REQUISITOS PARA INFORMAR SOBRE LA AUSENCIA O LA PRESENCIA

Although it was thought that looking at the separate effects of competence-, credibility-, benevolence- and reputation-based trust would potentially offer deeper insights in understanding what determines consumer trust in the food system, most of these effects did not confirm prior expectations, in particular for the salad product. A possible explanation of the non-significant paths is the high correlations between the antecedents of trust in the food system that exceeded .85 in Figures 6.1 and 6.213. With a high degree of correlation, it is difficult to determine the individual contribution of each independent variable as their effects are confounded (Hair et al., 2006). As such, there appears to be important content overlap among the items measuring the competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation of the food system. Indeed, the dimensions of trust are highly interrelated as underlined in the theoretical framework.

High correlations between distinct dimensions of trust are not uncommon or novel in the sense that they are recognized in other studies such as in the paper by Colquitt, Scott and Lepine (2007) who found high inter-correlations (>.60) between ability, benevolence and integrity, yet all three exhibit significant and unique relationships with trust. Likewise, Doney and Cannon (1997) found benevolence and credibility to be highly correlated in a commercial setting, which means that, both dimensions “may be so intertwined that in practice they are operationally inseparable” (Doney and Cannon, 1997: 43).

High correlation between factors raises the issue of multicollinearity that arises when two or more variables are so highly correlated that they represent the same underlying construct. As such, multicollinearity makes regression coefficients very small and not statistically different from zero when they should be significant. For instance, the insignificant effect of system competence (Scomp) on trust in the food system (Strust) suggests that some of the covariance of

13 _{Correlations are between -1 and 1, however, “because they are only estimates, it can happen that their absolute}

120

system competence and trust in the food system might have been explained by other variables (Scred, Sbene or Srepu) in the model, leaving an insignificant amount of unique covariance for this path. Stated differently, the non-significant result in terms of direct influence of Scomp on

Strust might be due to co-sharing of covariances in the overall model (Saleh, 2006). To examine

this contention, a discriminant validity test was conducted, results of which are portrayed in the tables below.

Table ‎6.1: Factor correlation matrix with square root of the AVE on the diagonal: Strust in chicken

Strust: Chicken CR AVE MSV ASV

Convergent Validity CR>AVE

AVE>.5

Scred Scomp Srepu Sbene

Discriminant Validity MSV<AVE ASV<AVE System credibility (Scred) 0.711 0.517 1.018 0.711 YES 0.719 NO System competence (Scomp) 0.706 0.564 0.799 0.706 YES 0.867 0.751 NO System reputation (Srepu) 1.007 1.030 1.044 1.007 NO 0.987 0.894 1.015 NO System benevolence (Sbene) 0.551 0.537 1.044 0.551 YES 1.009 0.883 1.022 0.733 NO

Table ‎6.2: Factor correlation matrix with square root of the AVE on the diagonal: Strust in salad

CR: Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted, MSV: Maximum Shared Squared Variance, ASV: Average Shared Squared Variance

Strust: Salad CR AVE MSV ASV

Convergent Validity CR>AVE

AVE>.5

Scred Scomp Srepu Sbene

Discriminant Validity MSV<AVE ASV<AVE System credibility (Scred) 0.823 0.619 0.974 0.930 YES 0.787 NO System competence (Scomp) 0.681 0.543 0.947 0.926 YES 0.948 0.737 NO System reputation (Srepu) 0.884 0.663 0.998 0.973 YES 0.987 0.973 0.814 NO System benevolence (Sbene) 0.695 0.534 0.998 0.949 YES 0.957 0.966 0.999 0.731 NO

121

Convergent validity is “the extent to which the scale correlates positively [and shares variance] with other measures of the same construct”, whereas discriminant validity is “the extent to which a measure does not correlate with other constructs from which it is supposed to differ” (Malhotra, 2002: 294). In other words, discriminant validity describes conceptual differences between a construct and another construct. Evidence of discriminant validity exists when the average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than the square of the construct’s correlations with the other factors (Fornell and Larker, 1981). Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show that the four antecedents of trust for both products do not comply with this criterion and thus do not exhibit discriminant validity.

Because system competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation were not found to be distinct factors, they were merged into one factor (System Competence Credibility Benevolence Reputation). For ease of wording use, the term ‘integrity’ is used when the four dimensions of trust are combined. System integrity or Sintegr is used here as an “umbrella” term that refers to congruency of actions (competence and reputation) as well as of values (credibility and benevolence), and thus captures how consumers evaluate the food system as a whole.

Before estimating the new reduced model of trust in the food system, highly correlated measures of the construct Sinteg were removed to improve model fit. As such, Scomp2 and

Sbene2 were trimmed from the chicken model, and Scomp2 and Sbene3 from the salad model.

The final reduced models are portrayed in Figures 6.3 and 6.4 where they exhibit an excellent overall fit (CMIN/DF=1.647, CFI=.997, RMSEA=.037 for chicken; CMIN/DF=1.647, CFI=.997, RMSEA=.037 for salad) as well as a significant path (Sinteg → Strust: βstand= .99 with

122

Figure ‎6.3: Final SEM of the antecedents of system-based trust: chicken

123

To compare the original (four-dimensional) and the reduced (one-dimensional) models of system trust, a chi-square difference test is performed results of which are presented in Table 6.3. For both the chicken and the salad products, the chi-square difference is highly statistically significant, indicating that the model with more parameters and therefore fewer d.f. (reduced model) fits the data better than the model with fewer parameters and therefore more d.f. (original model) (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2011). In other words, it pays to estimate the additional parameters and to use the reduced model.

Table ‎6.3: Testing differences in nested chi-square values: system trust model

Chicken Salad Original model (Figure 6.1) Reduced model (Figure 6.3) Original model (Figure 6.2) Reduced model (Figure 6.4) 2 o  =87.945 2 r  =50.441 o2=86.745 2 r  =42.813 d.f.=34 d.f.=26 d.f.=34 d.f.=26 2 diff  =37.504; d.f.= 8; p<0.0001 _diff2 =43.932; d.f.= 8; p<0.0001

The new reduced forms can be interpreted in a way that consumer trust in the food system can be gained when all involved food actors (i.e. government, farmers, food industry) are perceived competent, credible, benevolent and reputable. Indeed, a farmer or a food retailer cannot communicate care and goodwill to consumers, and at the same cheat about the quality or safety of the food products, otherwise his behaviour is seen as opportunistic. As such, a food actor who is benevolent and not credible may be viewed as manipulative. Furthermore, if a consumer detects that a fresh chicken cut or packaged green salad is not fresh as labelled or branded from its appearance or smell, the manufacturer’s or the retailer’s reputation is likely to be at risk since misrepresentation or purposefully reneging on a promise (here freshness) can be viewed as morally wrong. Thus, violations of particular dimensions of trust such as intentional deception could be more damaging than errors due to lack of skills or knowledge (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003). Consequently, it is expected that behaviours that are incongruent with consumer expectations are likely to destroy trust. In this context, Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) argue that competence without benevolence can have detrimental consequences on overall consumer trust.

124

A lack of credibility, benevolence, reputation or competence can seriously impair consumer trust regardless of past performance of the market actors. Thus, one can argue that in the context of food, consumer trust could be better established when all dimensions of trust coexist in each actor and mutually reinforce each other. Frewer et al. (1996) show that trust appears to be linked with perceptions of accuracy, knowledge and concern with public welfare. For instance, skills and abilities of the food system to guarantee high quality and safe food may not be enough to drive consumers to trust the food chain. Rather, they should be supplemented by a mutual care for the consumer’s wellbeing (Colquit, Scott and Lepine, 2007). Furthermore, a system cannot be perceived as competent overall if one actor is perceived as incompetent. For example, consumers may not be able to trust say manufacturers to assure safe and high quality chicken if the farmers do not supply safe and high quality input or raw material (live birds).

In sum, it appears that a relationship of trust cannot be built on a single block and it cannot be sustained by a single layer. Previous studies have examined trust with separate dimensions and found differences in the strength of the impact of these dimensions (e.g. De Jonge et al., 2008b). The current results suggest that, in the context of this study, different aspects of public trust matter to trust the food system as a whole. As the trust relationship evolves, competence or reputation or benevolence or credibility are necessary yet not sufficient conditions for boosting consumer trust. This could be an important managerial implication for farmers, retailers and the food industry in general, showing that neither dimension is enough by itself to establish overall trust. In other words, consumer trust in the food system is built and maintained when there is a consistency between competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation from downstream suppliers to upstream buyers. This returns to the idea that trust is a multifaceted process comprising many interrelated factors. Therefore, general consumer confidence is likely to be dependent upon joint dimensions of trust in the food system.