|
Article Excerpt
To enrich the limited and recent work in existence on relational phenomena in the consumer-brand domain, the authors focus on the concept of brand trust. The non-existence of a wider accepted measure of this concept is surprising given that: (1) trust is viewed as the cornerstone and one of the most desired qualities in a relationship; and (2) it is the most important attribute a brand can own. In this context, this research reports the results of a multi-step study to develop and validate a multi-dimensional brand trust scale drawn from the conceptualisation of trust in other academic fields. Multi-step psychometric tests demonstrate that the new brand trust scale is reliable and valid. Both theoretical and managerial implications are presented.
Introduction
Despite the increased attention drawn to the relationship principles in both theory and practice during the past decade, applications of these principles at brand level have been scant (Fournier 1998). The lack of theoretical and empirical research on this subject is remarkable given that relational thinking guides today's brand management practices to leverage consumer-brand bonds.
The idea that a relationship between a person and his or her possessions exists is not new (Blackston 1992). Researchers have demonstrated that these relationships contribute to the consumer's sense of self, and in turn they may mediate a person's identity or social relationships (e.g. Belk 1988). Among the few studies that are informative about consumer--object interactions, Fournier's research (Fournier & Yao 1997; Fournier 1998) is undoubtedly a valuable exception. On the basis of her research, Fournier describes the relationship consumers have with brands as a multi-faceted construct to capture the richness of the fabric from which brand relationships arise.
Whether, as suggested by Fournier, the relationship is in essence what it means, understanding a consumer-brand relationship also requires an analysis of the consumer's trust in the brand. This idea is well illustrated by the realities of today's current brand management practices and the way that brand managers embrace this concept when managing their brands (see Kamp 1999; Scott 2000; Smith 2001). MacLeod (2000) considers that much of the vocabulary of modern brand-building uses words associated with personal relationship such as trust, and for Blackston (1992) trust is one component of consumers' relationships with brands. More recently, Hiscock (2001, p. 1) affirmed that 'the ultimate goal of marketing is to generate an intense bond between the consumer and the brand, and the main ingredient of this bond is trust'.
In this sense, the absence of research on brand trust is evident despite the fact that its study is important in understanding consumer-brand relationships as far as it has emerged as a key characteristic of a desirable relationship in a variety of disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and in more applied areas such as management and marketing. Furthermore, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) suggest that it also has implications for other relevant areas such as brand loyalty and brand equity. Unfortunately, no research has been conducted to develop a reliable, valid and generalisable scale to measure trust in a brand setting.
Consequently, we develop and validate a scale to measure brand trust, which we call the brand trust scale (BTS). To this end, we begin by examining the concept of trust in studies conducted in different academic fields to understand its meaning and its main characteristics. Based on this literature review, a definition of brand trust is proposed, along with its relevant dimensions. We then deal with the generation of scale items, the research design, the data collection, and the methodology proposed to assess the psychometric characteristics of the scale (i.e. internal consistency and validity). Finally, we discuss the results in terms of their managerial practice, their limitations, and directions for further research.
Conceptual background about brand trust
Inspired by social psychology (e.g. Frost et al. 1978; Larzelere & Huston 1980; Rempel et al. 1985), sociology (e.g. Lewis & Weigert 1985), management (e.g. Barney & Hansen 1994; Williams 2001), and marketing (e.g. Andaleeb 1992; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Garbarino & Johnson 1999), brand trust is conceptualised as 'the confident expectations of the brand's reliability and intentions in situations entailing risk to the consumer'. This definition parallels the 'expectancy conceptualisation' of trust that prevails in the literature, because most disciplines agree that risk is a critical condition for trust to influence choice and behaviour. Therefore, it has often been defined as a psychological state interpreted in terms of 'perceived probabilities' (Bhattacharya et al. 1998), 'confidence' (Barney & Hansen 1994; Garbarino & Johnson 1999) or 'expectations' (Rempel et al. 1985) assigned to the occurrence of some positive outcomes on the part of the trusting party. Accordingly, to trust someone implcitly means that ther e is a high probability that this person will perform actions which will result in positive outcomes for his or her relational partner.
In the consumer--brand domain, this idea implies that the brand is an active relational partner. One way to legitimise the brand as an active member of the relationship, rather than a passive object, is to highlight ways in which brands are personalised and animated. Furthermore, execution of marketing plans and tactics may be construed as behaviours enacted on behalf of the brand (Fournier 1998) and, in line with research on impression formation (Srull & Wyer 1989, cited on Fournier 1998), from all these behaviours trait inferences about the brand are made and form the basis for evaluating the brand as a relational partner.
Turning to the discussion of brand trust as an expectancy, this expectancy is based on the attributions made to the relational partner about his or her intentions, behaviours (verbal or non-verbal) and qualities (Barber 1983; Rempel et al. 1985). More specifically, Barber (1983) considers that these attributions are about (1) the partner carrying out his or her obligations and responsibilties by placing others' interest before their own (i.e. motivational attributions), and (2) the partner's technical competencies related to his or her role performance (i.e. technical or competence attributions). Therefore, the definition of brand trust proposed reflects two distinct components: (1) brand reliability, and (2) brand intentions.
Brand reliability has a competence or technical nature and is based on the consumer's belief that the brand accomplishes its value promise (Andaleeb 1992; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Doney & Cannon 1997). In other words, it concerns the perception that the brand fulfils or satisfies the consumer's needs. Therefore, brand reliability is essential for trusting a brand because the accomplishment of the value promise that the brand represents to the market leads the consumer to be confident about the occurrence of future satisfaction. Underlying this dimension of brand trust is a sense of predictability that the brand satisfies the individual's needs in consistently positive ways. Consequently, the consumer develops a positive brand attitude that becomes central to the repurchase decision in relational exchange (Morgan & Hunt 1994). Thus, for all its value in conducting day-to-day exchanges, brand reliability is, at best, a starting point for describing brand trust.
Brand intentions are based on the consumer' belief that the brand would hold the...
|
