper contributes by developing the model for understanding and explaining factors
that affect customers’ attitudes and intentions towards on-line interactions. By emphasizing internet-,
customer- and Ffrm-related factors, it would arguably be possible to explain factors that affect trust,
and trustworthiness, as well as the customer’s attitudes towards the organization and the
communication and distribution channel while also integrating the customer-specific factors.
Research limitations – The model developed in this paper is conceptual and needs to be tested
empirically.
Originality/value – The findings of this paper will serve as a basis for further research aiming at
answering the research question on what factors affect customers’ attitudes towards using the internet
as an interface within the financial services sector. It also contributes to practices by identifying and
defining factors that can affect trust in relationships as well as the choice of communication and
distribution channels depending on customers’ attitudes.
Keywords Insurance, TAM, Marketing, Trust, Internet, Distribution channel
Paper type Research paper

1. Digitally instigated insurance relationships: the backdrop

Providers of insurance services are at an increasing rate using the internet as a channel
for communication, interaction and distribution; an environment in which for example
banking has been successfully managing relationships for many years. The research
presented in this paper contributes not only conceptually to general research in
financial services, but its focus is also related to the gap that exists regarding research
on financial service relationships emphasizing insurance and internet acceptance. Most International Journal of Bank
studies in financial services marketing cover internet banking acceptance rather than Marketing
Vol. 29 No. 7, 2011
internet insurance acceptance (see Alsajjan and Dennis, 2010; Floh and Treiblmaier, pp. 517-534
2006; Grabner-Kräuter and Faullant, 2008; Heinonen, 2006; McKechnie et al., 2006). q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
Insurance is also generally considered less appealing than banking, as illustrated by DOI 10.1108/02652321111177803
IJBM the response when mapping customers’ perceptions of insurance companies, where
29,7 customers described insurance “mostly as a necessary evil.”
An important difference between banking and insurance is that banking-related
services are typically used more frequently, and often in a routine way – such as the
activity of performing transactions – sometimes even daily. In contrast to banking,
insurance involves a range of offerings where the customers are purchasing a sense of
518 security, hoping they will not have to use the product in full (Gidhagen, 2002). In many
cases customers are only directly interacting with the insurance company when
seeking an insurance quote, paying their premium or making a claim application, all of
which are relatively infrequent occurrences ( Järvinen et al., 2003; Gidhagen, 2002).
Relating this to a customer’s intention to use the internet to communicate with his/her
insurance company implies that customers more seldom would use an insurance
company’s web site than a banking web site. Making the customers feel comfortable in
using the internet and perceiving the usefulness as well as making them feel that it is
easy to use the internet would thus be a more critical issue within insurance compared
to banking.
This indicates that customers’ understanding of the internet/online technology and
the product may affect the usage of the internet as a communication and distribution
channel. Product design and the familiarity with using online services can affect the
relationship, whereas internet as a channel can affect the customer’s using/purchasing
process. The barriers towards using the technology can be understood as the attitude
towards using the internet and acceptance of technology, where also trust in the
product and trust in the distribution channel seem to be decisive for understanding
customers’ adoption and use of internet-based solutions when interacting with
insurance providers.
This problem has previously been fairly well investigated either focusing on
technology acceptance or trust in consumer settings (private/individual customers),
but recent research (see Benamati et al., 2010) indicate a need to further explore
research on the digitally instigated relationships combining the technology acceptance
approach with an understanding of trust. There is also rather extensive research on the
issue of building/maintaining trust in e-vendors (e.g. McKnight et al., 2002; Järvenpää
et al., 2000; Ba et al., 2003; Chen and Dhillon, 2003), that is, firms selling solely online –
but relatively less research considering “brick-and-mortar” providers turning towards
web-based services (complementing or substituting). Also, when – from a trust
perspective – technology is included in conceptualizing e-business relationships, often
indistinct aspects such as “general trust in the internet”, “web site layout” etc. are
included (e.g. Järvenpää et al., 2000; McKnight et al., 2002; Bramall et al., 2004; Floh and
Treiblmaier, 2006, Grabner-Kräuter and Faullant, 2008). As an example, Bramall et al.
(2004) proposed a model for testing the determinants and consequences of trust in
e-retailing, combining a customer’s general trust in the internet as a retail medium with
perceived specific trust in an individual e-retailer.
A model widely used to explain acceptance of information systems, and how
external variables affect adoption of an information system, is the technology
acceptance model (e.g. Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003), TAM. TAM
constitutes the paramount theory of technology acceptance behaviors in information
systems research (Gefen et al., 2003a), among other things used for predicting and
explaining why certain IT systems are adopted while others are not (Venkatesh and Determinants of
Morris, 2000). relationships
Recognizing that there is a need for further research considering the aggregated
influence of technology-related factors, such as the internet and online-provided
services, as well as trust-related factors to explain the adoption and use of technology
to solve specific problems, this paper combines technology acceptance with trust. More
specifically, we will further develop the model proposed by Benamati et al. (2010) and 519
suggest an analytical framework for investigating antecedents of and intentions
towards using online-based insurance service solutions.
The purpose of this article is therefore to develop a conceptual model for explaining
insurance customers’ intentions towards using the internet as a channel for
communication and interaction with insurance companies by incorporating and
integrating TAM and trust.

2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

TAM (Davis, 1989) has its roots in established social psychology theory and builds on
the Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). TRA argues that we
can explain a behavior, e.g. the adoption of IT, in predicting an individual’s intention to
use, called behavioral intention to use (BI), by determining his/her beliefs and attitudes
towards the usage. Behavioral intention to use (BI) measures how strong an
individual’s intention is to perform a certain behavior. The stronger the intention to act
in a certain way, the more likely it is that it will turn into actual behavior. In line with
TRA, TAM argues that usage is determined by behavioral intention to use, which in
turn is affected by the individual’s attitude towards using (A) an information system
but added that perceived usefulness (PU) also affects behavioral intention to use (BI)
(Davis et al., 1989).
According to TAM, individuals will only adopt an IT system if they perceive that
the system is beneficial to them and that the system will improve their job
performance, the so-called perceived usefulness (PU). This was also summarized by
Davis et al. (1989, p. 982) stating that “Computer systems cannot improve
organizational performance if they aren’t used. Unfortunately, resistance to end-user
systems by managers and professionals is a widespread problem.” Furthermore, the
adoption of the new technology is also affected by the perceived ease of use (PEOU),
which captures the person’s perceptions of how easy it is to use the system and how
difficult it is to learn the system, i.e. the efforts that are required to use the system
(Gounaris and Kortitos, 2008).
Davis et al. (1989) argue that behavioral intention to use (BI) is determined by the
perceived usefulness (PU) and the attitude towards using (A). The argument behind the
effect of attitude towards using on the behavioral intention to use is that, ceteris
paribus, “people form intentions to perform behaviors toward which they have positive
affect” (Davis et al., 1989, p. 986). In the model the Perceived Usefulness has a direct
effect on Behavioral Intention to use. This relates to the fact that individuals are
forming intentions towards a behavior if they perceive that this may improve their job
performance, i.e. they will use the internet if they perceive that this could improve their
possibilities of gaining some kind of benefits from it. Hence the PU has a direct effect
on BI, as people tend to put more and harder efforts in an endeavor if they perceive that
it will be having a positive effect on the outcome.
IJBM Perceived ease of use (PEOU) has, according to the model, a significant effect on
29,7 Attitude towards using (A). The reasoning behind this is that if a system is perceived
as being easy to use and to learn, the individual’s perception of efficacy and control of
operating the systems are positively affected. The perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease of use (PEOU) constructs are furthermore both influenced by external
variables such as individual differences or situational constraints – the impact of
520 which are mediated by the key belief constructs (Davis et al., 1989). Although the
external variables have an effect on both of the key belief constructs, i.e. perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), the external variables can affect PU
irrespective of PEOU. This is discussed by Davis et al. (1989) by giving the example of
two forecasting systems that are equal in PEOU. If one of these systems should provide
what turns out to be a more accurate forecast than the other, the outcome would be that
PU would be higher, and subsequently, the system with the higher perceived
usefulness would be preferred to the other system.
Even though TAM has been extensively used within research on information
system adoption (e.g. Mathieson, 1991; Jackson et al., 1997; Hu et al., 1999), empirical
tests show that TAM explains only approximately 40 percent of system use (see Legris
et al., 2003). Over the years TAM has been extended in different ways by, e.g. adding
components to the model or focusing on antecedents of ease of use (McKechnie et al.
2006), where many of the extensions were made to fit the specific context studied. The
empirical findings based on TAM are however not always consistent or clear. A reason
for the variation of the results seem to be found in the variations of the TAM model, as
TAM has either been used exclusively or in combination with for instance the theory of
planned behavior (TPB, e.g. Ajzen, 1985; 1991), and/or the theory of reasoned action
(TRA). Another reason for the disparate results is that not all variables have been used
in empirical research or that the variables have been defined in varied ways. (Legris
et al., 2003; Deng et al., 2005; Benamati et al., 2010) McKechnie et al. (2006) applied
TAM to identify factors contributing to the extent that customers use internet as a
distribution channel in purchasing financial services. In their study they found that
experience and attitude towards using the internet were factors that affected the usage
extension. Even though specifically studying financial services, it is noteworthy that
McKechnie et al. (2006) do not discuss trust as a variable.
There are examples of studies in which researchers have begun to extend TAM by
integrating it with trust constructs for investigating customer behavior in online
shopping settings (e.g. Suh and Han, 2002; Gefen et al., 2003a; 2003b; Pavlou, 2003;
Benamati et al. 2010). There is also, from a trust perspective, research combining IT
with trust constructs in e-commerce settings (e.g. McKnight et al., 2002; Chen and
Dhillon, 2003; Bramall et al., 2004). In a paper comparing the impact of trust and TAM
respectively on customers’ BI, the results indicated that trust had a stronger influence
on intentions to use than did TAM beliefs (Gefen and Straub, 2003). This implies that it
is not only PU or PEOU that affect the adoption of using the internet as a channel but
also that trust constitutes an important factor that needs to be considered. Studying the
use of internet as a distribution and communication channel, it is necessary to keep in
mind that a major difference between using the internet instead of traditional channels
is that there is a lack of social presence, i.e. the ability to have a direct two-way
conversation. This can in turn work as a barrier towards using the internet (Gefen and
Straub, 2003). Considering that we are focusing on insurance where the use is not so
frequent this could be an important barrier to overcome. However, given that the Determinants of
system is constructed so that it can signal that it involves some kind of social presence, relationships
the channel may still be considered trustworthy. Hence, it is highly relevant to further
discuss the rather vaguely defined issue of trust, before developing an integrated trust
and TAM model. Also responding to the call by Gefen et al. (2008) we will make a
distinction between trust and trustworthiness in the context of intentions to use the
internet. 521

3. Trust and trustworthiness

There is yet to be seen any universal, unifying definition of trust – other than that it
can be contended that trust is a precondition for interpersonal and business
relationships to emerge and exist (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994; McKnight and
Chervany, 2001) – and it has been argued that as the relevant context will always
affect the meaning of trust, there is little reason to believe that there will ever be any
entire consensus in this regard (Palmer et al., 2000; McKnight and Chervany, 2001). The
broader definitions have in common that they do often take a stance in an activity, such
as a willingness to accept risk, or “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a
particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or
control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712), and the often cited “trust is a
willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence” (Moorman
et al., 1992, p. 315). Once established, trust stabilizes relationships which in turn
increase chances to further increase trust (Ring and van de Ven, 1992).

3.1 Defining the concept of trust: mission impossible?

In reaction to a missing general trust definition, one suggestion is to analyze
commonalities in discussions on the issue of trust (Ennew and Sekhon, 2007,) – where
four themes seem to prevail: in order for trust to exist there has to be some degree of
risk involved “[. . .] if the outcomes of a particular action are certain, then there would
be no need to trust.” (Ennew and Sekhon, 2007, p. 62) Furthermore, there has to be some
degree of interdependency between actors as the interdependency in itself involves a
risk and thus also the need to trust. In turn, risk and interdependency create
vulnerability as the actors are dependent on each other and thus also become
vulnerable. When the actors are vulnerable as they are dependent on each other, and
there is a risk related to an uncertain outcome, actors have to feel confident that future
behavior of the other actors will be in line with their own expectations, as they would
otherwise not be willing to trust the other actors. Hence, in order for trust to exist,
communication and dialogue between the actors are of the essence.
However, the trust literature shows that instead of contending the rather vague
definition of trust provided by “activities involved”, the concept tends to be more
fruitfully discussed in terms of antecedents to trust, or attributes of the trustor and the
trustee. Trust research can be said to provide two general types of definitions of beliefs
related to trust; either considering:
(1) Confidence that the trustee will behave in a predictable manner, as expected by
the trustor, and/or can be relied on to fulfill contractual obligations (e.g.
Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Moorman et al., 1992).
IJBM (2) Confidence that the trustee will behave in a fair and benevolent manner towards
29,7 the trustor (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Moorman et al., 1992; Doney and
Cannon, 1997).

The former may be referred to as institutional trust; i.e. trusting the situation or
structures, whereas the latter can be discussed in terms of interpersonal trust;
522 i.e. trusting the other individual involved in the specific situation (McKnight and
Chervany, 2001). Hence, using the terms “institutional” or “interpersonal” trust would
logically imply considering an activity (actively trusting) on behalf of the
trustor/customer.
In research within business/economics, sociology, social psychology etc (see
McKnight and Chervany, 2001), trust is often presented as a multi-dimensional
construct (e.g. Blau, 1964; Giffin, 1967; Butler, 1991; Mayer et al., 1995; Järvenpää et al.,
1998; McKnight and Chervany, 2001; Ennew and Sekhon, 2007,; Benamati et al., 2010),
and when defining the concept, definitions are primarily considering perceived
attributes of the trusted party; the trustee (Grabner-Kräuter and Faullant, 2008, p. 486).
These attributes are commonly proposed in a two-dimensional conceptualization,
either related to the credibility dimension; being described in terms such as
predictability, credibility, dependability, consistency, reliability, honesty, ability,
expertise and competence; or to the benevolence dimension, such as benevolence,
concern, shared values, and integrity (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmer and Bejou,
1994; Mayer et al., 1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Selnes, 1996; Pavlou, 2002; Ennew
and Sekhon, 2007,).
Furthermore, these dimensions of trust can also be conceptualized into two levels of
trust, depending on how it is perceived by the customers (Ennew and Sekhon, 2004).
The base level of trust – referring to the credibility dimension – is the cognitive, or
calculative (e.g. Williamson, 1983; Korczynski, 2000; Rousseau et al., 1998) trust, also
called low level trust, that exists when the customer views the selling company as
reliable and dependable, and holds a belief that the organization will do what it says it
will do. The second level of trust – referring to the benevolence dimension – is
affective, also called relational (see Williamson, 1983: “people trust”; Morgan and Hunt,
1994) or higher level trust (Pavlou, 2002), where the customer/trustor believes that the
representatives of the firm – the trustee – shares her best interests and thus expects a
favorable outcome from the interaction. Affective/relational trust is at a higher level
than cognitive/calculative trust, where the beneficiary perceives that the actions of the
selling company are directed towards and being taken directly for the customer; so to
say customized for the sake of the individual (Ennew and Sekhon, 2004).
Several researchers contend that cognitively based trust factors are precursors to
affective trust (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Järvenpää et al., 1998),
essentially meaning that institutional factors (such as structural assurance of
internet-based services, vendor reputation and web site layout), initiating a perceived
base level trust, would be antecedents to further trust emergence (McKnight et al.,
2002).
Reflecting the characteristics of relationship development in an online environment,
and the context and pace of web-based business and service provision, one stream of
trust research studying the initial formation of trust (McKnight et al., 1998), would
provide a basis for the issue at hand. The model of initial trust formation (McKnight
et al., 1998) postulates that an individual’s trusting intention is decided by his/her Determinants of
trusting beliefs, that in turn are influenced by a an original disposition to trust, relationships
together with cognitive processes and through institution-based trust. This type of
conceptualization contrasts the one epitomized in the two-tiered notion of forms – or
levels – of trust, where the base level of trust is a threshold for the emergence of a
higher level trust. That is, the model of initial trust formation (McKnight et al., 1998,
p. 474) explains why trust may be high, even though it will not be based on any 523
previous experience with, or first-hand knowledge of, the other party, i.e. the trustee –
but rather based on the trustor’s disposition to trust, and/or on institutional cues
enabling trust to emerge without firsthand knowledge.
An individual’s disposition to trust is the key attribute of a trustor that expresses a
general expectation of how trusting the individual should be, or “the extent to which
one displays consistent tendency to be willing to be dependent on others in general”
(McKnight et al., 2002, p. 45); i.e. a general personality trait influenced by personality
type, but also by cultural, social and developmental experiences (Mayer et al., 1995).
Disposition to trust will influence any perceived institutional cues, relating to what is
referred to as institution-based, or institutional, trust (e.g. Zucker, 1986; McKnight et al.,
1998, 2002); that is, beliefs about the situation (McKnight and Chervany, 2001), that in
turn affect the trusting attitude.

3.2 Trustworthiness
Other factors affecting trust are the individual’s characteristics (e.g. disposition to
trust, and experience from and knowledge of the offering per se and the technology
used; in this case the internet) as well as the providing firm’s trustworthiness, which in
turn is dependent on the actual expertise and competence of the firm, its integrity and
consistency in behavior, effective communications, and ability to show genuine
concern and benevolence (Ennew and Sekhon, 2007,). Hence, what may be referred to
as experience beliefs would also be relating to attitudes towards the service, previous
experience and perceived satisfaction (see Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Ennew and
Sekhon, 2004; 2007). That would entail that perceived attributes of the trustee and
attributes of the trustor combined in one way or another are identified as antecedents
to organizational trustworthiness.
Proposing a framework for measuring trust in financial services, Ennew and
Sekhon (2004, 2007) separates the construct trust from trustworthiness. This
distinction may be hard to make, as they are conceptually intertwined (see Gefen et al.,
2008), but following the reasoning of one of the most comprehensive studies dedicated
specifically to trust in financial service relationships, the distinction is yet relevant for
the purpose of this paper. It has been argued that trust, i.e. the willingness to depend, is
attributed to customers (i.e. the trustors), dependent on and varying with different
experiences and personality traits, whereas trustworthiness is attributed to the
providing organization (i.e. the trustee, e.g. an insurance company), denoted by the
extent to which a firm is perceived (by the customers) as being worthy of trust (Ennew
and Sekhon, 2007,). Another way of drawing the line between the two closely related
concepts is to contend that “trust is partially a product of one’s capacity to assess the
trustworthiness of one’s potential partner” (Sheppard and Sherman, 1998, p. 426).
An online environment, involving web-based technology for interacting (e.g.
communicating and distributing), entails a more difficult situation for customers to
IJBM assess and judge the trustworthiness of the firms providing the services – and the
29,7 services provided. Doing business on the internet does not allow customers to inspect
any tangible aspects of an offering, directly observe nor interact with the vendor
( Järvenpää et al., 2000) – or to look the vendor in the eye and/or shake his/her hand (Ba
and Pavlou, 2002; Ba et al., 2003); assurance mechanisms that have characterized and
influenced human interaction since the rise of mankind. It is therefore critical to
524 promote trust in order to transform a potential customer, or user, of a service from
curious observer to one who is willing to interact using the technological solution
(McKnight et al., 2002).
Trust emergence is consequently a product of the experienced interaction between
the customer and the provider, as well as on individual personality traits (Ennew and
Sekhon, 2004, pp. 63-64) whereas trustworthiness would be an external’s perception of
a provider (a trustee), that can be based on reputation and rumors about the provider;
i.e. trustworthiness can be perceived by someone who has not yet initiated interaction
with another party. As a parallel to the above mentioned trust dimensions, operational
competence, operational benevolence, and problem-solving orientation (customer’s
perception of the firm’s motivations to anticipate and resolve problems related to a
service) can be seen as distinct dimensions of perceived trustworthiness (Sirdesmukh
and Singh, 2002). To the trustee (the provider of insurance services in this case),
trustworthiness can to some extent be directly managed by internal and external
practice, including communications, while trust is unique to every individual. In
conclusion, assessing organizational trustworthiness indisputably requires knowledge
of customer perceptions, indicating that a firm needs to know its customers to get any
indications on its trustworthiness.
This would give that the concept of trustworthiness would attain a pivotal role in
online environment relationships, as a more general perception of trustworthiness
considering the internet as a technology used for communicating, interacting and
distributing; as well as perceived trustworthiness of any specific provider’s – or
category of providers’ (e.g. a particular insurance company’s or insurance companies’)
– use of the technology, will influence customers’ perceptions of trust in any specific
situation; that is, their trusting attitude. Furthermore, considering a case where an
individual has no previous experience of a particular provider that offers online-based
services; or a case where a customer of a certain brick-and-mortar service provider is
urged to use online technology of which he/she has no previous experience, (general)
trustworthiness of the technology and/or trustworthiness of the organization providing
the services will have a certain effect on the intention to use the offered services. In
other words, technological trustworthiness and organizational trustworthiness can be
seen as expressions of antecedents to technology attitude and trusting attitude.

3.3 Trusting beliefs conceptualized

As we are aiming at combining trust (and trustworthiness) with the TAM model it is
important that we capture the dimensions that can explain intentions to use. In line
with research on trust supporting its multidimensional aspects (e.g., Blau, 1964; Giffin,
1967; Butler, 1991; Mayer et al., 1995; Järvenpää et al., 1998; McKnight and Chervany,
2001; Ennew and Sekhon, 2007,; Benamati et al., 2010), three distinct trustee attributes
can be distinguished that are also related to attitudes towards the service, experience
and perceived satisfaction (the constructs may however be labeled differently by
different streams of research). These three dimensions of attributes form the trustor’s Determinants of
trusting beliefs, that have a direct impact on, and can be seen as antecedents to, trust relationships
(see Chen and Dhillon, 2003). These trusting beliefs are often intertwined (e.g. Crosby
et al., 1990), but are yet three apparent firm-related factors that affect trust and hence
the customer’s intention to use – depending on how the providing firm is perceived:
.
Perceived competence: how the customer perceives the expertise, skills and
knowledge of the providing firm and its representatives. 525
.
Perceived benevolence: how the customer perceives that the company and/or
representatives care and are concerned about the customer, that they are willing
to do good beyond any profit motive (i.e. goodwill).
. Perceived integrity: summarizes the firm’s (representatives’) adherence to a set of
principles/way of doing business, affecting, e.g. perceived dependability,
reliability, consistency and credibility.

4. Technology acceptance and trust in insurance relationships

As pointed out earlier trust is more and more used as integrated with TAM (see Suh
and Han, 2002; Gefen et al., 2003a; 2003b; Pavlou, 2003). A problem though with these
studies, according to Benamati et al. (2010), is that technology beliefs (or the key beliefs
of the TRA) included in the TAM model are often excluded. Another critique towards
previous attempts to integrate trust and TAM is that there is a discrepancy between
the different studies as to how trust is being treated as a belief, as an attitude or a
behavioral intention (Benamati et al., 2010). In an attempt to overcome these problems,
Benamati et al. (2010) merged the TAM model with the determinants of trust into a
rather comprehensive model emphasizing the process perspective of technology and
trusting beliefs when determining technology and trusting attitudes that finally decide
the behavioral intention to use. In forming their model, Benamati et al. (2010) returned
to the origins of the TAM model (i.e. the TRA) arguing that the beliefs perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) can only affect behavioral intention
(BI) given that an attitude has been formed towards usage. Consequently, this differs
from the TAM model in that Benamati et al. (2010) state that PU can never directly
affect behavioral intention to use (BI), but always needs to be mediated through
attitude towards using (A). Hence, the user must form a predisposition or evaluative
stance towards an online vendor in order for perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness beliefs to be relevant in understanding the user’s future intentions
(Benamati et al., 2010, p. 383).
This implies that the arguments of Benamati et al. (2010) are in line with TRA in
that beliefs are mediated through the attitude and in line with TAM in terms of arguing
that the two most important technology beliefs are the PU and PEOU. Following the
arguments that it is the beliefs that affect BI, trust is defined as a trusting attitude, in
line with the psychological definition of trust (see Rousseau et al., 1998); i.e. “the
willingness of a party (i.e. the trustor) to be vulnerable to or depend on the actions of
another party in situations of risk [. . .].” (Benamati et al., 2010, p. 383) This trusting
attitude is in turn based on the trusting beliefs, according to the above definition. We
agree that in order to understand trust and to be able to integrate that construct with
TAM, we need to define trust as a trusting attitude dependent on trusting beliefs. The
model developed by Benamati et al. (2010, p. 381), conceptually argues that a
IJBM (prospective) customer’s intentions to use an online provider’s web site are affected by
29,7 both technology beliefs, according to TAM, and trust, using the above mentioned
attributes of the trustee; i.e. competence, benevolence and integrity. It should be noted
that Benamati et al. (2010) use the concept of ability instead of competence whereas we
in the discussion above found that the definition of “competence” better captures and
reflects the determinant.
526 The reasoning behind combining the two constructs in one model was to be able to
use it to explain consumer’s intentions and behavior (Benamati et al., 2010, p. 380), and
hence integrating TAM with the Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980), adopting the discourse to e-commerce environments. The Theory of
Reasoned Action puts forward that an individual’s primary indicator of behavior is
his/her behavioral intention to perform the behavior, and this intention is, in turn,
determined by his/her attitude towards the behavior; and, finally, the individual’s
attitudes are developed from his/her beliefs about the behavior.
The research at hand is focusing on explaining insurance customers’ intention
towards using the internet. Hypothesizing that the means and possibilities to interact
with and serve customers are radically different in an online setting, compared to
face-to-face/personal interaction, the conditions and possibilities for
creating/maintaining trust and trustworthiness are influenced by this change of
channel. Considering the integrated TAM/trust model, previous research findings
indicate that technology attitude play a weaker role in predicting customer intentions
than the trust constructs (Benamati et al., 2010, p. 389). As online providers (regardless
of previous, or simultaneous, use of “traditional” interaction channels) to a large extent
rely on technology to maintain an effective relationship, they must use the layout and
features of a website as trust-supporting media to demonstrate competence,
benevolence and integrity. Offering professional service in general, and insurance
services in specific, “trust management” in an online setting is without doubt a pivotal
issue, especially as the features and quality of the technological interface (the web site
per se) become standardized, and self-evident to the user (Benamati et al., 2010, p. 386).

5. Towards a framework for insurance customers’ intentions towards

using online-based interaction
In order to investigate and explain insurance customers’ Behavioral Intention to use –
and, subsequently, determinants of actual use of – online-based applications, the
model combining TAM and trust presented by Benamati et al. (2010) serves as a
foundation for further development. In line with the Benamati et al. research model
(Benamati et al., 2010), it is argued that the key beliefs (technology beliefs and trusting
beliefs) are only directly affecting attitudes (technology attitude and trusting attitude),
that in turn influence the behavioral intention to use. That is, the herein contended
framework contrasts the conceptualization of the TAM (see Davis et al., 1989) in that
the direct belief-intention link is omitted, and hence in this regard returns to the TRA
ideas (see Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Also corresponding to the Benamati et al. model,
it is argued that it is an individual’s trusting attitude that affects intention to use, and
that this attitude is mainly determined by the individual’s trusting beliefs. However,
given the dominant formation of trusting beliefs in contemporary trust literature, the
framing is slightly modified as the concept of “ability” of Benamati et al. (2010) is
replaced by “competence”.
 Furthermore, although there is previous research (e.g. Gefen et al., 2003a,b; Determinants of
Benamati et al., 2010) commendably combining TAM/technology factors, e.g. the relationships
design and applicability of web sites as a determining variable to customers’ intentions
to use, with determinants of trust in the providing firm, it is argued that there is a need
to also include the specific customer-related factors that are for example discussed by
Bramall et al. (2004). In contrast to only using customer-perceived beliefs related to
technology and trust (i.e. trusting beliefs and technology beliefs), the Bramall et al. 527
framework (Bramall et al., 2004) incorporates customer-related factors referring to the
individual’s experience of using online services in general, as well as to general
experience of computer use (which would correspond well to the above mentioned
concept of experience beliefs). When individuals have previous positive experience of
using online services or doing transactions online, they will in general feel more
comfortable with using the internet as a communication or distribution channel.
Experience of universal use of the internet as a channel, henceforth conceptually
referred to as “technology” – i.e. not specifically referring to the product-related use –
affects the willingness to adopt and use the internet as a communication and
distribution channel in any specific case. By using a framework integrating the
customer’s experience of using online services; the customer’s experience and
knowledge about the product, and the customer’s disposition to trust (which also is
experience-related), we will be able to capture not only the technology-related or
firm-related factors, but also the individual’s previous experience as one of the
determinants of attitudes towards interacting with the insurance company online.
Moreover, adding to the discourse of existing TAM/trust models, the mediating
variables of technology trustworthiness and organization trustworthiness are included
to expand the trust dimension of the framework, and also to increase its explanatory
impact. Considering that we are seeking to understand customers’ intention to use
internet in the interaction with insurance companies where interactions are infrequent
and the perceived complexity of insurance products are high, it is here argued that we
need to consider the channel/technology as such, as well as how the insurance
company is perceived by the customer together with his/her own experiences,
knowledge and disposition to trust. Hence, in order to understand why certain
customers adopt internet as a channel for interacting with their insurance company, it
is central to use both TAM and trust to capture these determinants for actual use of
online insurance services.
To capture, explore, and eventually assess perceptions of insurance customers
(individual and corporate) towards using the internet as a source of communication
and interaction, a multi-tiered framework (see Figure 1) presents a customer-based
process perspective incorporating antecedent determinants of the intentions to use
(and, subsequently, of actual use). Therefore, the research framework developed in this
paper – primarily, but not exclusively, for analyzing the use of online-based insurance
solutions – comprises three dimensions; technology-related factors, customer-related
factors, and firm-related factors.
The concept of technology-related factors has its base in TAM research (see
Benamati et al., 2010), and considers technology beliefs (perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness); herein predominantly referring to online-based technology.
Firm-related factors are dominated by the customer-perceived trusting beliefs
(competence, benevolence and integrity), and they are important factors shaping
IJBM
29,7

528

Figure 1.
A three factor-dimensional
framework for
investigating and
explaining customers’
attitudes towards using
online-based corporate
insurance service offerings
technology attitude as well as trusting attitude. Considering the relative importance of Determinants of
individual competence and experience, the framework is also accordingly integrating relationships
what is referred to as experience beliefs (disposition to trust, internet knowledge and
product knowledge; the latter two each affecting the former), attributed to the
individual’s experience. Especially in analyzing business-to-business interactions,
reflecting, e.g. complexity and the magnitude of possible consequences (compared to
business-to-consumer interactions) it is necessary to include the above presented 529
customer-related factors in an appropriate research framework.
Considering the firm-related factor dimension, these factors capture the customer’s
perceptions of the organizational trustworthiness, measured through the three major
types of trusting beliefs: competence, integrity, and benevolence, and acting as a
primary mediating variable in turn decisive for trusting attitude. The
technology-related factors are, as has been previously established, determining
technology attitude, but they also have a considerable impact on the individual’s
perceptions of the internet as a conduit, measured as technology trustworthiness (see
Bramall et al., 2004). Hence, technology trustworthiness is also acting as a mediating
variable, similar to organizational trustworthiness, at the same time as the
trustworthiness dimensions are assumingly reciprocally influential. Lastly, the
experience beliefs of the customer-related factor dimension help determine
organizational trustworthiness (assumingly strongly related), but also technology
trustworthiness, as general computer/technology and internet literacy pre-supposedly
have a considerable impact on technology attitude.

6. Concluding discussion
The focus of this article has been to conceptually clarify what factors affect customers’
intentions to use internet in communicating with their insurance company. We argue
that in order to understand insurance customers’ perceptions and intentions to use the
internet for communication it is necessary to understand how the customer perceives
the firm as this will affect whether the customer will form positive or negative attitudes
towards using the internet, termed trusting beliefs. Although Benamati et al. (2010)
developed a comprehensive model in integrating trust and TAM by focusing on factors
affecting technology and trusting attitudes, trustworthiness was not extensively
considered. A contribution to our understanding of behavioral intention to use is the
extension of the beliefs. It is argued that trusting beliefs and technology beliefs are
important but not sufficient variables to explain attitude formation. Rather, it is
essential to understand customer experience as well. Adding experience beliefs to the
TAM/trust model developed by Benamati et al. (2010) implies that the customer
specific factors are taken into consideration. A basic argument within TAM and TRA
is that external variables are mediated through beliefs. As experience is essential for
how external variables are interpreted, this also needs to be integrated into the model.
This is especially relevant within financial services and even more so within the
insurance industry where customers tend to perceive the risks with transactions with a
bank or an insurance company to be higher than for, e.g. book shops. As insurance
customers in many cases perceive insurance products as being complex, and that they
lack sufficient knowledge or information, they often prefer face-to-face interactions
over using other communication channels, such as the internet (Harrison et al., 2006).
Furthermore, when purchasing an insurance product, the customer is striving towards
IJBM attaining a sense of security, and – compared to related services (banking services
29,7 being the prime example) – given that interaction is characterized by infrequent
contact, insurance companies have previously relied more heavily on the direct
response channels (Dumm and Hoyt, 2003). Consequently, this do indeed indicate the
importance of identifying factors that can explain insurance customer’s intentions to
use the internet – including their attitude towards using technology, as well as their
530 trusting attitude.
Responding to the call by Gefen et al. (2008) to distinguish between trustworthiness
and trust in an IT context, the developed model explicitly integrates trustworthiness as
a mediator between beliefs and attitudes. In so doing the model captures not only the
effect once trust has been established but also how beliefs affect the customers’
perception of the technology and the company as being worthy of trust or not.
Although the article sets out to explain why certain customers will use the internet
while others are more hesitant or even resistant towards using the internet in
communicating with their insurance provider, we do believe that the model would be
generally applicable and could contribute in analyzing other industries as well. No
matter what industry is being researched, customers will have varying degrees of
experience in dealing with the company or of the technology. By including experience
beliefs we thereby can understand the factors that form the customers’ perceptions
based on, e.g. rumors and reputation.
The paper is conceptual and empirical testing is thus needed. As the arguments
developed emphasize the theoretical conceptualization, there further need for the
development of indicators to measure the factors’ effects on technology attitude and
trusting attitude as mediators on behavioral intention to use, and, eventually, actual
use. We suggest that the measurements developed and tested by Benamati et al. as well
as those developed by Bramall et al. (2004) could be used for testing the model.

7. Managerial implications
In order to identify how insurance companies can elaborate and increase the use of
internet in the interaction with their customers, it is here argued that managers need to
not only focus on the technology as such, but also to further consider the trusting
attitude of the customer. This point to the importance of collecting data and in
understanding customers considering, e.g. their information needs. By understanding
how the customers perceive the insurance company and its provided services in terms
of trust and technology, the insurance company will be able to design the web site to fit
the customers’ demands and thereby enable the insurance company to strengthen the
customers’ perceptions of the internet as being a useful channel and to perceive the
online solutions as being easy to use. The reason why it is essential for insurance
companies to consider the combined TAM/trust model is that the customer may very
well have experience of using the internet and may in general be positive towards
using the internet, but he/she is likely to perceive that insurance products are too
complex to understand without communicating through a direct channel – and
therefore may only use the internet for searching or for acquiring general information.
By identifying both the technology and the trusting attitude of its customers the
insurance company can adapt the information to better fit the needs of the customers,
which in the end could lead to a more advanced level of using internet-based insurance
services than just searching for information.
References Determinants of
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and relationships
Beckman, J. (Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg,
pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, 531
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alsajjan, B. and Dennis, C. (2010), “Internet banking acceptance model: cross-market
examination”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, pp. 957-63.
Anderson, E. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnership”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989), “Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial
channel dyads”, Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 310-23.
Ba, S. and Pavlou, P. (2002), “Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic
markets: price premiums and buying behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 243-68.
Ba, S., Whinston, A.B. and Zhang, H. (2003), “Building trust in online auction markets through an
economic incentive mechanism”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 273-86.
Benamati, J., Fuller, M.A., Silva, M.A. and Baroudi, J. (2010), “Clarifying the itegration of trust
and TAM in e-commerce environments: implications for systems design and
management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 380-93.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bramall, C., Schoefer, K. and McKechnie, S. (2004), “The determinants and consequences of
consumer trust in e-retailing: a conceptual framework”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Butler, J.K. (1991), “Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a
conditions of trust inventory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 643-63.
Chen, S.C. and Dhillon, G.S. (2003), “Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in e-commerce”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 4 Nos 2/3, pp. 303-18.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling:
a interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 319-40.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Deng, X., Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A.R. and Scaszzero, J.A. (2005), “A multi-group analysis of
structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model”, Information
& Management, Vol. 42, pp. 745-59.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Dumm, R.E. and Hoyt, R.E. (2003), “Insurance distribution channels: markets in transition”,
Journal of Insurance Regulation, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Ennew, C. and Sekhon, H. (2004), “Trust and UK financial services: a conceptual framework for
indicating trustworthiness”, paper presented at the International Colloquium in
Relationship Marketing 2004, Hamilton, New Zealand.
IJBM Ennew, C. and Sekhon, H. (2007,), “Measuring trust in financial services: the trust index”,
Consumer Policy Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 62-8.
29,7
Floh, A. and Treiblmaier, H. (2006), “What keeps the e-banking customer loyal? A multigroup
analysis of the moderating role of customer characteristics on e-loyalty in the financial
service industry”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 97-110.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
532 commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Managing user trust in B2C services”, e-Service Journal, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 7-24.
Gefen, D., Benbasat, I. and Pavlou, P.A. (2008), “A research agenda for trust in online
environments”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 275-86.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003a), “Trust and TAM in online shopping:
an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003b), “Inexperience and experience with online
stores: the importance of TAM and trust”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 307-21.
Gidhagen, M. (2002), Critical Business Episodes – The Criticality of Damage Adjustment
Processes in Insurance Relationships, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University,
Uppsala.
Giffin, K. (1967), “The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal
trust in the communication process”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 104-28.
Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Faullant, R. (2008), “Consumer acceptance of internet banking:
the influence of internet trust”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 483-504.
Gounaris, S. and Kortitos, C. (2008), “Investigating the drivers of internet banking adoption
decision. A comparison of three alternative frameworks”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 282-304.
Harrison, T., Waite, K. and Hunter, G.L. (2006), “The internet, information and empowerment”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, pp. 972-93.
Heinonen, K. (2006), “Conceptualising online banking service value”, Journal of Financial Services
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Hu, P.J., Chau, O.R., Liu Sheng, O.R. and Yan Tam, K. (1999), “Examining the Technology
Acceptance Model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 35-49.
Jackson, C.M., Chow, S. and Leitch, R.A. (1997), “Toward an understanding of the behavioral
intention to use an information system”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 357-89.
Järvenpää, S.L., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D. (1998), “Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in
global virtual teams”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 29-64.
Järvenpää, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-71.
Järvinen, R., Lehtinen, U. and Vuorinen, I. (2003), “Options of strategic decision making in
services. Tech, touch and customisation in financial services”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 5/6, pp. 774-95.
Korczynski, M. (2000), “The political economy of trust”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), “Why do people use information technology? Determinants of
A critical review of the technology acceptance model”, Information & Management,
Vol. 40, pp. 191-204. relationships
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McKechnie, S., Winklhofer, H. and Ennew, C. (2006), “Applying the Technology Acceptance
Model to the online retailing of financial services”, International Journal of Retail 533
& Distribution Management, Vol. 34 Nos 4/5, pp. 388-410.
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, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 35-59.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “The impact of initial consumer trust on
intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model”, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3-4, pp. 297-323.
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-90.
Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the Technology Acceptance Model
with the theory of planned behavior”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-91.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpandé, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and users
of marketing research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-29.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.H. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Palmer, A. and Bejou, D. (1994), “Buyer-seller relationships: a conceptual model and empirical
investigation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 495-512.
Palmer, J.W., Bailey, J.P. and Faraj, S. (2000), “The role of intermediaries in the development of
trust on the WWW: the use and prominence of trusted third parties and privacy
statements”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 3.
Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “Institution-based trust in interorganizational exchange relationships:
the role of online B2B marketplaces on trust formation”, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 117, pp. 216-43.
Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk
with the Technology Acceptance Model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 101-34.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1992), “Structuring cooperative relationships between
organizations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 483-98.
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, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Selnes, F. (1996), “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller
relationships”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 3/4, pp. 305-22.
Sheppard, B.H. and Sherman, D.M. (1998), “The grammars of trust: a model and general
implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 422-37.
Sirdesmukh, D. and Singh, J. (2002), “Consumer trust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
IJBM Suh, M. and Han, I. (2002), “Effect of trust on customer acceptance of internet banking”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 247-63.
29,7 Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-39.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
534 technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-78.
Williamson, O.E. (1983), “Calculativeness, trust and economic organization”, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 453-86.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920”,
in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8,
pp. 53-111.

Further reading
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies:
understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 50-64.
Mohls, N.P. (2000), “The internet and services marketing – the case of Danish retail banking”,
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Young, L. (2006), “Trust: looking forward and back”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 439-45.

About the authors

Mikael Gidhagen is a Senior Lecturer at Uppsala University’s Department of Business Studies,
from where he received his PhD in insurance companies’ relationship management considering
critical business episodes when corporate customers suffer a loss. He is currently involved in
research projects on the impact of internet-related solutions to trust in financial service
relationships and on customer involvement in creating value in the video game industry. His
research interests are in service management and service logic, insurance relationships,
knowledge management and value creation.
Sabine Gebert Persson has a background from Uppsala University where she received her
PhD on insurance companies’ foreign market entry processes into transition markets. She is
currently involved at the Center for Research on Economic Relations (CER), Mid Sweden
University in research projects focusing on factors explaining customers’ use of the internet in
interactions with financial actors and on factors affecting entrepreneurial growth. She is also
dividing her time as a Senior Lecturer at Mid Sweden University and at Dalarna University,
Sweden. Her research interests are in insurance relationships, legitimacy, institutions, and
regional strategic networks. Sabine Gebert Persson is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: sabine.gebert-persson@miun.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats