Consumers Trust in A Brand and The Link

Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, 341–370 (1999)
c 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

°
Consumers’ Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand

Loyalty
GEOK THENG LAU fbalaugt@nus.edu.sg
Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, National University of Singapore, FBA1, 15 Law Link, Republic
of Singapore 117591
SOOK HAN LEE

Marketing Manager, Singapore Telecommunications Private Limited
Received June 17, 1999; Revised October 7, 1999
Abstract
Brands are important in the consumer market. They are the interface between consumers
and the company, and consumers may develop loyalty to brands. This study proposes
that trust in a brand is important and is a key factor in the development of brand loyalty.
Factors hypothesized to influence trust in a brand include a number of brand characteristics,
company characteristics and consumer-brand characteristics. Respondents representing a
broad spectrum of Singapore consumers were surveyed.
The findings reveal that brand characteristics are relatively more important in their effects
on a consumer’s trust in a brand. The results also show that trust in a brand is positively
related to brand loyalty. Marketers should, therefore, take careful consideration of brand
factors in the development of trust in a brand.
Keywords: trust, loyalty, branding
Introduction
Marketers have long been interested in the concept of brand loyalty because brand loyalty
is a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Brand loyalty
brings the firm many benefits, including repeat purchases and recommendations of the
brand to friends and relatives. Brand management consultants espouse the importance of
brand loyalty, but despite a history of research conducted, the concept is not clearly defined.
Early research on brand loyalty focused on behavior. Brand loyalty was construed to be
a subset of repeat purchase behavior (Brown, 1952; Cunningham, 1956a) and intention
to repurchase. Later, researchers like Guest (1955) and Jacoby (1971) argued that brand
loyalty has two components: brand loyal behavior and brand loyal attitudes.
The attitude behind the purchase is important because it drives behavior. While brand
loyal behavior is partly determined by situational factors such as availability (Jacoby, 1971),
attitudes are more enduring. Unfortunately, despite its importance, brand attitudes have not
attracted a corresponding degree of research interest. A compilation of definitions and
342 LAU AND LEE
studies on brand loyalty by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) revealed that research on brand
loyal behavior outnumbered studies on brand attitudes three to one.
O’Shaughnessy (1992) suggested that underlying loyalty is always trust, a willingness to
act without calculating immediate costs and benefits. Hence, loyalty to a brand involves
trusting it. In industrial marketing, the concept of trust is well developed (e.g. Ganesan,
1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997) and much effort has been spent in finding ways to build
and maintain it. In that context, trust is built on person-to-person relationships. Trust in a
brand differs from interpersonal trust because a brand is a symbol. Unlike a salesperson,
this symbol is unable to respond to the consumer.
To win loyalty in today’s markets, consumer marketers have to embrace what is becoming
second nature to business marketers (Donath, 1994) and focus on building and maintaining
trust in the consumer-brand relationship. Unfortunately, the concept of trust in consumer
marketing is largely unexplored. The focus of this study is to examine some factors affecting
the development of trust in brands of consumer good, and to explore how that trust relates to
brand loyalty. By applying current interpretations of trust to brand loyalty, this study seeks
to approach brand loyalty differently and to provide insights into consumers’ motivation
for loyalty to brands.
Brand Loyalty: Past Research
Copeland (1923) appears to be the first to suggest a phenomenon related to brand loyalty,
which he labeled ‘brand insistence’. Brown (1952) and Cunningham (1956b) analyzed
summary measures of brand purchase patterns and found marked consistencies in con-
sumers’ purchase patterns of brands of various products. They concluded that individuals
exhibit strong and operative brand loyalty. Others (Lipstein, 1959; Frank, 1962; Farley,
1963) also verified the phenomenon. These spurred continuous inquiry into brand loyal
behavior. Subsequent research explored how brand loyalty is related to the following
variables: loyalty-proneness (Cunningham, 1956a; Frank et al., 1969; Wind and Frank,
1969), store loyalty (Cunningham, 1961; Carman, 1969; Rao, 1969), consumer knowl-
edge about available brands (Tucker, 1964), product categories (Farley, 1964), perceived
quality (McConnell, 1968; Shapiro, 1970; Szybillo and Jacoby, 1974), consumers’ risk-
reduction behavior (Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968), consumer characteristics (Cunningham,
1956; Guest, 1964; Coulson, 1966; Frank, 1967; Carman, 1969; Newman and Werbel,
1973), and shopping pattern characteristics (Carman, 1969; Kuehn, 1962). The possibility
of multi-brand loyalty was also explored (Ehrenberg and Goodhardt, 1970; Jacoby, 1971)
and a variety of mathematical (mostly stochastic) models were designed to analyze brand
loyal behavior (Lipstein, 1959).
Engel et al. (1968), in their comprehensive review of brand loyalty literature up to 1967,
noted several significant problems. These include an absence of a conceptual framework
for viewing brand loyalty, an almost exclusive focus on the outcome of behavior, and
overly simple definitions of brand loyalty. Day (1969), Segger (1970) and Jacoby and
Kyner (1973) made similar criticisms. Day (1969) proposed viewing brand loyalty as
repeated purchases prompted by strong internal dispositions. He distinguished between true
and “spurious” loyalty, which is associated with purchases not guided by strong internal
CONSUMERS’ TRUST IN A BRAND AND THE LINK TO BRAND LOYALTY 343
dispositions but by situational exigencies. Day (1969) and Lutz and Winn (1975) proposed
loyalty indices based on composites of attitudinal and behavioral measures. These contrast
with the traditional view of brand loyalty, represented by Tucker’s (1964, p. 32) statement
that “behavior is the full statement of what brand loyalty is.” Jacoby and Kyner (1973) further
viewed brand loyalty as a multidimensional construct involving attitudinal components
and as a subset of repeat purchase behavior. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) used the terms
“stochastic” and “deterministic” to label the alternative views of cognitive and behavioral
brand loyalties, respectively. Dick and Basu (1994) conceptualize customer loyalty as the
strength of the relationship between the relative attitude towards a brand and patronage
behavior.
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) argued that, regardless of the sophistication of any operational-
ization of brand loyalty and its ability to predict buying behavior, the focus on behavior may
not provide a firm basis for a complete understanding of the dynamics of brand loyalty. As
such, the importance of an internal disposition or attitude in the study of brand loyalty can-
not be ignored. We believe that trust in a brand represents an important component of this
internal disposition or attitude associated with brand loyalty. A more complete understand-
ing of brand loyalty cannot be achieved without an examination of trust in a brand and how
it is related to brand loyalty. In industrial marketing, researchers have found that trust in the
salesperson and the supplier is the cornerstone of source loyalty (Doney and Cannon, 1997).
Trust
Trust is defined as the expectation of the parties in a transaction and the risks associated
with assuming and acting on such expectations (Deutsch 1958). An individual has trust in
the occurrence of an event if he or she expects its occurrence. Trust is the willingness to
rely on another party in the face of risk. This willingness stems from an understanding of
the other party based on past experience. It also involves an expectation that the other party
will cause a positive outcome, despite the possibility that the action may cause a negative
outcome (Worchel, 1979).
Trust is an expectation set within particular contextual parameters and constraints. Lewis
and Weigert (1985) argue that trust is not mere predictability but confidence in the face
of risk. This line of argument is followed by other researchers (Deustch, 1960; Schlenker
et al., 1973; Boon and Holmes, 1991). Boon and Holmes (1991) defined trust as a state
involving confident positive expectations about another’s motives with respect to oneself in
risky situations.
Trust in Industrial Marketing
Trust is important in industrial marketing. As the competitive environment changes,

business-marketing firms seek creative ways to remain competitive. One way is by building
collaborative relationships with their customers. This is possible and cost-effective because
in the industrial market, the number of customers is smaller and each customer purchases
a larger amount of goods from the supplier. Relational forms of exchange in the industrial
344 LAU AND LEE
market are characterized by high levels of trust (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). With this trust, parties can focus on the long-term benefits of the rela-
tionship (Ganesan, 1994), thus enhancing competitiveness and reducing transaction costs
(Noordewier et al., 1990).
Trust is treated in one of two distinct ways in the industrial marketing literature. It is
conceptualized either as a feature of relationship quality (Dwyer and Oh, 1987; Crosby et
al., 1990; Anderson et al., 1987), or as a determinant of relationship quality (Anderson
and Narus, 1984, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Anderson and Weitz, 1990). Doney and
Cannon (1997) identified two dimensions of trust: perceived credibility and benevolence of
the target. Perceived credibility focuses on the objective credibility of the exchange partner,
the expectancy that the partner’s word or written statement can be relied on. Benevolence is
the extent to which one partner is genuinely interested in the other’s welfare and motivated
to seek joint gain. According to them, trust is developed through a process of calculating
the costs and rewards of the party cheating or staying in the relationship. Trust exists when
the costs of being caught cheating exceed its benefits.
Trust in Consumer Marketing
In recent years, businesses in consumer-goods markets face greater pressures as more

consumers become deal-loyal (Donath, 1994). To win back loyalty and to emulate the
success of industrial marketers, consumer marketers began to embrace the idea of build-
ing relationships with customers and winning their trust (Bennet, 1996). Conceptualiza-
tions of trust in the consumer marketing literature, however, have generally been lack-
ing.
In the consumer market, there are too many anonymous consumers, making it unlikely
that the selling organization could develop personal relationships with each customer. Thus,
consumer marketers may have to rely on a symbol—the brand—to build the relationship.
The brand becomes a substitute for human contact between the organization and its con-
sumers, and trust may be developed with it.
Trust in a Brand: A Research Model
A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design (or a combination) intended to identify a
seller’s goods or services, and to differentiate them from competitors’. In trust in a brand,
the entity trusted is not a person, but a symbol. Drawing from the discussion on trust in the
earlier section, we define trust in a brand as a consumer’s willingness to rely on the brand
in the face of risk because of expectations that the brand will cause positive outcomes.
In this paper, we propose that three sets of factors affect trust in a brand. These three sets
of factors correspond with the three entities involved in the brand-consumer relationship:
the brand itself, the company behind the brand, and the consumer interacting with the brand.
We also propose that trust in a brand will lead to brand loyalty. The research framework is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The research models.
Brand Characteristics As Antecedents to Trust in a Brand
The brand’s characteristics play a vital role in determining whether a consumer decides
to trust it. Just as individuals judge others before deciding whom to befriend, consumers
also judge the brand before deciding whether to build a relationship with it. Drawing from
research on interpersonal trust, we see that individuals are trusted based on their reputation
(Zucker, 1986), predictability (Remple et al., 1985), and competence (Andaleep and Anwar,
1996).
346 LAU AND LEE
Brand Reputation
A brand’s reputation refers to the opinion of others that the brand is good and reliable. Brand
reputation can be developed through advertising and public relations, but it is also likely
to be influenced by product quality and performance. Creed and Miles (1996) found that
reputation of a party could lead to positive expectations, which resulted in the development
of reciprocity between the parties. If a consumer perceives that other people are of the
opinion that a brand is good (that is, it has a good reputation), the consumer may trust the
brand sufficiently to purchase it. After the usage experience, if the brand at least meets the
consumer’s expectations, a good reputation serves to reinforce the consumer’s trust (that is,
his willingness to rely on it).
Conversely, if a brand does not have a good reputation, a consumer is likely to be more
suspicious. As a result of heightened awareness, they may be sensitized to any flaws that
the brand may have. This makes it more difficult for the brand to be trusted. Thus:
H1 A consumer’s perception that a brand has a good reputation is positively related to the
consumer’s trust in that brand.
Brand Predictability
Predictability refers to one party’s ability to forecast another party’s behavior (Doney and
Cannon, 1997). A predictable brand is one that allows the brand user to anticipate, with
reasonable confidence, how it will perform at each usage occasion. This predictability
may be due to a consistent level of product quality. Predictability comes from repeated
interaction, whereby one party makes promises and delivers on them; and courtship, where
one party learns more about the other.
Shapiro et al. (1992) identified three types of trust operating in business relationships:
deterrence-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust. Of these,
knowledge-based trust, grounded in behavioral predictability, exists when one party has
enough information about another to understand and predict its likely behavior that it will
act trustworthily (Linskold, 1978; Rotter, 1971). Kelly and Stahelski (1970) argued that
predictability enhances trust, even if the other party is predictably untrustworthy, because
the ways in which trust is violated can be predicted. A brand’s predictability enhances
confidence because the consumer knows that nothing unexpected may happen when it is
used. As such, brand predictability enhances trust in a brand because predictability builds
positive expectations (Kasperson et al., 1992). Therefore:
H2 A consumer’s perception that a brand is predictable is positively related to the con-

sumer’s trust in that brand.
Brand Competence
A competent brand is one that has the ability to solve a consumer’s problem and to meet his
or her need. Ability refers to skills and characteristics that enable a party to have influence
within a domain (Butler and Cantrell, 1984; Butler, 1991). Deutsch (1960), Cook and Wall
(1980), and Sitkin and Roth (1993) all considered ability as an essential element influencing
trust.
A consumer may find out about a brand’s competence through direct usage or word-of-
mouth communication. Once convinced that a brand is able to solve his or her problem, a
consumer may be willing to rely to that brand. In industrial marketing, Swan et al. (1985)
found that industrial salespeople whom customers perceived as competent are trusted more.
The hypothesis, then, is:
H3 A consumer’s perception that a brand is competent is positively related to the con-

sumer’s trust in that brand.
Company Characteristics as Antecedents to Trust in a Brand
The characteristics of the company behind a brand can also influence the degree to which
consumers trust the brand. A consumer’s knowledge about the company behind a brand
is likely to affect his or her assessment of the brand. The characteristics of the company
proposed to affect a consumer’s trust in a brand are the consumer’s trust in the company,
the company’s reputation (Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994), the perceived motives of the
company (Scheer and Steenkamp, 1995) and the perceived integrity of the company.
In the instance where the company behind a brand is not known, the brand may become
‘institutionalized’, and the consumer may have a mental image of the company and this
mental imagery may influence the attitude and behavior toward the brand.
Trust in the Company
When an entity is trusted, smaller entities that come under its fold tend to be trusted as
well, because they ‘belong’ to the larger entity. In the case of a company and its brand, the
company is the larger entity and the brand is the smaller entity in its fold. Thus, a consumer
who places trust in a company is likely to trust its brand. We hypothesize, then, that:
H4 A consumer’s trust in a company is positively related to the consumer’s trust in that

company’s brand.
Company Reputation
If a consumer perceives that other people are of the opinion that the company behind a
brand is known to be fair and just, that consumer may feel more secure in acquiring and
using the company’s brand. This translates to greater trust in that brand. Research findings
by Anderson and Weitz (1992) in the marketing channel context support this argument.
By making sacrifices and showing concern for other channel members, some retailers
and vendors have developed a reputation for fairness within the industry. When channel
348 LAU AND LEE
members perceive their reputation for fairness, they are more likely to trust these retailers
and vendors. The corresponding relationship hypothesized for consumer’s trust in a brand is:
H5 A consumer’s perception that a company has a reputation for fairness is positively

related to the consumer’s trust in that company’s brand.
Perceived Motives of the Company
Remple et al. (1985) found that the perceived motives of an exchange partner affect trust
in that partner. Doney and Cannon (1997) identified intentionality as one way in which
trust is developed in industrial buyer-seller relationships. Intentionality refers to one party’s
interpretation and assessment of the other party’s motives. When a party is perceived to be
benevolent, that party will be trusted (Deustch, 1960; Larzelere and Huston, 1980; Mayer
et al., 1995).
Similarly, Jones et al. (1975) suggested that the extent to which a leader’s behavior
is relevant to the followers’ needs influences confidence and trust in the leader. Hence,
benevolence of motives is an important factor in a relationship. In the context of a brand,
when a consumer perceives the company behind a brand to be benevolent and acting in the
consumer’s best interests, the consumer will trust that brand. Thus:
H6 A consumer’s perception that a company has benevolent motives is positively related

to the consumer’s trust in that company’s brand.
Company Integrity
The integrity of the company behind a brand is the consumer’s perception that it adheres to
a set of acceptable principles, such as keeping its promises, being ethical, and being honest.
This definition mirrors closely Mayer et al.’s (1995) definition of perceived integrity.
The degree to which a company is judged to have integrity depends on the consistency
of its past actions, credible communications about it from other parties, belief that it has
a strong sense of justice, and the extent to which its actions are congruent with its words.
Some theorists have discussed integrity as an antecedent to trust (Butler and Cantrell, 1984;
Butler, 1991; Sitkin and Roth, 1993). If the company behind a brand is perceived to have
integrity, its brand is likely to be trusted by consumers. Therefore:
H7 A consumer’s perception that a company has integrity is positively related to the con-
sumer’s trust in that company’s brand.
Consumer-Brand Characteristics as Antecedents to Trust in a Brand
A relationship is not one-way; both parties affect the relationship between them. There-
fore, consumer-brand characteristics can affect a consumer’s trust in a brand. These char-
acteristics include similarity between the consumer’s self-concept and the brand’s image
(Bendapudi and Berry, 1997), liking for the brand, experience with the brand, satisfaction
with the brand (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997), and peer support and influence.
Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand Personality
Self-concept denotes the totality of an individual’s thoughts and feelings with reference to
himself or herself as an object (Sirgy, 1982; Hong and Zinkhan, 1995). A popular analogy
used in the marketing literature is that brands are like people. A brand, thus, can have
an image or personality (Smothers, 1993). Brand image is the set of associations linked
to a brand that consumers hold in memory. A brand’s image gives it its perceived ‘per-
sonality’. The proliferation of research on brand personality (Park et al., 1986; Duboff,
1986; Durgee 1988) illustrates the high level of interest in this area. A brand’s person-
ality can be described as the set of human characteristics associated with a given brand
(Aaker, 1997). It includes demographic characteristics (for example, gender, age, and
socioeconomic class) as well as classic human personality traits (for example, warmth,
concern, and sentimentality). Brand personality, like human personality, is distinctive
and enduring. Consumers often interact with brands as if they were people, especially
when the brands are attached to high involvement products like clothes or cars (Aaker,
1996).
Research in interpersonal relationship shows that similarities of characteristics between
two parties may provide an inclination to trust. Further, because trust begets trust, common
characteristics may initiate a positive, reinforcing process of interaction (Gambetta, 1988;
Bradach and Eccles, 1989). Dion et al. (1995) showed that perceived similarities in person-
alities between the buyer and salesperson in industrial buying relationships influence the
buyer’s trust in the salesperson. Bennet (1996) argued that by conforming to a customer’s
opinions, values and standards (that is, becoming similar to the customer), a supplier can
earn the customer’s trust. A consumer may examine a brand and judge if it is ‘similar’ to
himself or herself. If a brand’s physical attributes or personality are judged to be similar
to the consumer’s self-image, the consumer is likely to trust it. Hong and Zinkhan (1995)
found that congruency of advertising expressions with a consumer’s self-concept resulted
in greater brand preference and buying intention. Hence:
H8 Similarity between a consumer’s self-concept and a brand’s personality is positively

related to the consumer’s trust in that brand.
Brand Liking
Liking denotes a certain fondness one party has towards another party because the party finds
the other party pleasant and agreeable. Bennet (1996) suggests that to initiate a relationship,
one party must be liked by the other. For a consumer to form a relationship with a brand, the
consumer must like it first. When a consumer likes a brand, the consumer is bound to find
out more about it, setting the stage for trusting it. In addition, traits that generate likeability
350 LAU AND LEE
have been found to emphasize sincerity, dependability, truthfulness, thoughtfulness, and

consideration (Taylor et al., 1994), all of which are connected with trust.
In the industrial marketing context, Swan et al. (1985) found that salespeople whom
customers perceived as likeable tended to gain more trust. Liking also formed a strong basis
for evaluation and satisfaction with sales relationship and performance. Most industrial
buyers felt that liking the salesperson was an important factor affecting the evaluation of a
sales relationship (Dion et al., 1995). In consumer marketing, if a consumer likes a brand
(that is, finds a brand pleasant and agreeable), he or she is more likely to trust that brand
(that is, to show willingness to rely on it). Stated formally:
H9 A consumer’s liking for a brand is positively related to the consumer’s trust in that
brand.
Brand Experience
Brand experience refers to a consumer’s past encounters with the brand, particularly in the
area of usage. Zucker (1986) suggested that, in the development of process-based trust,
reciprocity (developed through recurring exchanges) is the key. In reciprocity, a system of
diffused social norms is created, leading to mutual obligation and expectations of equitable
treatment (Zucker, 1986; Malinowski, 1992). Thus, transactions become embedded in the
social context (Bradach and Eccles, 1989; Granovetter, 1992). In organizations, repeated
contacts through time suggest a long-term commitment (Arrow, 1984; Powell, 1990), with
opportunities for increases in risk-taking and cooperation (Good, 1988; Lorenz, 1988).
Security and stability of such recurring reciprocal exchanges engender trust (Powell, 1990).
Research on channel relationships (Scanzoni, 1979; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987) has
shown that as experience with a channel partner increases, the likelihood of passing through
shakeout periods in the relationship increases. The experiences provide both parties with a
greater understanding of each other. Thus experience is likely to increase trust in the partner.
Similarly, as a consumer gains more experience with a brand, the consumer understands
the brand better and grows to trust it more. This experience is not restricted to positive
experiences, because any experience improves the consumer’s ability to predict the brand’s
performance. Furthermore, ‘institutionalization’ of the relationship may occur when the
consumer becomes committed to a long-term relationship with the brand (Bennet, 1996).
To summarize:
H10 A consumer’s experience with a brand is positively related to the consumer’s trust in
that brand.
Brand Satisfaction
Brand satisfaction can be defined as the outcome of the subjective evaluation that the chosen
alternative brand meets or exceeds expectations (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). This is in
line with the disconfirmation paradigm of consumer satisfaction, where the comparison
between customer expectations and actual performance features strongly in the definition
of satisfaction. Research in equity and social exchange theory suggests that the equity
of outcomes affects behavior in subsequent periods (Adams, 1965; Kelly and Thibaut,
1978). In a continuing relationship, satisfaction with past outcomes indicates equity in
the exchange. This increases the perception of the exchange partner’s benevolence and
credibility (Ganesan, 1994).
Butler (1991) also identified promise fulfillment as an antecedent of trust in an industrial
marketing relationship. When a consumer is satisfied with a brand after using it, this
situation is similar to promise fulfillment. Since the brand has kept its promise, the consumer
is liable to trust it more. Therefore:
H11 A consumer’s satisfaction with a brand is positively related to the consumer’s trust
in that brand.
Peer Support
Bearden et al. (1989) argued that an important determinant of an individual’s behavior is

other individual’s influence, implying that social influence is an important determinant of
consumer behavior. This is reflected in models of consumer decision-making that incorpo-
rate social norms (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and interpersonal considerations (Miniard and
Cohen, 1983) as antecedents of behavioral intentions. Furthermore, the use of interpersonal
influence scenarios in marketing communications also highlights the importance of peer
support (Reingen et al., 1984). Consumers may purchase products to conform with peer
groups, in response to concerns of what others think of them, in reaction to others’ product
choice and usage (Calder and Burnkrant, 1977; Bearden and Rose, 1990), or because others
have provided credible information regarding a product’s value (Cohen and Golden, 1972).
Doney and Cannon (1997) suggested that transference is one way in which trust is devel-
oped. Transference is the extension of trust in a party based on a third party’s definition of
its trustworthiness. Through transference, the trust which an individual’s significant others
(friends, relatives or aspiration group members) accord to a brand will be ‘transferred’
from them to other consumers. Therefore, consumers are likely to trust brands which their
significant others express trust in. In doing so, they indirectly obtain approval and peer
support for their subsequent actions. The hypothesis is:
H12 Peer support for a brand is positively related to a consumer’s trust in that brand.
Brand Loyalty as a Consequence of Trust in a Brand
Brand loyalty has been conceptualized as actual pattern of purchase behavior of a brand
(Brown, 1952; Tucker, 1964), or behavioral intention towards the brand (Banks, 1968). In
this study, we conceptualize brand loyalty as behavioral intention to buy a brand of product
and to encourage others to buy that brand. Banks (1968) found a fairly strong relationship
between behavioral intention towards a brand and actual brand purchase behavior.
352 LAU AND LEE
It appears that if one party trusts another, it is likely to develop some form of positive
behavioral intention towards the other party. In couples, trust in another party could lead to
courtship and intention to marry (Boon and Holmes, 1991). In industrial marketing, trust
in the salesperson or supplier could lead to supplier loyalty. When a consumer places his
or her trust in a brand, and shows a willingness to rely on that brand, that consumer is also
likely to form a positive buying intention towards the brand. Therefore:
H13 A consumer’s trust in a brand is positively related to the consumer’s loyalty to that
brand.
Research Design
Sampling and Field Procedure
The target population for the study was Singapore consumers who have made a purchase
decision for any consumer good. The sampling unit was the individual consumer. Quotas
on gender, age and race, corresponding to the distribution of Singapore residents (based on
the Singapore Monthly Digest of Statistics, November 1997 issue), were used to ensure a
representative distribution of consumers in the sample. Individuals below 12 years were
excluded because children might encounter difficulties with the questions in the question-
naire.
A mall intercept survey was used. The method has merits in speed, economy, and control
of respondent type. Furthermore, the presence of an interviewer would ensure a higher
response rate. Two shopping malls were selected from all the shopping malls in Singapore.
One hundred and forty (140) questionnaires were assigned to each shopping mall, making
a total of 280 questionnaires. Four interviewers were assigned to each mall. They were
briefed on the quota sampling method and given detailed instructions on the respondent
interviewing process.
To eliminate differences in response patterns due to different reference points, all respon-
dents were prompted to answer the questionnaire with reference to non-durable consumer
goods. This category was chosen because consumers purchase these products most fre-
quently. The respondents were asked to identify a product category in which they had
frequently made a purchase decision. Respondents were then asked to name a brand in that
product category and they were requested to think about that brand (which may not be their
favorite brand) as they complete the entire questionnaire, guided by the interviewers.
Operationalization of Constructs
The indicators of each construct in the study were from a variety of sources. Some were
established measures while others were modified or developed for this study. The measures
for the constructs are shown in Appendix A.
Brand Constructs
A new scale was developed to measure perceived brand reputation. The construct was
measured by tapping the respondent’s perception of how the brand is known to be and what
other individuals have said about the brand.
The operationalization of brand predictability involved items measuring the brand’s con-
sistency in quality and the extent the respondent perceived the brand to perform as expected.
Three items were adapted from the predictability sub-scale of Remple et al.’s (1985) study.
The operationalization of brand competence involved items to measure the brand’s per-
ceived relative competence, since an assessment of a brand’s competence would have to be
taken in the context of what other brands are capable of achieving. A brand can only be
‘good’ if it is better than other available brands.
Company Constructs
Trust in the company was measured by tapping the respondent’s faith in the company. One
item was adapted from Larzelere and Huston’s (1980) measure of trust in a partner, while
another was adapted from the faith sub-scale of Remple et al.’s (1985) study.
Company reputation was measured by asking respondents to rate the company in terms of
its reputation for fairness and honesty. The measurement scale used was adapted from An-
derson and Weitz’s (1992) scale to measure the distributor’s and manufacturer’s perceptions
of the other party’s reputation for fairness in business dealings.
Perceived motives of the company was operationalized by creating a new scale. The
respondent was asked if he or she felt that the company cared for its customers’ welfare
or only about itself. One scale item was adapted from Kumar et al.’s (1995) measure of
benevolence in a partner.
The perceived integrity of the company was operationalized by tapping perceptions of the
company’s values in areas such as ethics, honesty, and consistency of its actions with its
promises. One item was adapted from Mowday et al. (1979).
Consumer-Brand Constructs
To measure the degree of similarity between the consumer’s self-concept and the brand’s
personality, respondents separately rated themselves and the brand along two identical
scales. The difference in the scores for each item in the scale would be used as an indicator of
the difference between the respondent’s self-concept and the brand’s perceived personality.
Malhotra (1981) used the original scale, which consists of 15 semantic-differential pairs,
for measuring self-concept and brand image. One item was dropped because its meaning
was unclear to respondents in the pretest, and two items were modified to enhance their
clarity. To find out if the respondent consciously perceived similarities between the brand
and himself or herself, a separate scale was developed, where the respondent was asked to
rate the similarity between the brand’s image and his or her image.
354 LAU AND LEE
Brand liking can be thought of as a relative concept—individuals know that they like one
brand because they prefer it to other brands. Thus, liking for a brand was operationalized
by measuring the consumer’s preference for the brand over other brands, as well as asking
the respondent directly whether he or she liked the brand.
The operationalization of brand experience involved examining the respondent’s usage
of the brand, starting from the first time they recalled using the brand. Other items in the
scale examined the frequency of brand use.
The operationalization of brand satisfaction involved adapting Westbrook and Oliver’s
(1981) twelve-item scale to measure consumer satisfaction with a new car purchase. Items
that were not relevant, or could not be adapted to the context of this study were dropped.
The scale has high internal consistency, so this may not seriously affect reliability (Bruner
and Hensel, 1982).
Peer support was measured by asking the respondent if his or her friends supported the
brand’s purchase or if they actually recommended the brand’s purchase.
Trust in the Brand
The operationalization of trust in the brand involved asking the respondent if the brand can
be counted on to do what it is supposed to do and if he or she is willing to rely on it. One
item was adapted from Larzelere and Huston’s (1980) measure of trust in a partner and
three items were adapted from the trust scale of Remple et al.’s (1985) study.
Brand Loyalty
Since this is a one-shot study, it is not feasible to observe the respondents’ pattern of
purchase behavior to determine the extent of brand loyalty. Further, since this is not a
longitudinal study, accurate measures that require the reporting of purchases over a period
of time could not be obtained. The measurement of brand loyalty in this study focused
on behavioral intentions—the respondent’s intention to keep buying the brand and the
respondent’s willingness to wait if the brand was not available.
Questionnaire Design and Pretest
The questionnaire contained two parts, divided into six sections. Respondents answered
the questions in Part 1 with reference to a brand of consumer good. Part 2 dealt with the
respondent’s characteristics. To reduce response bias, the items to measure the various
constructs were ordered randomly. Also, about half of the total number of items were
reverse-scored to avoid acquiescence bias. To be consistent and to make it easy for respon-
dents to complete the questionnaire, standardized seven-point Likert scales were used where
possible. The remaining questions were either open-ended or required the respondent to
tick the appropriate boxes.
The questionnaire was administered to 20 individuals for the pre-test. These respon-
dents were selected from the sampling frame. The phrasing of some items, as well as the
instructions, were modified for greater clarity after receiving feedback.
Data Analysis and Research Results
Respondent Profile
There were 263 completed questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 93.9 percent. The
general profile of the respondents was comparable (no statistical differences) to the distri-
bution of gender, age, race, income and education of Singapore residents. There were an
almost equal proportion of male (50.2%) and female (49.8%) respondents. The respondents
were aged 13 to 62 years, and the mean age was 35.77 years. The median monthly income
was $1,500–1,999.
One hundred and forty-seven (147) brands and 57 product types were named in the survey.
Colgate was the most often-mentioned brand (9.46%) and the most frequently mentioned
product was shampoo (14.45%). The mean brand use duration was 45 months.
Evaluation of Validity
Inspection of Pearson’s correlation matrix for all the items revealed no problems with
convergent and discriminant validity. Scale items belonging to the same construct had
higher correlations (coefficients ranged from 0.52 to 0.87), while those relating to different
constructs had lower correlations (coefficients ranged from 0.18 to 0.43).
Factor analysis was carried out to determine the construct validity of the measures. To
determine whether a variable is part of a factor, factor loading of at least 0.3 was used
(Nunnally, 1978). The factors were extracted using principal components analysis and
factor matrices were rotated using Varimax orthogonal rotation where possible.
The factors extracted corresponded with the brand, company, and consumer constructs.
Items meant to measure the same construct clustered together, suggesting that they measured
the same conceptual space. The rotated factor matrix showed that the factor loadings for
the variables ranged from 0.349 to 0.777. This satisfies Nunnally’s (1978) criterion.
Evaluation of Reliability
The internal consistency method (using Cronbach coefficient alpha) was used to examine
the reliability of the scales. The coefficients for the variables are shown in Table 1. For the
purpose of basic research, a Cronbach alpha of 0.70 or higher is sufficient (Nunnally, 1978).
Most of the scales exceeded the reliability threshold. However, the coefficient of the scale
for brand experience was below 0.7. Thus, caution must be taken when interpreting results
related to it.
356 LAU AND LEE
Table 1. Cronbach coefficient alpha.
Variable Cronbach
Alpha
Brand Reputation 0.87
Brand Predictability 0.91
Brand Competence 0.94
Trust in the Company 0.90
Company Reputation 0.71
Perceived Motives of Company 0.72
Company Integrity 0.84
Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand 0.76
Personality+
Difference in Scores for Consumer and Brand 0.96
Personality+
Liking for the Brand 0.87
Experience with the Brand 0.62
Satisfaction with the Brand 0.95
Peer Support 0.73
Trust in the Brand 0.93
Brand Loyalty 0.90
+ This measure was computed by taking the difference between the re-
spondent’s self-concept score and the brand’s personality score for each
item in the 14-item scale.
Note: Sample size = 263.
Descriptive Statistics
The means and standard deviations of the variables included in this study are shown in
Table 2. The mean score is the simple average of all items included in the construct. Unless
otherwise stated, a standardized 7-point “Strongly Disagree—Strongly Agree” scale was
used. The mean scores ranged from 1.95 to 5.56. The smallest standard deviation was
above the critical value of 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, the means and standard deviations
appear to be acceptable.
Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 3 shows the Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the corresponding variables specified
in the hypotheses. The results show support for all the hypotheses, H1 to H13. As such,
Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables.
Variable Mean Std

Score Deviation
Brand Reputation 5.13 1.29
Brand Predictability 5.10 1.35
Brand Competence 4.88 1.48
Trust in the Company 4.83 1.30
Company Reputation 4.60 1.23
Perceived Motives of Company 4.39 1.22
Company Integrity 4.64 1.18
Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand 4.20 1.60
Personality+
Difference Between Consumer and Brand Scores for 1.95 1.57
Personality+
Liking for the Brand 5.07 1.74
Experience with the Brand 5.56 1.48
Satisfaction with the Brand 5.20 1.61
Peer Support 4.30 1.41
Trust in the Brand 5.10 1.60
Brand Loyalty 4.52 1.58
+ This measure was computed by taking the difference between the respondent’s
and the brand’s scores for each item in the 14-item scale. Thus, values would
range from zero (no difference) to six (largest possible difference).
all the proposed brand, company, and consumer-brand characteristics were found to affect
trust in a brand.
Trust in a brand was also found to lead to brand loyalty. The correlation coefficient between
the two variables is 0.890 and the percentage of variation shared by the two variables or the
coefficient of determination is 0.792.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was carried out with trust in a brand as the dependent variable and all
the brand, company and consumer-brand factors as independent variables. The model was
significant at p < .01 level and the adjusted R 2 = 0.909. Table 4 shows the betas which
indicate the variables’ explanatory power. However, before the model can be interpreted,
the independent variables have to be checked for multicollinearity. Multicollinearity ex-
358 LAU AND LEE
Table 3. Pearson Correlation Analysis Results.
Hypothesis Relationship hypothesized Pearson Correlation

Analysis Results
H1 Brand reputation and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.85, p < 0.01
H2 Brand predictability and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.88, p < 0.01
H3 Brand competence and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.87, p < 0.01
H4 Trust in a company and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.81, p < 0.01
H5 Company reputation and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.72, p < 0.01
H6 Company benevolent motives and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.68, p < 0.01
H7 Company integrity and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.75, p < 0.01
H8a Similarity between consumer’s self concept and brand r = 0.75, p < 0.01
personality and trust in a brand—positive
H8b Difference between consumer’s self concept and brand r = −0.71, p < 0.01
personality and trust in a brand—negative
H9 Consumer brand liking and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.87, p < 0.01
H10 Consumer brand experience and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.73, p < 0.01
H11 Consumer satisfaction with a brand and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.94, p < 0.01
H12 Peer support for a brand and trust in a brand—positive r = 0.65, p < 0.01
H13 Trust in a brand and brand loyalty—positive r = 0.89, p < 0.01
ists when two or more independent variables used in the regression are correlated. If a
high degree of correlation exists, it is then difficult to determine the contribution of each
independent variable, because their effects are confounded (Hair et al., 1995).
The presence of high correlations, generally those of 0.9 and above, is the first indication
of substantial collinearity (Hair et al., 1995). An examination of the correlation among the
independent variables did not exceed this threshold. However, multicollinearity may arise
due to the combined effect of two or more independent variables. A common measure for
assessing pairwise and multiple variable collinearity is the variance inflation factor (VIF),
which tells us the degree to which each independent variable is explained by the others.
Very large VIF values denote high multicollinearity. A common cutoff threshold is a VIF of
10 (Hair et al., 1995). Looking back at Table 4, brand satisfaction (VIF = 10.967) exceeded
the threshold.
The construct was dropped and regression analysis was carried out with the rest of the
independent variables. The results are shown in Table 5. The regression model is significant
at p < .01 level and the adjusted R 2 = 0.889. Five constructs were significant (at p <
.05 level) in explaining trust in a brand. These constructs, based on their importance in
explaining trust in a brand as indicated by their beta coefficients, are brand predictability,
brand liking, brand competence, brand reputation, and trust in the company. The revised
Table 4. Antecedents of Trust in a Brand—Multiple Regression Results.
Independent Variable Standardized VIF

Regression
Coefficients
Brand Reputation 0.083 5.34
Brand Predictability 0.212+ 5.16
Brand Competence 0.113∗ 5.64
Trust in Company 0.078 5.62
Company Reputation −0.076∗ 3.79
Perceived Motives of the Company 0.055 2.53
Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand Personality 0.004 2.96
Difference in Scores for Consumer and Brand Personality 0.004 2.68
Liking for the Brand 0.069 6.50
Experience with the Brand 0.000 2.79
Satisfaction with the Brand 0.462+ 10.97
Multiple R 0.956
R2 0.913
Adjusted R2 0.909
Sample Size 263
∗ p < 0.05
+ p < 0.01
model of this research is shown in Figure 1. Overall, the VIF values, though satisfactory,
are still rather high. Multicollinearity may still be a problem. As such, caution should be
exercised when interpreting the meaning of the beta coefficients and the relative importance
of the explanatory constructs in the regression model.
Practical Implications
The results show that trust in a brand contributes to behavioral intention of brand loy-
alty. Hence, it is worthwhile for marketers to build consumer trust in their brand. Brand
characteristics, particularly brand predictability, brand competence and brand reputation,
appear to be relatively more important in developing consumers’ trust in a brand. Two other
important factors are brand liking and trust in the company.
360 LAU AND LEE
Table 5. Antecedents of trust in a brand—regression Results.
Independent Variable Standardized VIF

Regression
Coefficients
Brand Predictability 0.309+ 4.65
Brand Liking 0.206+ 5.54
Brand Competence 0.191+ 5.32
Brand Reputation 0.148+ 5.10
Trust in Company 0.098∗ 5.60
Company Reputation −0.73 3.78
Company Motives 0.060 2.53
Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand 0.019 2.95
Personality
Difference in Scores for Consumer and Brand Personality −0.15 2.66
Brand Experience −0.001 2.80
Multiple R 0.946
R2 0.894
Adjusted R2 0.889
Sample Size 263
+ p < 0.01
∗ p < 0.05
To achieve brand predictability, there must be consistency. Implementation starts on the

factory floor, ensuring the consistent quality of every product coming off the production
line. This requires stringent operating and quality control procedures on the manufacturing
side. One effective way to get manufacturing and production people to be concerned about
quality is to develop in them a customer-oriented perspective. Some Japanese manufacturers
have been successful in doing this and there are stories told about how assembly workers
at Toyota were able to talk about customers and their hope that the cars they work on will
give customer satisfaction.
To achieve brand predictability, marketers should try not to make too many drastic changes
to products too frequently. If major product changes are necessary, marketers should
communicate to consumers carefully regarding the changes, so that they know what to
expect from the modified product.
Brand predictability can come from repeated interactions between the consumer and the
brand. Marketers should try to provide as many opportunities for customers to interact with
the brand as possible. Some mechanisms for customer-brand interactions include sales
promotion points for customers to try the product and multiple display areas in retail outlets
where customers get repeated contacts with the brand.
Brand predictability can be developed through consistent communications with con-
sumers. Marketers should ensure that they are saying fairly similar things about the prod-
uct to consumers through different communication channels such as advertising media,
point-of-purchase displays, product packaging, product pricing and salespeople. Mar-
keters should also be careful about making promises regarding their product because when
some of these promises are broken, customers may perceive the brand as being unpre-
dictable.
Brand Competence
As trust in ability is perceived to be domain-specific (Zand, 1972), companies should

preferably establish their competence in a few key areas, and manage their brands within
these. To start with, marketers should carry out research to find out consumers’ needs and
concerns related to the product area, so they can develop competence which are relevant to
them.
Companies should not have too many brand extensions beyond their core competence;
otherwise consumers may begin to doubt the brand’s competence in such unrelated areas.
Consumers must be convinced regarding the company’s brand competence. Marketers
should make judicious use of key opinion leaders, who are viewed as authorities in specific
areas, to speak on behalf of the company’s brand. Some examples of key opinion leaders are
famous physicians for pharmaceutical products and highly qualified engineers for technical
equipment.
Brand Reputation
To build a good reputation for a brand, it is essential that the brand please its customers. This
calls for genuine quality and delivering on its promises. Other efforts include advertising
and public relations, and customers should be encouraged to spread positive word-of-mouth.
An important point regarding word-of-mouth is the impact of negative word-of-mouth. As
a Chinese saying goes, “Good news does not become known, but bad news spreads far and
wide”. Negative word-of-mouth can destroy a company’s public relations efforts. Hence,
complaint handling is important. There should be a channel through which feedback can be
easily directed (e.g. a toll-free direct line) and it should be publicized, so unhappy customers
can readily communicate their displeasure. Every complaint must be handled professionally
and every customer who calls should end up feeling that the company has done a good job.
362 LAU AND LEE
In this way, potential disasters can be averted, and converted into opportunities to convince
customers to spread positive word-of-mouth.
Rumors and other forms of communications, which can damage a brand’s reputation,
should be responded to and quashed firmly and decisively when they first surface. Mar-
keters should not wait till the rumors have spread widely before responding because
the damage done to brand reputation may not be repaired easily. In Singapore, Shell
introduced Formula Shell many years back and the product was advertised as a high
performance product, enabling cars to run smoothly and pick up speed faster. Shell
gained market share rapidly and competitors began to launch similar products. Rumors
that Formula Shell was not suitable for some models of cars began to spread and there
were stories that some car engines were damaged after car owners began using the prod-
uct. Shell did not deal with the rumor effectively and sales of Formula Shell declined
rapidly.
Brand Liking
Brand liking can be developed by making the product pleasant to look at, nice to feel and
touch, and easy to handle. This is in the arena of packaging, design and styling. The
aesthetic aspects of the product and brand cannot be overlooked. Marketers should make
sure that the Research and Development department, in designing new products, do not just
focus on the technical aspects of the product alone, but should also consider the appearance
and aesthetic aspects of the product as well.
Marketers can also develop brand liking by associating the brand with situations in
which consumers have fond memories or warm feelings. A Korean company market-
ing seasoning products in the urban regions of Korean created an association of its brand
with the taste of hometown cooking. The brand was successful because the thought of
hometown in the rural regions of Korea always bring back fond memories in consumers
who have moved from their hometown to work in urban Korea. Another way in which
marketers can develop brand liking is to associate the brand with a well-liked person.
Care must be exercised in doing this to ensure that consumers are not offended as a re-
sult of such associations. The King of Thailand is a well-liked and respected person
but an association of a brand with him may not go well with the people of Thailand
who treat him almost like a god. Generally, the well-liked person chosen for a brand
association should not be too high profile but should be fairly ordinary but yet well
known.
The research result shows that trust in a brand and trust in the company behind the brand go
hand in hand. One may not be achieved without the other. Marketers can develop trust in the
company by using corporate communications to strengthen the company’s image. The link
between the company and the brand can also be strengthened since the two can reinforce
each other. Procter and Gamble has recently moved in this direction. The performance of
other products and brands within the company can affect trust in the company, and as a
result, trust in another brand belonging to the company. As such, marketers should adopt a
holistic view with regard to the management of different brands and products belonging to
the company.
In order to build up trust in a new brand, it may be better to emphasize the company’s
name and identity initially. Consumers may look at the company and infer a certain level
of quality, making it easier for them to accept the new product.
Research Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
As the questionnaire was in English, all interviews were conducted in the language. Thus,
respondents were limited to the English-speaking population in Singapore. This might
have caused a bias in respondent selection, because individuals who could not speak En-
glish were excluded. Using other forms of the questionnaire (that is, in other languages)
might improve the representativeness of the responses and the generalizability of the re-
sults.
The respondents were guided to answer the questionnaire with reference to a frequently
purchased product (that is, non-durables). Consumer durables (for example, electrical
appliances) were excluded from the study. Trust in a brand may be even more impor-
tant in explaining brand loyalty for durable goods, because a purchase mistake would
stay with the user for a long time. Further research could study trust in a brand for
both non-durables and durables, and comparisons could be made across the two product
classes.
The beta coefficients in the regression analysis were rather low, and many were insignifi-
cant. Multicollinearity associated with the independent variables could also be a problem.
Thus, care has to be exercised in drawing conclusions regarding the factors’ relative contri-
bution to explaining trust in a brand. Future research can identify major constructs affecting
both trust in a brand and brand loyalty, measure these constructs, and hold the statistical
effects constant. This will allow us to examine more accurately the effect of trust in a brand
on brand loyalty.
This is a one-shot study and the results merely represent a snapshot in the development
of trust in a brand. Further studies could examine trust in a brand over time to uncover
changes in the degree of influence of the various brand, company and consumer-brand
characteristics on trust in a brand at the various stages of the consumer-brand relation-
ship.
Some measures used in this study could be improved upon in future research. The
reliability coefficient for brand experience was relatively low. Hence, the results associated
with the construct should be interpreted with caution. This study examined brand experience
only from a usage point of view. Better measures involving specific experiences with the
brand in different areas such as buying, using, storing, and discarding the brand can be
developed for this construct in future research.
364 LAU AND LEE
Appendix A
Measures Used In This Research
Brand Reputation
• This brand has a reputation for being good
• This brand has a reputation for being unreliable∗
• Other people have told me that this brand is not good∗
• Other people have told me that this brand is reliable
• This brand is reputed to perform well
• I have heard negative comments about this brand∗
• When I buy this brand, I know what exactly to expect
• I can always anticipate correctly how this brand will perform
• This brand is not consistent in its quality∗
• This brand performs consistently
• This brand’s performance tends to be quite variable. I can’t always be sure how it will
perform the next time I buy it∗
• I know how this brand is going to perform. This brand can always be counted on to
perform as I expect.
Brand Competence
• This brand is the best one for this category of products
• Most other brands are better than this one∗
• This brand performs better than other brands
• This brand is more effective than other brands
• This brand meets my needs better than other brands
• This brand accomplishes its task better than other brands
Company Reputation
• This company has a reputation for fairness in dealing with its customers
• Some customers think this company only looks out for itself∗
• I have heard negative comments about this company∗
Perceived Motives of Company
• This company only cares about making profits∗
• This company is only concerned about its own welfare∗
• I can count on this company to consider how its decisions and actions will affect its
customers
Company Integrity
• The company’s actions are consistent with its words
• The company makes promises that it does not keep∗
• The company is honest in its dealings with its customers
• The company is ethical

• I do not trust this company∗
• I believe that this company will not try to cheat me
• I feel that I can trust this company completely
• I feel secure when I use products from this company because I know that the company
will never let me down
• I feel that I can rely on this company to manufacture products that work well
Experience with the Brand
• I have used this brand for months
• I have used this brand times
• I use this brand often
• I have used this brand many times before
Similarities Between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand Image
• Rugged . . . Delicate
• Excitable . . . Calm
• Dominating . . . Submissive
• Thrifty . . . Indulgent
• Pleasant . . . Unpleasant
• Modern . . . Traditional
• Organized . . . Unorganized
• Rational . . . Emotional
• Youthful . . . Mature
• Formal . . . Informal
• Conservative . . . Liberal
• Complex . . . Simple
• Colorless . . . Colorful
• Modest . . . Vain
• This brand’s image is comparable with how I see myself
• If this brand were a person, it would be very much unlike myself∗
• This brand’s image is different from my own image∗
Liking for the Brand
• I like this brand
• I prefer other brands to this brand∗
• This is my favorite brand
Peer Support
• My friends recommend that I buy this brand
• My friends would not support my decision to buy this brand∗
• My friends would be happy if they knew that I buy this brand
Satisfaction with the Brand
• This brand has not worked out as well as I thought it would∗
• I am satisfied with my decision to buy this brand
366 LAU AND LEE
• I have truly enjoyed this brand

• I feel bad about my decision to buy this brand∗
• I am not happy that I bought this brand∗
• Using this brand has been a good experience
• I am sure it was the right thing to buy this brand
Trust in the Brand
• I trust this brand
• This brand cannot be counted on to do its job∗
• I feel that I can trust this brand completely
• I cannot rely on this brand∗
• I feel secure when I buy this brand because I know that it will never let me down
Brand Loyalty
• I do not intend to keep buying this brand∗
• If another brand is having a sale, I will generally buy the other brand instead of this one∗
• If this brand is not available in the store when I need it, I will buy it another time
• If this brand is not available in the store when I need it, I will buy it somewhere else
• If someone makes a negative comment about this brand, I would defend it
• I would not recommend this brand to someone who cannot decide which brand to buy in
this product class∗
• I would believe a person if that person made a negative comment about this brand∗
• I often tell my friends how good this brand is
∗
Items are reverse scaled.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, NY: The Free Press.
(1996), Building Strong Brands, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 347–356.
Adams, S. J. (1965), “Inequity in Social Exchange,” in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 2, NY: Academic Press, pp. 267–299.
Andaleep, S. S., and Anwar, S. F. (1996), “Factors Influencing Customer Trust in Salespersons in a Developing
Country,” Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 35–52.
Anderson, E., and Weitz, B. (1990), “Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads,”
Marketing Science, Vol. 8, pp. 310–323.
Anderson, E., and Weitz, B. (1992), “The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution
Channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 18–34.
Anderson, E., Lodish, L., and Weitz, B. (1987), “Resource Allocation Behavior in Conventional Channels,”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 254–262.
Anderson, J. C., and Narus, A. (1984), “A Model of the Distributors’ Perspective of Distributor-Manufacturer
Working Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, pp. 62–74.
(1990), “A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturing Firm Working Partnerships,” Journal of Mar-
keting, Vol. 54, January, pp. 42–58.
Arrow, K. (1984), The Limits of Organization, NY: Norton.
Banks, Seymour (1968), “The Relationships of Brand Preference to Brand Purchase.” In H. H. Kassarjian and
T. S. Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company,
pp. 131–144.
Bearden, W. O., and Rose, R. L. (1990), “Attention to Social Comparison Information: An Individual Difference
Factor Affecting Consumer Conformity,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 461–471.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., and Teel, J. E. (1989), “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interper-
sonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 473–481.
Bendapudi, N., and Berry, L. L. (1997), “Customers’ Motivations for Maintaining Relationships with Service
Providers,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 15–37.
Bennet, R. (1996), “Relationship Formation and Governance in Consumer Markets: Transactional Analysis versus
the Behaviorist Approach,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12, pp. 417–436.
Blackston, M. (1993), “Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships.” In D. A. Aaker and D. L. Biel
(Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bloemer, J. M. M., and Kasper, H. D. P. (1995), “The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and
Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311–329.
Boon, S. D., and Holmes, J. G. (1991), “The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust: Resolving Uncertainty in the Face
of Risk.” In R. A. Hinde and J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, 190–211, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bradach, J. L. and Eccles, R. G. (1989), “Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideals Types to Plural Forms,” Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 15, pp. 97–118.
Brown, G. H. (1952), “Brand Loyalty—Fact or Fiction,” Advertising Age, Vol. 23, June 9, pp. 52–55.
Bruner, G. C., and Hensel, P. J. (Eds.), (1992), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item
Measures, American Marketing Association.
Butler, J. K. (1991), “Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of
Trust Inventory,” Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 643–663.
Butler, J. K., and Cantrell, S. R. (1984), “A Behavior Decision Theory Approach to Modeling Dyadic Trust in
Superiors and Subordinates,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 55, pp. 19–28.
Calder, B. J., and Burnkrant, R. E. (1977), “Interpersonal Influence in Consumer Behaviour: An Attribution
Theory Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 29–38.
Carman, J. M. (1969), “Some Insights Into Reasonable Grocery Shopping Strategies,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 33, pp. 69–72.
Cohen, J. B., and Golden, E. (1972), “Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 54–59.
Cook, J., and Wall, T. (1980), “New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organisational Commitment, and Personal
Need Nonfulfillment,” Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39–52.
Copeland, M. T. (1923), “Relation of Consumer’s Buying Habits to Marketing Methods,” Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 1, 282–289.
Coulson, J. S. (1966), “Buying Decisions Within the Family and the Consumer-Brand Relationship,” in Newman,
(Ed.), On Knowing the Consumer, NY: Wiley, pp. 59–66.
Creed, W. E. D., and Miles, R. E. (1996), “Trust in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework Linking Organiza-
tional Forms, Managerial Philosophies, and the Opportunity Cost of Controls.” In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler
(eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Inc.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal
Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 68–81.
Cunningham, R. M. (1956a), “Brand Loyalty—What, Where, How Much?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34,
January–February, pp. 116–28.
(1956b), “Measurement of Brand Loyalty, The Marketing Revolution,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh
Conference of the American Marketing Association, pp. 39–45.
(1961), “Customer Loyalty to Store and Brand,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39, pp. 127–137.
Day, G. S. (1969), “Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice Behavior,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 28, pp. 4658–4659.
Department of Statistics (1997), Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic
of Singapore.
Deutsch, M. (1958), “Trust and Suspicion,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2, pp. 265–279.
(1960), “Trust, Trustworthiness and the F-scale,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 61,
pp. 138–140.
Dick, A., and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Framework,” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 99–113.
368 LAU AND LEE
Dion, P., Easterling, D., and Miller, S. J. (1995), “What is Really Necessary in Successful Buyer/ Seller Relation-
ships?” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 24, pp. 1–9.
Donath, B. (1994), “Consumer and Business Marketing Look More Alike,” Marketing News, Vol. 28, No. 13,
p. 14.
Doney, P. M., and Cannon, J. P. (1997), “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships,”
Journal of Marketing, April, pp. 35–51.
Duboff, R.S. (1986), “Brands, Like People, Have Personalities,” Marketing News, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 8.
Durgee, J. (1988), “Understanding Brand Personality,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 21–25.
Dwyer, F. R. and Oh, S. (1987), “Output Sector Munificence Effects on the Internal Political Economy of Marketing
Channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 347–358.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51, pp. 11–27.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C., and Goodhart, G. J. (1973), “An Analysis of Simulated Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 7, pp. 77–84.
Engel, J. E., Kollat, D. T., and Blackwell, R. D. (1968), Consumer Behavior, 1st Edition, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Farley, J. U. (1963), “Testing a Theory of Brand Loyalty,” Proceedings of the American Marketing Association,
December, pp. 298–306.
(1964), “Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over Products?” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 9–14.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975), Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frank, R. E. (1962), “Brand Choice as a Probability Process,” Journal of Business, Vol. 35, January, pp. 43–56.
Frank, R. E., Massy, W. F., and Lodahl, T. M. (1969), “Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes,” Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 15–24.
Gambetta, D. (1988), “Can We Trust Trust?” in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, pp. 213–237.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Market-
ing, Vol. 58, pp. 1–19.
Granovetter, M. (1992), “Economic Institutions as Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis,” Acta
Sociologica, Vol. 35, pp. 3–11.
Guest, L. P. (1955), “Brand Loyalty—Twelve Years Later,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 405–408.
Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings,
4th Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hong, W. H., and Zinkhan, G. M. (1995), “Self-Concept and Advertising Effectiveness: The Influence of Con-
gruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode,” Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 53–77.
Jacoby, J. (1971), “A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 25–31.
Jacoby, J., and Chestnut, R. W. (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Jacoby, J., and Kyner, D. B. (1973), “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior,” Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 10, pp. 1–9.
Jones, A. P., James, L. R., and Bruni, J. R. (1975), “Perceived Leadership Behavior and Employee Confidence in
the Leader as Moderated by Job Involvement,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 146–149.
Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., and Tuler, S. (1992), “Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities
and Communicating Risks,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 161–187.
Kelly, H. H., and Stahelski, A. J. (1970), “Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators’ and Competitors’ Beliefs about
Others,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 66–91.
Kelly, H. H., and Thibaut, J. W. (1978), Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence, NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
Kuehn, A. A. (1962), “Consumer Brand Choice as a Learning Process,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 10–17.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., and Steenkamp, J. E. M. (1995), “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer
Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 348–356.
Larzelere, R. E., and Huston, T. L. (1980), “The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust
in Close Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, August, pp. 595–604.
Lewis, J. D., and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a Social Reality,” Social Forces, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 967–985.
Linskold, S. (1978), “Trust Development, the GRIT Proposal and the Effects of Conciliatory Acts on Conflict and
Cooperation,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 772–793.
Lipstein, B. (1959), “The Dynamics of Brand Loyalty and Brand Switching,” Proceedings, Fifth Annual Confer-
ence, Advertising Research Foundation, September.
Lutz, R. J., and Winn, P. R. (1975), “Developing a Bayesian Measure of Brand Loyalty: A Preliminary Report,”
in Corhan, R.C., (Ed.), 1974 Combined Proceedings, Chicago, American Marketing Association, pp. 104–108.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981), “A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts,” Journal of
Marketing Research, pp. 456–464.
Malinowski, B. (1992), Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
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. 709–734.
McConnell, J. D. (1968), “Repeat Purchasing Estimation and the Linear Learning Model,” Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 5, pp. 304–308.
Miniard, P. W., and Cohen, J. B., (1983), “Modeling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 169–180.
Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20–38.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. (1979), “The Measurement of Organizational Commitment,”
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224–247.
Newman, J. W., and Werbel, R. A. (1973), “Multivariate Analysis of Brand Loyalty for Major Household Appli-
ances,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, pp. 404–409.
Noordewier, T. G., John, G., and Nevin, J. R. (1990), “Performance Outcomes of Purchasing Arrangements in
Industrial Buyer-Vendor Relationships,î Journal of Marketing, 54(4), pp. 80-93.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Shaughnessy, J. (1992), Explaining Buyer Behavior, UK: Oxford University Press.
Parasuramam, A., Ziethaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1985), “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its
Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41–51.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., and MacInnis, D. J. (1986), “Strategic Brand-Image Management,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 135–145.
Powell, W. W. (1990), “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.” In B. M. Staw and
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 295–336.
Rao, T. R. (1969), “Consumer Purchase Decision Processes: Stochastic Models,” Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 6, pp. 321–329.
Reingen, P. H., Foster, B. L., Johnson-Brown, J., and Seidman, S. B. (1984), “Brand Congruence in Interpersonal
Relations: A Social Network Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 771–783.
Remple, J. K., Holmes, J. G., and Zanna, M. P. (1985), “Trust in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 95–112.
Rotter, J. B. (1971), “Generalized Expectancies of Interpersonal Trust,” American Psychologist, Vol. 26, pp. 443–
452.
Scanzoni, J. (1979), “Social Exchange and Behavioural Interdependence,” in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston
(Eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships, NY: Academic Press.
Scheer, K. N., and Steenkamp, J. E. M. (1995), “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes,”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 348–356.
Schlenker, B. R., Helm, B., and Tedeschi, J. T. (1973), “The Effects of Personality and Situational Variables on
Behavioral Trust,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 419–427.
Segger, E. (1970), “Brand Assortment and Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, pp. 18–24.
Shapiro, B. P. (1970), “The Effect of Price on Purchase Behavior,” in Sparks, D.L., (Ed.), AMA Fall Educators
Conference, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., and Cheraskin, L. (1992), “Business on a Handshake,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8,
No. 4, pp. 365–377.
Sheth, J. N., and Venkatesan, M. (1968), “Risk-Reduction Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior,” Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 307–310.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 9, pp. 287–300.
Sitkin, S. B., and Roth, N. L. (1993), “Explaining the Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Focused Issue: The Legalistic Organization,” Organizational Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 367–392.
Smothers, N. (1993), “Can Products and Brands Have Charisma?” In D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand
Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
370 LAU AND LEE
Swan, J. E., Trawick, I. F., and Silva, D. W. (1985), “How Industrial Salespeople Gain Customer Trust,” Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 203–211.
Szybillo, W. T., and Jacoby, J. (1974), “Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Cues as Determinants of Perceived Product Quality,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 74–78.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., and Sears, D. O. (1994), Social Psychology, 8th Edition, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Thorslund, C. (1976), “Interpersonal Trust: A Review and Examination of the Concept,” Goteborg Psychological
Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, p. 21.
Tucker, W. T. (1964), “The Development of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, 32–35.
Westbrook, R. A., and Oliver, R. L. (1981), “Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some
Preliminary Results.” In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 8, Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 94–99.
Wind, Y., and Frank, R. E. (1969), “Interproduct Household Loyalty to Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 6, pp. 434–435.
Worchel, D. (1979), “Trust & Distrust.” In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology in
Intergroup Relations, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Yamagishi, T., and Yamagishi, M. (1994), “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan,” Motivation
and Emotion, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 129–166.
Zand, D. E. (1972), “Trust and Managerial Problem Solving,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 229–
239.
Zucker, L. G. (1986), “Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840–1920.” In
B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 53–111.
Geok Theng Lau obtained his Ph.D from the Richard Ivey School of Business Administration, University of
Western Ontario, Canada. He teaches in the Department of Marketing, National University of Singapore. His
research interests are in Relationship Marketing, Business-to-Business Marketing and Purchasing Management.
Sook Han Lee (MS) graduated from the Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore
and is currently working as a marketing manager in the Singapore Telecommunications Limited.

Consumers Trust in A Brand and The Link

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumers Trust in A Brand and The Link

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, 341–370 (1999)

c 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Consumers’ Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand

SOOK HAN LEE

Received June 17, 1999; Revised October 7, 1999

Brand Loyalty: Past Research

Trust in Industrial Marketing

Trust is important in industrial marketing. As the competitive environment changes,

Trust in Consumer Marketing

In recent years, businesses in consumer-goods markets face greater pressures as more

Trust in a Brand: A Research Model

Figure 1. The research models.

Brand Characteristics As Antecedents to Trust in a Brand

H2 A consumer’s perception that a brand is predictable is positively related to the con-

H3 A consumer’s perception that a brand is competent is positively related to the con-

Company Characteristics as Antecedents to Trust in a Brand

Trust in the Company

H4 A consumer’s trust in a company is positively related to the consumer’s trust in that

H5 A consumer’s perception that a company has a reputation for fairness is positively

Perceived Motives of the Company

H6 A consumer’s perception that a company has benevolent motives is positively related

Consumer-Brand Characteristics as Antecedents to Trust in a Brand

Similarity between Consumer’s Self-Concept and Brand Personality

H8 Similarity between a consumer’s self-concept and a brand’s personality is positively

have been found to emphasize sincerity, dependability, truthfulness, thoughtfulness, and

Bearden et al. (1989) argued that an important determinant of an individual’s behavior is

Brand Loyalty as a Consequence of Trust in a Brand

Sampling and Field Procedure

Trust in the Brand

Questionnaire Design and Pretest

Data Analysis and Research Results

Table 1. Cronbach coefficient alpha.

Pearson Correlation Analysis

Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables.

Variable Mean Std

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Analysis Results.

Hypothesis Relationship hypothesized Pearson Correlation

Table 4. Antecedents of Trust in a Brand—Multiple Regression Results.

Independent Variable Standardized VIF

Table 5. Antecedents of trust in a brand—regression Results.

Independent Variable Standardized VIF

To achieve brand predictability, there must be consistency. Implementation starts on the

As trust in ability is perceived to be domain-specific (Zand, 1972), companies should

Trust in the Company

Research Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

Measures Used In This Research

Trust in the Company

• I have truly enjoyed this brand

You might also like