Resultados

From 1993 onwards, trust became “an important research field”, with 109 publications released in 2003 alone (Ebert, 2009). This is reflected in the academic literature by an increased interest in trust, evidenced in the proliferation of research, and in two special issue journals – one in the European Journal of Marketing (2007) on trust, and the other in the International Journal of Bank Marketing (2010), on trust in financial services. This increased interest has also been demonstrated in the meta-analyses or literature reviews on

trust or trust-related concepts (Arnott, 2007a, 2007b; Athanasopoulou, 2009;

Bhattacherjee, 2002; Blois, 1999; Ebert, 2009; Gefen and Straub, 2004; Geysken et al., 1998). Ebert (2009) has synthesised eight hundred highly ranked trust articles published between 1966 and 2006. Over that time, the literature became more precise and

specialised. The number of consumer trust dimensions measured increased from one,

“trust”, in 1966, to four, which are, variously, “benevolence, integrity, ability, and

predictability” (Gefen and Straub, 2004), and “calculus based trust, knowledge based trust, reference based trust, and identification based trust” (Van Den Berg and Van Lieshout, 2001). It is noteworthy that the literature is not in agreement about the conceptualisations of trust, the dimensions of trust, or the antecedents of trust, or about how to measure them across different disciplines and research, or even within the same discipline (Ebert, 2009, pp. 65–66). There is, therefore, disparity and disagreement in the literature. One of the problems is that trust is usually a minor part of another study focused on either an

outcome, such as loyalty or satisfaction, or a particular context, such as internet banking. In this significant but disparate literature, there is no agreed overall model of trust, and no overall model for the antecedents of trust.

Ebert (2009) attempted to build an overall model of trust by aggregating the literature down to forty variables, and finally to nine clusters. Ebert (2009) notes, “The cluster labelled ‘environment’ covers the variables time, industry and culture (cf. Hofstede, 2001;

Schein, 1985)” (p. 77). This wider conceptualisation includes time and industry, while

“environment” usually includes related concepts such as culture, dynamism, social systems and munificence (Ebert, 2009, p. 77). The eight clusters are security/risk, transaction costs, future intention, dependency, environment, person, satisfaction and reputation. The final cluster is of all the different characterisations of trust, which are “belief, trustworthiness, attitude, motivation and confidence” (Ebert, 2009, p. 78). Note that many of these

“clusters” appear to contain unrelated concepts or variables. This makes it difficult to see how they could be useful as a basis for research without further rationalisation.

A criticism of this approach is that the clusters are not sorted in any way into antecedents, consequences or dimensions, and some of the clusters contain all these elements. The clusters reflect the appearance of a variable in the literature, but do not help significantly with an understanding of it (Ebert, 2009, p. 75). In addition, the clusters’

categorisation overlaps with the generally agreed approach in the literature towards labelling antecedents as affective and cognitive, so there is no way of deconstructing and re-assessing these for research purposes. Suggested antecedents for an enhanced B2B model are: dependency, security/risk, reputation, person and environment (Ebert, 2009, p.

81). Again, these are over-lapping and unhelpful clusters, as “person”, meaning social demographics, may be more relevant for research purposes allocated to the “environment”

cluster. Ebert’s (2009) pool of journals is multi-disciplinary, with only two marketing journals, the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal of Consumer Research. The others are in the fields of organisational behaviour, human resource management,

psychology, economics, operations research, economics, finance and accounting, innovation, public administration, entrepreneurship and communications. Four research areas – human resource management (HRM), marketing, strategy and psychology – accounted for 72 per cent of the articles, demonstrating the centrality of trust in those fields.

The researchers also agree that trust is a complex and multi-dimensional construct (Bromiley and Cummings, 1995; Laing, et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995;

Strickland et al., 1968). While there is agreement about the role of trust and commitment as key components of trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), there is no agreement about what might constitute the antecedents of trust (Herington et al., 2009). There is also a wide variation between the marketing and the non-marketing (social psychology and behaviourist) literature on the antecedents of trust (Herington et al., 2009, p. 1099).

Much literature considers the functions of trust in commercial exchange, marketing, supplier–buyer and partner relationships (see Blois, 1999, p. 197; Coulter and Coulter, 2002; Marsh and Dibben, 2005, p. 29). Further research on trust from a marketing perspective is recommended (Arnott, 2007a) because trust is a source of competitive advantage (Barney and Hansen, 1994): it reduces transaction costs (Andaleeb, 1992), limits uncertainty and opportunism (Achrol, 1997; Busch and Hantusch, 2000) and creates

flexibility (Nooteboom et al., 1997). Trust may help to bind relationships (Ring, 1996) and build commitment (Warrington et al., 2000). It may also improve communication

(Anderson and Narus, 1989), facilitate risk taking (Wetzels et al., 1998), cooperation and mutual adaptation (Hewett and Bearden, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995). Trust can increase satisfaction with an interaction (Geysken et al., 1998; Wetzels et al., 1998; Zand, 1997).

Trust – a belief in the reliability of a counterpart – lies at the heart of the marketing concept (Moorman et al., 1993). This component of trust, which Ganesan and others describe as credibility or reliability (Andaleeb, 1996; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), is based on the extent to which the buyer believes that the supplier has the expertise to perform the activity effectively and reliably. Any successful relationship, from friendship to partnerships and business transactions, is dependent to some extent upon the degree of trust between the counterparts.

Despite the apparent centrality of trust in marketing and marketing relationships, there is still a dearth of published work on trust in marketing (Arnott, 2007a). However,

marketing scholars have now recognised the importance of trust in developing and managing business relationships (Arnott, 2007a). Much of the business and marketing literature on the concept of trust has its roots in psychological and, to a lesser extent, sociological literature (Arnott, 2005). Again, there is no consensus on definition (Blois, 1999) but trust is often seen as summarising the customers’ willingness to put themselves in uncertain situations where they risk unfavourable outcomes in future interactions with their counterpart (Moorman et al., 1993).