Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty

EuropeanJournal ofMarketing351112

1238

European Journal of MarketingVol 35 No 1112 2001 pp 1238-1258 MCB University Press 0309-0566

Received September 1999Revised December 1999April 2000

Brand trust in the context ofconsumer loyalty

Elena Delgado-Ballester and JoseAcirc Luis Munuera-AlemaAcircnMarketing Department University of Murcia Murcia Spain

Keywords Consumer behaviour Brand loyalty Commitment Spain Multivariate analysis

Abstract The existing literature of brand loyalty has been essentially focused on the roles ofperceived quality brand reputation and especially satisfaction due to the fact that theysummarise consumersrsquo knowledge and experiences guiding their subsequent actions In thiscontext the shifting emphasis to relational marketing has devoted a lot of effort to analyse howother constructs such as trust predict future intention The fact that there are conceptualconnections of trust to the notion of satisfaction and loyalty and that this effort is especiallylacking in the brand-consumer relationship moves the authors to focus on analysing therelationships existing among these concepts Research methodology consisted of regressions andmultivariable analysis with a sample of 173 buyers The results obtained suggest the key role ofbrand trust as a variable that generates customersrsquo commitment especially in situations of highinvolvement in which its effect is stronger in comparison to overall satisfaction

IntroductionThe development and maintenance of consumer brand loyalty is placed atthe heart of companiesrsquo marketing plans especially in the face of highlycompetitive markets with increasing unpredictability and reducing productdifferentiation (Fournier and Yao 1997) The interest in adopting this strategicapproach derives from the value that brand loyalty generates to companies interms of

a substantial entry barrier to competitors

an increase in the firmrsquos ability to respond to competitive threats

greater sales and revenue and

a customer base less sensitive to the marketing efforts of competitors

Given this it is not surprising that in the academic field a lot of consumerbehaviour literature is concerned with the study of the sources of loyalty andthe mechanisms through which it comes about (Wernefelt 1991)

Existing literature of brand loyalty could be described according to itsprimary theoretical research orientations (Fournier and Yao 1997) Most ofthe studies follow the psychological orientation which is concerned with thecognitive processes supporting the development of brand attitude strength(Dick and Basu 1994) This perspective has been primarily centred on therelationships between perceived quality satisfaction and loyalty The secondorientation found in the literature adopts a sociological view and is interested in

The research register for this journal is available at

httpwwwmcbupcomresearch_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

httpwwwemerald-librarycomft

The authors wish to thank Miguel HernaAcircndez for his helpful comments on previous draftsof this article

Brand trust andconsumer loyalty

1239

the meanings and hedonic-emotive aspects of brand loyalty (eg Elliot andWattanasuwan 1998)

In this sense Fournier (1998) affirms that the excessive effort invested inanalysing brand loyalty as a result of utilitarian and cognitive decision-makingprocess fails to capture the talismatic relationships the consumer forms with thatwhich is consumed In particular she points out the lack of attention devoted tointerpersonal relationship theories in spite of their conceptual connections to thenotion of ` loyaltyrsquorsquo and second their relevance and approval in other marketingliterature fields

Being aware of this the present research adopts a relational perspective inthe study of brand loyalty and therefore it characterises the relationshipbetween the brand and the consumer in terms of trust and commitment

Based on these ideas the purpose of this research is threefold First tocontribute to the brand literature with a conceptualisation and measurement ofthe concept ` brand trustrsquorsquo Second analysing its effect on the affective oremotional commitment between the consumer and the brand which in turnaffects the customersrsquo price tolerance Third studying its determinants how itis generated and in which context it is more appropriate to present a model of` brand trustrsquorsquo

To accomplish these objectives this article is composed of eight sectionsFirst we briefly present the existing brand loyalty literature which forms thetheoretical framework in which we analyse brand trust After identifying thelack of studies about trust in the field of consumer products the second sectionexamines the scope of the trust concept and its meaning in the brand domainThe theoretical model is presented in the third section with a review of theliterature about the sources and results of brand trust The researchmethodology and the results obtained constitute the next two sections Thearticle concludes with a discussion of the results its academic and managerialimplications and the future research issues that the present research opens

The antecedents of brand loyaltyIt is widely considered that loyalty is one of the ways with which the consumerexpresses hisher satisfaction with the performance of the product or servicereceived (Bloemer and Kasper 1995) Therefore it is not surprising that fordecades one of the key global constructs predicting consumer behaviour hasbeen overall satisfaction There are many studies that have examined therelationship between this variable and loyalty where the latter has beenapproached as a repurchase intention (see Anderson and Sullivan 1993 Croninand Taylor 1992 Fornell 1992 LaBarbera and Marzusky 1983 Oliver 1980)or as an emotional and psychological bond or commitment (eg Bloemer andKasper 1993 Bloemer and Poiesz 1989 Bloemer et al 1990 Samuelsen andSandvik 1997)

These studies consider not only the valence and strength of this relationshipbut also how it is moderated by the effects of other variables such as theamount of elaboration upon the evaluation of the brand (see Figure 1) In turn


1240

this depends on the motivation and the capacity of the consumer to make thatevaluation

In addition to the afore-mentioned variables Anderson and Sullivan (1993)and Cronin and Taylor (1992) add ` perceived qualityrsquorsquo as a causal factor ofsatisfaction and Sandvik and Duhan (1996) and Selnes (1993) study brandreputation as a mediating variable between satisfaction and loyalty

The preceding literature review demonstrates the lack of attention paid to` brand trustrsquorsquo in spite of the empirical and theoretical evidences existing aboutits relationship with satisfaction (see Hess 1995 Selnes 1998) and loyalty (seeMorgan and Hunt 1994) According to Hess (1995) this is explained not onlyby the newness of the research that characterises the interactions between aconsumer and a brand as a long term relationship but also because there is alack of accepted measures of brand trust In any case this situation contrastswith the variety of opinions (see Fournier 1995 Gurviez 1996 Morgan andHunt 1994) supporting the importance of trust in developing positive andfavourable attitudes and resulting in a commitment to a certain brand as themaximum expression of a successful relationship between the consumer andthe brand

Furthermore not to control for the effect of brand trust could result inattributing excessive importance to satisfaction in developing a customer basecommitted to the brand when according to the commitment-trust theory(Morgan and Hunt 1994) trust is a key variable in the development of anenduring desire to maintain a relationship in the long term for example with abrand In this sense Garbarino and Johnson (1999) have demonstrated that

Figure 1Antecedents of brandloyalty


1241

satisfaction and trust play different roles in the prediction of the futureintentions for low and high relational customers

The consideration of trust in the brand domain derives some important andinteresting implications First the adaptation of an inherent quality ofinterpersonal relationships (ie trust) in the relationship between the brand andthe consumer implies that the brand possesses some characteristics that gobeyond its consideration as a mere product This idea is far from new becausethe perspective of the brand as a person has already been proposed by authorssuch as Aaker (1991) Chernatony and McDonald (1998) and Fournier (1998)and qualitative researchers working for advertising agencies and consultingfirms (eg Blackston 1992)

Second viewing the brand as the consumerrsquos partner in a long-termrelationship implies that at a broader level of abstraction and as a logicalextension of the research on impression formation the everyday execution ofmarketing plans and tactics can be built as behaviours performed by the brandacting in its relationship role (Fournier 1998) That is all decisions andactivities carried out constitute a set of behaviours enacted on behalf of thebrand

Finally brand trust represents the recognition that brand value can becreated and developed with the management of some aspects that go beyondconsumerrsquos satisfaction with the functional performance of the product and itsattributes (Aaker 1996 Lassar et al 1995) This same idea is pointed out byBlackston (1995) Gurviez (1996) and Heilbrunn (1995) for whom the study oftrust could offer an appropriate schema to conceptualise and measure a morequalitative dimension of brand value This dimension includes othercharacteristics and qualities of the brand that also have meaning and add valueto the consumer In this same sense Ambler (1997) conceptualises brand valueas a function of the existing relationship between the consumer and the brandtrust being one of the most important ingredients in this relationship

Having established the validity of the study of trust the next sectionexamines what it is understood by this concept in the literature and its scope inthe brand domain

An approach to the trust concept in the brand loyalty domainThe research of the trust concept comes from the analysis of personalrelationships in the field of social psychology because it is considered aninherent characteristic of any valuable social interaction It is only recently thatthe concept has become a popular issue in marketing literature due to therelational orientation emerging in marketing activities (eg Dywer et al 1987Ganesan 1994 Geyskens et al 1996 Morgan and Hunt 1994)

A careful review of all these contributions indicates that the study of trusthas resulted in the use of a varied and sometimes confusing terminology whenone wants to assert that someone or something is trusted More specifically insocial science and psychological literature we have found several terms suchas altruism (Frost et al 1978) benevolence and honesty (Larzelere and Huston


1242

1980) or dependability and responsibility (Rempel et al 1985) Nevertheless allthese concepts share the same idea trust in a person is a feeling of securitybased on the belief that hisher behaviour is guided and motivated byfavourable and positive intentions towards the welfare and interests of hisherpartner Therefore it is expected that heshe does not intend to lie breakpromises or take advantage of the otherrsquos vulnerability Therefore the lesserthe doubt that hisher purposes are questionable the lesser the risk to therelationship and so the development of a valuable relationship will be lessdifficult

The analysis of this dimension alone is not enough to explain trust when it isused to characterise the relationships developed from the psychological arenaand specifically in the business to business context This is because in theinteractions taking place in this context there exists a certain dependence ondelivering expected outcomes and performing activities This different naturehas led to the distinction of a second dimension in the concept It is related tothe ability and capacities attributed to a business to perform some activitiesand accomplish its obligations and promises As with the first dimension awide variety of concepts has been used such as ability (Andaleeb 1992 Mayeret al 1995) credibility (Ganesan 1994) or reliability (Hess 1995)

The previous discussion leads us to consider that in the brand domain trustis a feeling of security held by the consumer that the brand will meet hisherconsumption expectations This feeling is based on the two general dimensionsof the concept previously presented brand reliability and brand intentionstowards the individual

The first dimension is related to the assumption that the brand has therequired capacity to respond to the consumerrsquos needs for example by offeringthe new products that the consumer may need or by a constant quality level inits offering This dimension implies viewing the brand as a promise of futureperformance (Deighton 1992) which has to be consistently accomplished if thecompany wants the brand to be trusted by the consumer increasing hisherbrand repurchase intentions on the next buying occasion

The second dimension related to brand intention is more abstract due to itsaffective and emotional roots (Michell et al 1998) Taking into account that inthe buying and consumption context the consumer suffers certain vulnerabilityto the company action and decisions this dimension is concerned with thebelief that the latter is not going to take opportunistic advantage of the formerrsquosvulnerability For example intentionally breaking the commercial promise thatthe brand represents for the individual or lacking the intention to help whenproblems arise Therefore this dimension allows the consumers to infer howthe brand will behave in the face of situations and circumstances notpreviously experienced

Now that it has been stated what is understood by trust in different researchcontexts and the meaning given to this concept in the brand domain wecontinue with an explanation of the determinants of trust and under whichcondition it arises


1243

Theoretical modelRegarding the development of brand trust Rempel et al (1985) suggest thattrust evolves from past experience and prior interaction This idea is alsosupported by other authors such as Ravald and GroEgravenroos (1996) who considerthat it develops through experience and Curran et al (1998) for whom trust is astate of being that develops over time

Apart from its dynamic nature the condition for trust to arise is one ofperceived risk (eg Andaleeb 1992 Mayer et al 1995 Rempel et al 1985) Thisis because this perception represents certain situations in which the consumerfaces some degree of uncertainty or ambiguity in the satisfaction of hisherconsumption expectations In particular Blomqvist (1997) associates the riskperception with a situation of imperfect information because ` in total ignoranceit is possible only to have faith andor gamble and under perfect informationthere is no trust but merely rational calculationrsquorsquo Therefore for trust to becomeoperational the individual must be vulnerable to some extent and consequentlyhisher decision outcomes must be uncertain and important to himher In thissituation the individual is more motivated to look for a trustworthy brand as adetermining criterion of hisher purchasing decision in order to avoid theinherent risk a product class holds

Due to the fact that the motivation to make a good decision results from theuncertainty and importance associated to the outcomes of this decision weassociate risk perception with involvement as suggested by Dowling (1986) andDowling and Staelin (1994) The reasoning supporting this is that the level ofinvolvement allows us to have an approximate idea of how important theproduct and the consequences of a purchase are for the individual andtherefore the level of inherent risk associated to the product category As far asthe involvement is higher the individual is expected to face up to the inherentrisk of the product class purchasing the brand that is more trusted comparedwith others and therefore the brand whose purchase supposes the lowestprobability of suffering a loss or a bad acquisition

Sources of trustThe process by which an individual attributes a trust image to the brand isbased on hisher experience with that brand Therefore as an experienceattribute it will be influenced by the consumerrsquos evaluation of any direct (egtrial usage satisfaction in the consumption) and indirect contact (advertisingword of mouth brand reputation) with the brand (Keller 1993 Krishnan 1996)Among all of these different contacts with the brand the consumptionexperience gains more relevance and importance as a source of trust This isbecause according to Dywer et al (1987) and Krishnan (1996) it generatesassociations and feelings that are more self-relevant and held with morecertainty In this sense the overall satisfaction generates trust (Ganesan 1994Selnes 1998) because it indicates the brand consistency in the fulfilment of itscommercial promise and that the brand protects and takes care of theindividualrsquos welfare and interest[1]


1244

Following the above discussion and considering overall satisfaction as ageneral evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experiencewith a brand (Anderson et al 1994 p 54) we hypothesise that for thoseindividuals who have direct experience with the product category

H1 The higher the satisfaction with one brand the more the customer willtrust that brand

Nevertheless taking into account the condition of involvement to motivate theindividual to trust a brand as a way of managing and moderating the inherentrisk associated to the product category we expect that the relationshipdescribed in the previous hypothesis is affected by the level of involvement asfollows

H2 The effect of the overall satisfaction in brand trust is higher the greaterthe customer involvement

The reasoning underlying this hypothesis is based on the fact that individualswho are more involved with the decision engage in more elaborate informationprocessing and produce more product-related thoughts and inferences(Steenkamp 1990) Therefore as a source of information these customers inferfrom the results of their consumption experience more qualities and traitsabout the brand with a higher effect upon its trustworthy image

Outcomes of trustConcerning its consequences Larzelere and Huston (1980) and Morgan andHunt (1994) view trust as a central construct of any long-term relationshipTherefore in the customer-brand context it may be an important contributor tothe kind of emotional customer commitment that leads to long-term loyalty(Hess 1995) Therefore it seems reasonable to expect that

H3 The higher the feeling of trust in a brand the more the customer iscommitted to it

Taking into account the customer involvement as we do in the secondhypothesis the fourth one postulates a mediating effect of this variable in therelationship between brand trust and customer commitment The logicalreasoning explaining this effect is that in situations of high involvement theimportance of brand trust as a variable that guides subsequent customersrsquointentions is higher This is due to its ability to moderate the risk perceptionassociated to situations of high involvement in the purchase and consumptionprocess (Chow and Holden 1997) Consequently we propose that

H4 The effect of brand trust in customer commitment is higher as thecustomer involvement increases

Furthermore we also postulate (H5) that in situations of high customerinvolvement the importance of brand trust in predicting customersrsquo futureintentions should be higher than that for overall satisfaction If it were not the


1245

case brand trust would be less central as a key intermediate construct in thebrand loyalty model

H5 The higher the customer involvement the greater the effect of trust oncommitment compared to the influence of overall satisfaction

Finally the result of customer commitment is that among other things thecustomerrsquos price tolerance increases (Aaker 1996 Krishnamurthi and Raj1991 Samuelsen and Sandvik 1997)That is to say the customer is prepared topay higher prices for the brand This establishes the following hypothesis

H6 The higher the customer commitment towards the brand the higher theprice tolerance

Following the discussion above a theoretical model of the relationshipsdescribed in the different hypotheses is summarised in Figure 2 We proposethat trust is a key variable of the enduring desire to maintain a relationshipwith a brand ie customer commitment and that overall satisfaction generatestrust We also propose that customer involvement moderates the previousrelationships making even stronger the effect of brand trust on customercommitment in comparison with the effect that overall satisfaction has on thelatter Finally and as an outcome of customer commitment we considercustomersrsquo price tolerance

Research methodRespondent sample and product categoryTo test the previous hypotheses and due to the fact that consumer behaviour isaffected by a large number of variables we chose to collect data with respect toonly one product category Although we are conscious that this decision willreduce the external validity of the findings it will create insight into the roleplayed by brand trust as a predictor of individualrsquos behaviour

Qualitative interviews with other marketing researchers led us to choose aproduct category related to childcare such as disposable nappies This is due tothe possible risks derived from a poor brand choice (spots colds etc) becausethis product is in close contact with the babyrsquos skin all day during the firstyears of its life We are talking about a product that has an inherent risk giventhat the final user of the product is a baby and its mother wants the best for it

Figure 2Theoretical model


1246

The subjects participating in the study were a sample of women who havechildren with ages ranging from 0 to 4 years because this is the period of timeduring which the children regularly use this product The personal interviewswith the mothers were conducted in 15 different nursery schools and 200questionnaires were administered with 173 correctly completed and used in theanalyses

Data collection was taken for the two specific brands viewed by customersas the most relevant in a given consumption context These two brands arebrand A which is the consumerrsquos regular choice and brand B which is asecond brand bought in any other situation This will allow us to analyse thecustomer behaviour in relative terms in all the main variables and according toDick and Basu (1994) this kind of information offers a stronger indication of thecustomer behaviour than the attitude towards a brand determined in isolationTherefore the variables customer commitment overall satisfaction pricetolerance and brand trust are presented in terms of differences between brandA and brand B Specifically they are labelled dCOMMIT dSAT dPRICE anddTRUST

Development of measuresThe operationalization of the main variables included in the hypotheses testingadopts a multi-item approach According to Spreng et al (1996) satisfaction(SAT) is approached using an overall satisfaction measure that is a summaryevaluation of the entire brand use experience This measure involves not onlythe valence (positive and negative) but also its intensity It is represented bya seven-point scale with items anchored as ` very pleasedvery displeasedrsquorsquo` contentedfrustratedrsquorsquo ` very satisfiedvery dissatisfiedrsquorsquo

Commitment (COMMIT) typically has been defined as a someonersquos intentionto continue a relationship However the several different motivationsunderlying this intention have resulted in the distinction of different types ofattitudinal commitment affective and calculative commitment (Geyskens et al1996 Gundlach et al 1995 Samuelsen and Sandvik 1999) According to theliterature this distinction is important as far as these two types of commitmenthave different relationships with other variables such as price tolerance andtrust and different antecedents

In this paper we refer to customer commitment (COMMIT) as an affective oremotional one because in comparison with calculative commitment it is a statewhere the individual has a desire to maintain the relationship or go on buyingthe same brand It is a generalised sense of positive regard for and attachmentto the brand That is the reason why the measurement scale consists of a five-point Likert-scale and its items represent three partial characteristics of thistype of link between the customer and the brand such as I consider myself tobe loyal to the brand to me the brand is clearly the best brand on the market Irecommend buying the brand This is in line with the operationalizationemployed by Beatty and Kahle (1988) Bloemer and Kasper (1993 1995) andMuncy (1996)


1247

Regarding brand trust the compilation of items appropriate to measure ithas been guided by the review of interpersonal relationship research in socialpsychology and interorganisational literature in marketing The specific scalesused by Ganesan (1994) Hess (1995) Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Larzelereand Huston (1980) were particularly useful in constructing individual itemsDue to the absence of a scale of this concept on consumer-brand relationships aconservative position was assumed that there were potentially two identifiabledimensions

The operationalisation of these two dimensions of trust as presented inthe literature were in most cases not appropriate for consumer-brandrelationships so they were first translated into a semantical form appropriateto the consumer domain In this sense qualitative interviews with four womenwho have children in age of using diapers were conducted to evaluate theclarity of the items and its translation Furthermore the items of the scale arenot product-specific in the sense that they do not mention any particular orspecific attribute of the product with which we are working in this researchThis allows replicating and validating the brand trust scale in other productcategories

The most frequently used measure of trust has been a multi-item type scalethat describes the dimensions of the concept in terms of specific behaviours(` keep promisesrsquorsquo) and attributes (` be sincerersquorsquo ` be interested in rsquorsquo) Thereforethis is the type of measure adopted in the present research More specificallythe brand trust (TRUST) scale consists of six items that represent somecharacteristics of the brand related to its reliability and intentions towards theconsumers Due to the fact that in this research brand trust has beenconsidered as a feeling of security the respondents have had to demonstratethe degree of security with which they perceive that the brand will fulfil thecharacteristic described in each item Therefore the scale is a four-point Likert-type ranging from ` definitively will notrsquorsquo and ` definitively willrsquorsquo The six itemson this scale were

(1) Offer me a product with a constant quality level

(2) Help me to solve any problem I could have with the product

(3) Offer me new products I may need

(4) Be interested in my satisfaction

(5) Value me as a customer of its product

(6) Offer me recommendations and advice on how to make the most of itsproduct

Before testing the hypotheses a factor analysis was carried out with the sixitems of this scale to discover the underlying dimensions of the concept In spiteof the initially predicted two dimensions it appeared that brand trust has onlyone dimension explaining 73 per cent of the total variance of the data The


1248

Bartlett Test of Sphericity significant at 000 level and the KMO test with avalue of 089 show enough adequacy of data to support the factor analysis

The descriptive characteristics of the brand trust scale items are shown inTable I The coefficient alpha for the overall brand trust scale is high (092)indicating a reliable measure with the lowest item-total correlation being 069(V6)

With the purpose of testing the construct validity of the previous scale twogeneral items of trust included in the questionnaire were correlated with theoverall brand trust Table II reports some descriptive characteristics of the twocontrol items Both show a relatively high item-correlation (096) significant atp lt 001 which denotes that the two items are measuring the same constructThis table also shows their correlations with the overall brand trust measureThe high correlations obtained significant at p lt 001 let us affirm that thebrand trust scale is very close to the concept it is intended to measure

To measure involvement (INVOL) we have used a five-point semanticdifferential scale of three items with monopolar adjectives such as importantunimportant means a lot to memeans nothing to me relevantirrelevantThese items represent ` the importancersquorsquo dimension of involvement as proposedby McQuarrie and Munson (1992) and therefore let us know how important theproduct and the outcomes of the buying decision are for the individual Thisdimension of involvement functions as an indicator of the inherent risk

Table IDescriptivecharacteristics of thebrand trust scale

Brand trust scaleMeanvaluea

Standarddeviation

Item-totalcorrelation

Brand X will V1 Offer me a product with a constant quality level 334 081 080

V2 Help me to solve any problem I could have withthe product

326 075 082

V3 Offer me new products I may need 332 068 081

V4 Be interested in my satisfaction 339 066 085

V5 Value me as a consumer of its product 318 069 073

V6 Offer me recommendations and advices on howto make the most of its product

333 068 069

Note aOver a scale 1 ` definitively not surersquorsquo 4 ` definitively surersquorsquo

Table IICorrelations amongoverall brand trustscale and controlitemsa

Control itemsMeanvaluea

Standarddeviation Correlation

The feeling of security provided by brand X is 386 095 0612

The feeling of trust provided by brand X is 383 093 0615

Notes aOver a scale 1 ` very lowrsquorsquo 5 `very highrsquorsquo p micro 001


1249

associated to the purchase in a product category That is it intends to reflectthe individualrsquos perception of risk inherent in purchasing any particularproduct in a specific category (Dowling and Staelin 1994 Mitchell 1999)

Finally the customerrsquos price tolerance towards a brand (PRICE) ismeasured in terms of the extra amount of money the individual will pay forthe brand in comparison with any other (Aaker 1996) It has been determinedby simply asking customers ` How much more would you be willing to pay forthe brandrsquorsquo Comparing the answer for the two brands under considerationwe can estimate the extra price the customer will pay for a brand compared tothe other

The descriptive characteristics of all the scales are reported in Table III

ResultsThe hypotheses testing has been conducted through the comparison of twodifferent regression models The first model (Model A) is used to examine thecausal relationship between two variables as described in hypotheses H1 H3and H6 The estimation of significant shy will let us to accept each hypothesisand to confirm the existence of a relationship The Model A is described by thefollowing equation

Model A

Yi ˆ not Dagger shy Xj

To test the existence of a moderating effect of the customer involvement uponthe relationships described in the hypotheses H1 and H3 the Model B adds anew term to the Model A It represents the interaction effect between theinvolvement variable (Z) and each one of the corresponding independentvariables Therefore the key difference between the Model A and the Model B isthe moderator role of the involvement felt by the customer with the acquisitionof the product

Model B

Yi ˆ not Dagger shy Xj Dagger reglZk Dagger macrl

X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck

Regarding the inclusion of the interaction terms the literature (see Jaccard andWan 1995 Jaccard et al 1990) recommends mean-centring the variables of the

Table IIIStatistical description

of estimated scales

Number of items Mean SD Alpha

COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250

interaction terms to mitigate the problems of multicollinearity The estimationof significant macr and the increase in R2 will let us accept H2 and H4 andconclude that not only it is relevant to take into account the direct effects butalso the moderating ones That is to say the explicative power of H1 and H3will increase when these models account for the moderating effect of perceivedrisk approached by the customer involvement with the product With thepurpose of better clarity the mean-centred variables in the Model B are labelled` variable namemcrsquorsquo

The results of the hypotheses testing are described as follows Regarding H1and H2 which respectively postulate a dependence relationship betweenoverall satisfaction and brand trust (Model A) and a moderator effect ofcustomer involvement in that relationship (Model B) Table IV reports theresults obtained

As expected the regression coefficient (0515) shows that the higher the levelof overall satisfaction with brand A in comparison with brand B (dSAT) thehigher is the trustworthy image of the former (dTRUST) Nevertheless ifcustomer involvement with the product is considered the results of Model Bdenote a better fit and a higher effect than Model A increasing the explicativepower of the data up to 347 per cent from 26 percent

The direction and magnitude of the moderating effect of customerinvolvement in the Model B (INVOLmc) is determined by differentiatingModel B with respect to dSATmc yielding the following equation which isgraphically represented in Figure 3

macr dTRUST

macr dSATmcˆ 0499 Dagger 0301 curren INVOLmc

The previous equation shows that the positive effect of overall satisfaction onbrand trust is higher the higher the customer involvement with the productGraphically (see Figure 3) we can better observe that when the customerinvolvement level (INVOLmc) is higher than the mean value of this variablethe overall satisfaction (SATmc) has a higher effect on brand trust incomparison to the effect as described in Model A Nevertheless when thecustomer involvement level (INVOLmc) is lower than its mean value theoverall satisfaction (SATmc) has a lower effect on brand trust

Table IVRegression coefficientsfor H1 and H2

dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc

Model A dTRUST 0515 plusmn R2 aj 026F(pr) 000

Model B dTRUST 0499 0301 R2 aj 034F(pr) 000

Notes Variables significant at p lt 001 have only been included p micro 001


1251

Consequently the previous results are consistent with our prediction in H1 andH2 regarding the direct effect of overall satisfaction on brand trust and themoderating effect of customer involvement in this relationship

To test the H3 and H4 that argue a direct effect of brand trust on customercommitment (Model A) and a moderating effect of customer involvement in thisrelationship (Model B) we conducted the same analysis whose results arereported in Table V

Consistent with our prediction the results of the Model A (H3) show that thelevel of trust that a customer has towards a brand is positively related to the

Figure 3Moderator effect of

customer involvementon satisfaction-trust

relationship

Table VRegression coefficients

for H3 and H4

dTRUST dTRUSTmcINVOLmc

Model A dCOMMIT 0499 plusmn R2 aj 024F(pr) 000

Model B dCOMMIT 0493 0263 R2 aj 031F(pr) 000



1252

customer commitment In other words the better the image of trust attributedto brand A in comparison to brand B (dTRUST) results in a higher level ofcommitment towards the former (dCOMMIT) on the part of the customers

In addition and according to the results of Model B we also found supportfor the prediction (H4) that states that the more the customer is involved withthe product the higher is the effect of brand trust on customer commitmentAgain Model B has a better fit than Model A due to its significant and higherexplicative power (31 per cent) The direction and magnitude of the customerinvolvement in the Model B (INVOLmc) is again determined by differentiatingModel B respect to dTRUSTmc yielding the following equation

macr dCOMMIT

macr dTRUSTmcˆ 0493 Dagger 0263 curren INVOLmc

To test the H5 hypothesis we estimated the general Models A and B for therelationship between dSAT and dCOMMIT and their regression coefficientswere compared with those of H3 and H4 This comparison let us know whichvariable brand trust or overall satisfaction had a higher effect upon customercommitment and when this occurs Table VI reports the regression coefficientsfor these new models

As we can see there is a significant and positive effect of overall satisfactionupon customer commitment as has been previously documented (see Bloemerand Kasper 1993 1995) From this result it could be understood that this effect(0529) is higher than the effect of brand trust upon commitment (0499)However taking into account the moderating effect of customer involvementthe effect of brand trust upon commitment is always higher than 0756 (0493 +0263) with involvement levels higher than the mean Therefore the effect ofbrand trust upon customer commitment is higher than the effect of overallsatisfaction with involvement levels higher than 144 which corresponds witha value of 013 for this variable when it is mean-centred This result occurs for79 per cent of the total sample and points out the fact that in contrast to theexisting research focused on the relationship between satisfaction andcustomer commitment with the brand we have found that in situationsassociated with high levels of involvement it is better to analyse the effect ofbrand trust on customer commitment

Finally in H6 we predict the effect of customer commitment on the pricetolerance represented by the extra price paid for one brand in comparison toanother The results obtained (see Table VII) are consistent with our predictionand therefore we can state that as a result of the higher customer commitment

Table VIRegression coefficientsfor H5

dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc

Model B dCOMMIT 0529 ns R2 aj 0275F(pr) 000



1253

towards a brand the individual is more motivated to pay a higher price for it incomparison to the other brand to which the individual feels less committed

DiscussionThe estimated coefficients in the hypotheses model are illustrated in Figure 4All six hypotheses were confirmed and support the key role played by brandtrust as a variable generating customer commitment which in turn affects thecustomersrsquo price tolerance Among its main determinants we have found apositive and significant effect of overall satisfaction upon brand trust

Another major finding in the present study is that when faced with highinvolvement levels the effects described in the previous relationships are evenstronger These results highlight the relevance of framing the study of brandtrust in a context of high involvement due to the higher effects found whentaking this variable into account

In comparison with those studies focused on the relationships betweensatisfaction and commitment we have demonstrated the central role of brandtrust in affecting customersrsquo commitment especially in situations of highinvolvement resulting in a stronger effect of brand trust in comparison tooverall satisfaction This last finding must be seen as a step towards thedevelopment of variables that generate brand loyalty because traditionally theresearch has been focused on satisfaction as the key variable

Furthermore the higher effect of brand trust upon customersrsquo commitmentshould be taken into account due to the positive and significant effect that thelatter has on the customersrsquo price tolerance

Conclusions and management implicationsDespite the empirical and theoretical support for the close connection existingamong brand trust satisfaction and loyalty many studies have been devoted toanalysing satisfaction as the main antecedent of brand loyalty without

Figure 4Empirical model

Table VIIRegression coefficients

for H6

dCOMMIT

Model A dPRICE 0315a R2 aj 010F(pr) 000



1254

explicitly considering brand trust In this sense this research represents oneof only a few empirical examinations of brand trust that has tested therelationships of this variable with the theoretically related constructs ofcustomer commitment and overall satisfaction

More specifically the main conclusions from our study are related to thethree main questions addressed in it

The first question is related to brand trust conceptualisation andmeasurement In answer to it and based on the literature review conducted wehave conceptualised brand trust as a feeling of security that the brand will meetconsumption expectations Although previous studies about trust distinguishtwo general dimensions in the concept the empirical results obtained suggestthat in the context of consumer-brand relationship brand trust consists of onlyone dimension

The second question pertains to brand trust consequence in terms ofcustomer commitment The results suggest that brand trust has a significanteffect on it which in turns influences the customerrsquos price tolerance towards thebrand and also that customer involvement exerts a moderating effect on therelationship between brand trust and customer commitment

Finally and regarding the third question the results also suggest thatoverall satisfaction is an antecedent of brand trust and that there exists amoderating effect of customer involvement on the overall satisfaction-brandtrust relationship We have also demonstrated that overall satisfaction andbrand trust play different roles in the creation of customer commitment in theface of situations with high involvement Therefore this suggests that contextsof high involvement may be the more appropriate to study brand trust becausein these situations brand trust becomes more central in customersrsquo attitude andbelief structures

From a managerial point of view these results imply that to enjoy thesubstantial competitive and economic advantages provided by a loyal customerbase such as the price tolerance companies should manage not only the customersatisfaction with the intrinsic characteristics of the brand but also other moreabstract attributes These other traits of the brand are related to the customerperception of how hisher interests and welfare are considered by the brand Thisperception will help the customer to feel secure and therefore trust the brand tomeet hisher future satisfaction even in new situations not previously experiencedAnd as a consequence the individual would feel committed to the brand andwould manifest a predisposition to pay more for that brand

Furthermore the fact that in high involvement situations brand trust exertsa stronger influence on customer commitment than does overall satisfactionsuggests that if the managers have the objective of building and keeping long-term relationships with customers they need to complement their satisfactionprogrammes with other activities focused on building brand trust In this sensehonest communication and information about the brand shared values brandreputation and non-opportunistic behaviour from the part of the brandcompany may enhance brand trust


1255

Directions for future researchThe findings of the present research probably raise more questions than theyanswer opening a variety of future research issues First an issue to beresolved is the need for replicating the brand trust scale among consumers ofproducts in different categories in order to confirm the validity of the conceptused in this research and refine its measurement Its close relationship withother constructs (ie overall satisfaction) and the relative newness of its studyincrease the importance of refining the measure of brand trust

Another area for further research is to analyse the role played by brand trustas a factor influencing evaluations of a brand extension As far as consumerstrust the brand and perceived that the brand does not promote a flawedproduct they may perceive less risky to buy this brand when it is expanded toother product categories as suggested by Keller and Aaker (1992) Its positiveinfluence on the evaluation of the brand extension could result in a reduction ofthe time devoted to the acquisition of the brand when it is extended to newproduct categories

Another interesting issue is to analyse how different global evaluations (iebrand trust and overall satisfaction) determine the future intentions ofcustomers groups in different product categories with different levels ofperceived risk associated

Due to the dynamic nature of the studied relationships another issue to beresolved is the need for analysing the longitudinal validity of the overall modeland the relationships presented

Future studies should identify and analyse other antecedent variablesaffecting brand trust such as brand reputation or shared values with the brandimage Specially brand reputation could play an important role in a model ofbrand trust because it can signal trust towards the brand among thoseindividuals who are inexpert with the product category to infer which brandcould be trusted or not

Finally this research is only the first step in the development of acomprehensive brand-consumer relationship model Further efforts such asthose previously described can breathe new life into not only brand loyalty butalso into brand value research

Note

1 As an example of this we can mention the recent and not previously experienced problemsthat Coke brand has been faced with in some European countries The companyrsquos quickreaction in guaranteeing no health problems for the brand users taking out of the marketthose problematic units of the product and investigating the problem origin could beviewed as the kind of actions include under the brand intention dimension

References

Aaker DA (1991) Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name FreePress New York NY

Aaker DA (1996) `Measuring brand equity across products and marketsrsquorsquo CaliforniaManagement Review Vol 38 No 3 pp 102-20


1256

Ambler T (1997) ` How much of brand equity is explained by trustrsquorsquo Management DecisionVol 35 No 4 pp 283-92

Andaleeb SS (1992) ` The trust concept research issues for channels of distributionrsquorsquo Researchin Marketing Vol 11 pp 1-34

Anderson E and Sullivan M (1993) ` The antecedents and consequences of customersatisfaction for firmsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 12 No 2 pp 125-43

Anderson E Fornell C and Lehmann D (1994) ` Customer satisfaction market share andprofitability findings from Swedenrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 July pp 53-66

Beatty S and Kahle L (1988) Àlternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship theimpact of brand commitment and habitrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceVol 16 No 7 pp 1-10

Blackston M (1992) ` Observations building brand equity by managing the brandrsquosrelationshipsrsquorsquo Journal of Advertising Research MayJune pp 79-83

Blackston M (1995) ` The qualitative dimension of brand equityrsquorsquo Journal of AdvertisingResearch Vol 35 No 4 pp RC-2-7

Bloemer J and Kasper H (1993) ` Brand loyalty and brand satisfaction the case of buying audiocassettes anew in the Netherlandsrsquorsquo in ChotildeAcircas J and Sureda J (Eds) EMAC ProceedingsAnnual Conference European Marketing Academy Barcelona pp 183-201

Bloemer J and Kasper H (1995) ` The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction andbrand loyaltyrsquorsquo Journal of Economic Psychology Vol 16 No 2 pp 311-29

Bloemer J and Poiesz T (1989) ` The illusion of consumer satisfactionrsquorsquo Journal of SatisfactionDisatisfacion and Complaining Behavior No 2 pp 43-8

Bloemer J Kasper H and Lemmimk J (1990) ` The relationship between overall dealersatisfaction satisfaction with the attributes of dealer service intended dealer loyalty andintended brand loyalty a Dutch automobile casersquorsquo Journal of Satisfaction Dissatisfactionand Complaining Behavior No 3 pp 42-7

Blomqvist K (1997) ` The main faces of trustrsquorsquo Scandinavian Journal of Management Vol 13No 3 pp 271-86

Chernatony L and McDonald M (1998) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer Service andIndustrial Markets 2nd ed Butterworth Heinemann Oxford

Chow S and Holden R (1997) ` Toward an understanding of loyalty the moderating role oftrustrsquorsquo Journal of Managerial Issues Vol 9 No 3 pp 275-98

Cronin J and Taylor S (1992) `Measuring service-quality a reexamination and extensionrsquorsquoJournal of Marketing Vol 56 July pp 55-68

Curran JM Rosen DE and Surprenant C (1998) `The development of trust an alternativeconceptualizationrsquorsquo in Anderson P (Ed) EMAC Proceedings Annual ConferenceEuropean Marketing Academy Stockholm pp 110-30

Deighton J (1992) `The consumption of performancersquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 19December pp 362-72

Dick AS and Basu K (1994) `Customer loyalty toward an integrated conceptual frameworkrsquorsquoJournal of Academy of Marketing Science Vol 22 No 2 pp 99-113

Dowling GR (1986) ` Perceived risk the concept and its measurementrsquorsquo Journal of MarketingResearch Vol 3 Fall pp 193-210

Dowling GR and Staelin R (1994) À model of perceived risk and intended risk-handlingactivityrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 June pp 119-34

Dwyer FR Schurr PH and Sejo O (1987) ` Developing buyer-seller relationshiprsquorsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 51 April pp 11-27


1257

Elliot R and Wattanasuwan K (1998) `Brands as symbolic resources for the construction ofidentityrsquorsquo International Journal of Advertising Vol 17 No 2 pp 131-44

Fornell C (1992) À national customer satisfaction barometer the Swedish experiencersquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 56 January pp 6-21

Fournier S (1995) ` Toward the development of relationship theory at the level of the productand brandrsquorsquo Advances in Consumer Research Vol 22 pp 661-2

Fournier S (1998) ` Consumers and their brands developing relationship theory in consumerresearchrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 24 March pp 343-73

Fournier S and Yao J (1997) `Reviving brand loyalty a reconceptualization within theframework of consumer-brand relationshipsrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 14 No 5 pp 451-72

Frost T Stimpson V and Maughan M (1978) ` Some correlates of trustrsquorsquo Journal of PsychologyNo 99 pp 103-8

Ganesan S (1994) ` Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationshipsrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 58 April pp 1-19

Garbarino E and Johnson M (1999) `The different roles of satisfaction trust and commitmentin customer relationshipsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 63 April pp 70-87

Geyskens I Steenkamp JB Scheer L and Kumar N (1996) ` The effects of trust andinterdependence on relationship commitment an trans-Atlantic studyrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing Vol 13 No 4 pp 303-17

Gundlach GT Ravi SA and Mentzer JT (1995) `The structure of commitment in exchangersquorsquoJournal of Marketing Vol 59 January pp 78-92

Gurviez P (1996) `The trust concept in the brand-consumers relationshiprsquorsquo in BeraAcirccs JBauer A and Simon J (Eds) EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference EuropeanMarketing Academy Budapest pp 559-74

Heilbrunn B (1995) `My brand the hero A semiotic analysis of the customer-brandrelationshiprsquorsquo in BergadaaAacute M (Ed) EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference EuropeanMarketing Academy Paris pp 451-71

Hess J (1995) Construction and Assessment of a Scale to Measure Consumer Trust in SternBB et al (Eds) American Marketing Association Chicago IL Summer Vol 6 pp 20-6

Jaccard J and Wan CK (1995) `Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effectsbetween continuous predictors using multiple regression multiple indicator and structuralequation approachesrsquorsquo Psychological Bulletin No 117 March pp 348-57

Jaccard J Wan CK and Turrisi R (1990) ` The detection and interpretation of interactioneffects between continuous variables in multiple regressionrsquorsquo Multivariate BehavioralResearch Vol 25 October pp 467-78

Keller KL (1993) ` Conceptualizing measuring and managing customer-based brand equityrsquorsquoJournal of Marketing Vol 57 January pp 1-22

Keller KL and Aaker DA (1992) ` The effects of sequencial introduction of brand extensionsrsquorsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 29 February pp 35-50

Krishnamurthi L and Raj SP (1991) Àn empirical analysis of the relationship between brandloyalty and consumer price elasticityrsquorsquo Marketing Science Vol 10 No 2 pp 172-83

Krishnan HS (1996) ` Characteristics of memory associations a consumer-based brand equityperspectiversquorsquo International Journal of Research in Marketing Vol 13 pp 389-405

LaBarbera P and Mazursky D (1983) ` A longitudinal assesment of consumer satisfactiondissatisfaction the dynamic aspect of the cognitive processrsquorsquo Journal of MarketingResearch Vol 20 November pp 393-404


1258

Larzelere R and Huston T (1980) ` The dyadic trust scale toward understanding interpersonaltrust in close relationshipsrsquorsquo Journal of Marriage and the Family August pp 595-604

Lassar W Banwari M and Sharma A (1995) `Measuring customer-based brand equityrsquorsquoJournal of Consumer Marketing Vol 12 No 4 pp 11-9

Mayer RC Davis J and Schoorman D (1995) Àn integrative model of organizational trustrsquorsquoAcademy of Management Review Vol 20 No 3 pp 709-34

McQuarrie EF and Munson JM (1992) À revised product involvement inventory improvedusability and validityrsquorsquo Advances in Consumer Research Vol 19 pp 108-15

Michell P Reast J and Lynch J (1998) ` Exploring the foundations of trustrsquorsquo Journal ofMarketing Management Vol 14 pp 159-72

Mitchell V-W (1999) `Consumer perceived risk conceptualisations and modelsrsquorsquo EuropeanJournal of Marketing Vol 33 No 12 pp 163-95

Morgan RM and Hunt S (1994) `The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketingrsquorsquoJournal of Marketing Vol 58 July pp 20-38

Muncy J (1996) `Measuring perceived brand parityrsquorsquo Advances in Consumer Research Vol 23pp 411-7

Newman JW and Werbel RA (1973) `Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for majorhousehold appliancesrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 10 November pp 404-9

Oliver RI (1980) À cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfactiondecisionsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Research Vol 17 November pp 460-9

Ravald A and GroEgravenroos C (1996) ` The value concept and relationship marketingrsquorsquo EuropeanJournal of Marketing Vol 30 No 2 pp 19-30

Rempel JK Holmes JG and Zanna MP (1985) ` Trust in close relationshipsrsquorsquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology Vol 49 No 1 pp 95-112

Samuelsen B and Sandvik K (1997) ` The concept of customer loyaltyrsquorsquo in Arnott et al (Eds)EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference European Marketing Academy Warwickpp 1122-40

Samuelsen B and Sandvik K (1999) Àntecedents of affective and calculative commitment inconsumer-brand relationshiprsquorsquo in Hildebrandt et al (Eds) EMAC Proceedings AnnualConference European Marketing Academy Berlin p 98

Sandvik K and Duhan D (1996) ` The effects of performance quality customer satisfaction andbrand reputation on customer loyaltyrsquorsquo in BeraAcirccs J Bauer A and Simon J (Eds) EMACProceedings Annual Conference European Marketing Academy Budapest pp 983-99

Selnes F (1993) Àn examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputationsatisfaction and loyaltyrsquorsquo European Journal of Marketing Vol 27 No 9 pp 19-35

Selnes F (1998) Àntecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-sellerrelationshipsrsquorsquo European Journal of Marketing Vol 32 No 34 pp 305-22

Steenkamp JB (1990) ` Conceptual model of the quality perception processrsquorsquo Journal of BusinessResearch Vol 21 No 4 pp 309-33

Spreng RA Mackenzie SB and Olshavsky RW (1996) À reexamination of the determinantsof consumer satisfactionrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 July pp 15-32

Wernerfelt B (1991) `Brand loyalty and market equilibrium Marketing Science Vol 10 No 3pp 229-45


1239

the meanings and hedonic-emotive aspects of brand loyalty (eg Elliot andWattanasuwan 1998)

In this sense Fournier (1998) affirms that the excessive effort invested inanalysing brand loyalty as a result of utilitarian and cognitive decision-makingprocess fails to capture the talismatic relationships the consumer forms with thatwhich is consumed In particular she points out the lack of attention devoted tointerpersonal relationship theories in spite of their conceptual connections to thenotion of ` loyaltyrsquorsquo and second their relevance and approval in other marketingliterature fields

Being aware of this the present research adopts a relational perspective inthe study of brand loyalty and therefore it characterises the relationshipbetween the brand and the consumer in terms of trust and commitment

Based on these ideas the purpose of this research is threefold First tocontribute to the brand literature with a conceptualisation and measurement ofthe concept ` brand trustrsquorsquo Second analysing its effect on the affective oremotional commitment between the consumer and the brand which in turnaffects the customersrsquo price tolerance Third studying its determinants how itis generated and in which context it is more appropriate to present a model of` brand trustrsquorsquo

To accomplish these objectives this article is composed of eight sectionsFirst we briefly present the existing brand loyalty literature which forms thetheoretical framework in which we analyse brand trust After identifying thelack of studies about trust in the field of consumer products the second sectionexamines the scope of the trust concept and its meaning in the brand domainThe theoretical model is presented in the third section with a review of theliterature about the sources and results of brand trust The researchmethodology and the results obtained constitute the next two sections Thearticle concludes with a discussion of the results its academic and managerialimplications and the future research issues that the present research opens

The antecedents of brand loyaltyIt is widely considered that loyalty is one of the ways with which the consumerexpresses hisher satisfaction with the performance of the product or servicereceived (Bloemer and Kasper 1995) Therefore it is not surprising that fordecades one of the key global constructs predicting consumer behaviour hasbeen overall satisfaction There are many studies that have examined therelationship between this variable and loyalty where the latter has beenapproached as a repurchase intention (see Anderson and Sullivan 1993 Croninand Taylor 1992 Fornell 1992 LaBarbera and Marzusky 1983 Oliver 1980)or as an emotional and psychological bond or commitment (eg Bloemer andKasper 1993 Bloemer and Poiesz 1989 Bloemer et al 1990 Samuelsen andSandvik 1997)

These studies consider not only the valence and strength of this relationshipbut also how it is moderated by the effects of other variables such as theamount of elaboration upon the evaluation of the brand (see Figure 1) In turn


1240







1241









1242








1243






1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1240







1241









1242








1243






1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1241









1242








1243






1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1242








1243






1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1243






1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1244












1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1245










1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1246







1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1247












1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1248







Standarddeviation




326 075 082





333 068 069









1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1249





Model A



Model B


X

j

X

k

Xmcjcurren Zmck



of estimated scales


COMMIT 3 787 332 092

INVOL 3 1431 165 097

SAT 3 1210 344 099

TRUST 6 195 367 092


1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1250





macr dTRUST




dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc





1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1251






relationship


for H3 and H4






1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1252



macr dCOMMIT






dSAT dSATmcINVOLmc




1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1253









for H6

dCOMMIT




1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1254









1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1255







Note


References




1256























1257






















1258






















1256























1257






















1258






















1257






















1258






















1258





















Documents

Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty