GERALD ZALTMANANDCHRISTINE MOORMAN

THE IMPORTANCEOF PERSONAL TRUST INTHE USE OF RESEARCH

GERALD ZALTMAN is the Al-bert Wesley Frey professor ofmarketing at the Joseph M.Katz Graduate School of Busi-ness, University of Pittsburgh.Dr. Zaitman holds an M B.A.from the University of Chicagoand a PhD in sociology fromthe Johns Hopkins University.

CHRISTINE MOORMAN is avisiting assistant professor otmarketing at the Joseph M,Katz Graduate Sohool of Busi-ness, University of PittsburghDr. Moorman holds both anM.B.A. and a Ph D in mar-keting from Ihe University ofPittsburgh.

Primary support for this research wasprovided by the Joseph M. Katz Grad-uate School of Business, University ofPittsburgh. Additional assistance wasprovided by the Shell Oil Corporationand the General Motors Corporation. Weparticularly want to thank Meera Buck ofShell Oil and Vincent Barabba and Mi-chael Kusnic of General Motors and 170other managers and researchers whocontributed important ideas.

Recent and ongoing ad-vances in the way market-place information is col-

lected and made available pro-vide managers and other researchusers with unprecedentedamounts and kinds of informa-tion. Moreover, essentially thesame information is available tocompeting firms at about thesame time. As a consequence,competitive advantage is to befound increasingly in what isdone with information, i.e., howit is used or employed ratherthan in who does or does nothave it. It is not surprising, then,that more and more attention isbeing given to factors affectingwhether and how information isused (Barabba, 1987; Deshpandeand Zaitman, 1982, 1984, 1987;Krum, Rav, and Keiser, 1988).From these efforts, insights havebegun to emerge concerning howthe use of research is affected bysuch factors as organizationalstructure, unexpected results, thepolitical acceptability and action-ability of findings, data quality,where in the decision process in-formation becomes available, en-vironmental change, product orservice maturity, whether the in-tent of research is developmentalor confirmatory, and the fre-quency and timing of researcher-manager interactions.

Perhaps the single most im-portant factor affecting the use ofresearch is the presence or ab-sence of trust. The literature onagency-client and researcher-userrelationships has pointed to theimportance of trust in creating

and maintaining relationships(Cagely, 1986; Glaser, Abelson,and Garrison, 1983; Michell, 1984;Wackman, Salmon, and Salmon,1987). However, exactly how orin what ways trust is important,particularly with respect to theuse of marketing research, hasnot received much attention.Drawing on extensive interviewswith 170 researchers and man-agers from client organizations,advertising agencies, and re-search firms, this article exploresthe nature of trust between man-agers and researchers and its im-pact on the use of marketing re-search, especially advertisingresearch.

The Conceptof Trust

The Research Literature. Trustis a basic feature of all social situ-ations that demand cooperationand interdependence (Johnson-George and Swap, 1982). It is notsurprising, therefore, to find anextensive research literature onthe social and psychological di-mensions of trust and its role indeveloping and maintaining rela-tionships. Trust has been de-scribed in this literature as an ex-pectation that the word orpromise of another person orgroup can be relied upon (Rotter,1967). Given this expectation, theensuing trust serves as a basisfor a person or group to arrangeand present their activities in amanner acceptable to others(Scanzoni, 1979). Trust also varies

16 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

according to the extent to whicha person believes another to bebenevolent and honest (Larzeleveand Huston, 1980). Here benevo-lent refers to how genuinely in-terested a person is in a partner'swelfare and is motivated to seekmaximum joint gain. Honesty isdefined as the extent to which anindividual's statements of futureintentions are believable. It alsorefers to the believability of state-ments of current importanceabout past and present events.Trust has also been studied as acondition in which a person iswilling to rely on another toachieve a desired objective in arisky situation (Giffin, 1972).Trust is further viewed as a wayin which partners can cope withthe uncertainty and vulnerabilitythat exists in ali such relation-ships (Heimer, 1976). Anotherview of trust is as an impersonalrather than personal state (Sha-piro, 1987). Impersonal trustseems to embody hope that aperson with whom one mustnecessarily work will perform ina competent manner (Barber,1983). For example, impersonaltrust may occur when managersmust place faith in researchersoutside the organization where itis difficult to monitor, evaluate,or constrain the researcher's per-formance. Moreover, impersonaltrust is necessary when the re-search relationship is transitoryor when the manager lacks theexpertise to evaluate the researcheffort.

Some authors have describedtrust as emerging through threedistinct stages in relationships(Kempel, Holmes, and Zanna,1985; Kempei and Holmes, 1986).First, trust is characterized bypredictability or the ability toforetell an individual's specificbehaviors. This is most readilyaccomplished when that indi-vidual behaves in a consistentmanner in a stable environment.Zeltner (1984) has suggested

. . . we define trust as aninterpersonal or

interorganizational state thatreflects the extent to whichthe parties can predict one

another's behavior; candepend on one another whenit counts; and have faith thatthe other will continue to act

in a responsive mannerdespite an uncertain future.

(without using these concepts di-rectly) that this first stage of trusthas been weakened on the partof clients toward their agencies asa result of the large number ofagency mergers and acquisitions.Because organizational changesamong agencies can lead tochanges in social relationshipsbetween agency and client per-sonnel, these changes have beenviewed as decreasing the clientorganization's ability to predictagency actions.

As time progresses and pre-dictability is retained, trust be-comes less a function of specificbehaviors and based more on anevaluation of the qualities andcharacteristics attributed to theother—trust is placed in the de-pendability of the other personand not in their specific actions.This second stage may be charac-terized by a manager's willing-ness to allow himself to be per-sonally vulnerable in a risky situ-ation in which a researcher (orother manager) could affect themanager in a harmful way. Cir-cumstances involving risk andvulnerability are important in es-tablishing trust. There has to bea willingness to extend trust toanother person who can displayuntrustworthy qualities as easilyas trustworthy ones.

In the final stage, trust is basedon faith that the other party willcontinue to act in a responsiveand caring manner despite thevicissitudes of an uncertain fu-ture (Kempel, Holmes, andZanna, 1985). Faith is partly afunction of predictability and de-pendability, but again it is alsoinfluenced by the personal secu-rity and self-esteem of theperson/organization doing thetrusting.

Drawing upon both the re-search literature and our inter-views, we define trust as an in-terpersonal or interorganizationalstate that reflects the extent to whichthe parties can predict one another'sbehavior; can depend on one anotherwhen it counts; and have faith thatthe other will continue to act in a re-sponsive manner despite an uncertainfuture. This way of defining trustis built on the concept of embed-dedness, i.e., trust is establishedby the gradual increase of prop-erly conceived and timed acts onthe part of each person in a rela-tionship (Shapiro, 1987). Thisdefinition was narrow enough toguide our thinking about thefactors affecting the developmentof trust between researchers andmanagers, but broad enough toallow for the fact that trust cantake on different shades ofmeaning with different aspects ofa relationship.

Respondent's Viewpoints. Asthis discussion suggests, trust isboth a subtle and complex vari-able. Certain dimensions of trustseemed somewhat more impor-tant for researcher-manager in-teractions within a client organi-zation or advertising agency. Stillother dimensions seemed some-what more important when thecentral researcher and manager/user were in different organiza-tions. For example, many firmsrely heavily on research compa-nies and advertising agencies toprovide research expertise (in ad-dition to simply collecting and

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988 17

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

. . . trust flows in twodirections and when it

doesn't the trust that doesexist is unlikely

to persist.

tabulating data). However, noneof the dimensions of trust wereunique to relationships betweenresearchers and managers withinthe same organization versusthose in which managers and re-searchers were in different orga-nizations. For this reason we willdraw on examples from both setsof relationships when discussingparticular aspects of trust.

Our discussion does, however,stress manager trust in re-searchers. This foiiows naturallyfrom the focus of our study onthe use of developmental andevaluative advertising research.On some occasions the issue ofresearcher trust in managersarose. While this issue will be ex-plored in the next phase of ourresearch, it is important to notethat trust flows in two directionsand when it doesn't the trust thatdoes exist is unlikely to persist.

Many respondents distin-guished between trust and tech-nical competence. While technicalcompetence is very important, itis usually established quickly andthen, in effect, put aside. It canbe tarnished in a specific instancebut eventually be reestablished.Thus, managers appear to extendto researchers some allowancefor technical error. Such is notthe case with trust. Many re-spondents pointedly stated thatonce trust is tarnished it soondisappears and cannot bereestablished.

While nearly all respondentsfelt trust was a vital ingredientfor effective research use, manymanagers suggested that it wasoften missing from one or more

of their relationships with re-searchers. There are severalreasons for this. For example,many firms are contracting outfor research expertise, i.e., theyare relying more and more on re-search companies and advertisingagencies for important design,statistical and interpretive exper-tise. They may, in fact, workwith a variety of research compa-nies in the course of a year or so.As a consequence, managers areoften working with a largernumber of researchers andspending less time with any oneof them. The absence of enduringmanager-researcher relationshipscoupled with less researcher fa-miliarity with the client organiza-tion and the manager's situationdecreases the opportunity forhigh levels of trust to be estab-lished, even though very highquality research may beprovided.

Another reason trust may beabsent concerns the increasinglyshort-term, tactical focus of man-agers' thinking and behavior.This can create friction, especiallywith agency researchers whomay have a longer-term, morestrategic viewpoint. This differ-ence in orientation can inhibit thedevelopment and maintenance oftrust between managers and re-searchers even though neitherviewpoint is uniquely related totrustworthiness. Also, a client's

focus on evaluative researchusing very precise but oftenrather uninformative measures asa kind of report card, in contrastto the agency's advocacy of moredevelopmental research, mayalso bring these groups into con-flict. As with the short-term-long-term difference in orienta-tion, this disparity in perspectivehinders the development of trustbetween organizations. Many ad-ditional barriers to trust werediscussed in the interviews.Overcoming these barriers re-quires time, energy, and persis-tence on the part of both parties.It also requires a good under-standing of and sensitivity to thefactors that facilitate and inhibitthe development and mainte-nance of trust.

Methodology

Face-to-face interviews wereconducted with 93 people whiletelephone interviews were con-ducted with an additional 77people. Table 1 summarizes thedistribution of these interviewsby type of organization. A totalof 170 people were interviewedrepresenting 94 organizations.

Interviewees were key peoplechosen from the largest adver-tisers, the largest advertisingagencies, and major research orconsulting firms. Additionalpeople were identified by various

Table 1Distribution of Interviews

Type of company

Face-to-faceinterviews

(number of firms)

Telephoneinterviews

(number of firms)

Totalinterviews

(number of firms)

Client firms

Advertising agencies

Research/consultant firms

Total interviews(number of firms)

45 people(21 firms)

35 people(15 firms)

13 people(6 firms)

93 people(42 firms)

43 people(30 firms)

6 people(6 firms)

28 people(16 firms)

77 people(52 firms)

88 people(51 firms)

41 people(21 firms)

41 people(22 firms)

170 people(94 firms)

18 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

experts as being particularly in-sightful, and every effort wasmade to interview these key in-formants. Very few people de-clined to participate and thoseinterviewed were very generouswith their time. Interviews oftenexceeded an hour and manylasted close to two hours. Tele-phone interviews generally ex-ceeded one half-hour often con-tinuing for an hour. In 44 percentof the face-to-face interviews asecond interviewer was present.In some instances a second oreven third person was presentfrom the interviewee's organiza-tion. A copy of the general list ofissues/questions we developedconcerning the use of marketingresearch, especially advertisingresearch, was sent in advance torespondents. Certain issues/questions were flagged as beingof special relevance to the partic-ular respondent. The face-to-faceinterviews were relatively un-structured whereas the telephoneinterviews were more structured.

Developing andMaintaining Trust

Some of the more frequentlymentioned perspectives on trustwere offered by both researchersand managers in the interviews.The factors contained in theseperspectives have a major influ-ence on the development andmaintenance of trust. The relativeimportance of these factors canvary from one relationship to an-other and over time. The contextsin which managers and re-searchers interact also add specialqualities. Additionally, there areunique properties of the re-searchers' and managers' posi-tions in their organizations thatpredispose them to somewhatdifferent viewpoints regardingtrust and related issues.

Some of these factors suggestguidelines for researchers to

follow when they interact withclients in their own and other or-ganizations. Other factors sug-gest ways of structuring the re-search function and its resources.

. . . respondents . . . madeit clear that it was not

possible to trust someonewho was always willing to

compromise his or hervalues, ideas, or training to

meet client demands.

Being a Team Player. Manyrespondents distinguished be-tween a researcher being "a teamplayer" and "digging in your(the researcher) heels on a pointyou feel strongly about." Beingteam players, as opposed to dig-ging in their heels, often requiresthat researchers go along withmanager actions they do not feelcomfortable with but are notjudged to be harmful to the firm.To make such judgments, the re-searcher needs enough familiaritywith the firm to know when aparticular use of research will orwill not have serious conse-quences. Being a team playermay require sacrificing method-ological or interpretive norms soa client can meet a product dead-line or downplay his or her cul-pability in a brand's poor perfor-mance. A researcher's flexibilityin responding to special clientneeds was a quality respondentsthought very important. Thisflexibility seems to lend credenceto those situations in which re-searchers feel it is necessary todispute a particular use of infor-mation or when they decline toperform a task because insuffi-cient time is available to do itproperly.

When researchers demand thatexactly the right thing be doneall the time, managers may ques-

tion the extent to which the re-searcher can be considered a"part of the team" or relied onwhen it counts. On the otherhand, respondents also made itclear that it was not possible totrust someone who was alwayswilling to compromise his or hervalues, ideas, or training to meetclient demands. Therefore, fur-ther trust is established when re-searchers take a firm standagainst a particular use or inter-pretation of research which theyfeel is truly detrimental to thefirm. One advertising managerdescribed such researchers ashaving the "courage of their con-victions." Other interviewees,when discussing these samepostures, also mentioned that re-searchers must be sincere in theirattempts to help clients and yetsecure in their opinions about theuse of a particular piece of re-search. There was considerablecomment about balancing thesetwo postures. As one researcherput it:

The dilemma is that if youalways dig your heels in andfight for your ideas you areconsidered arrogant andfoolish. However, if you con-stantly back off when the clientchallenges one of your ideasyou're considered a pushover.You need to know when to cry"wolf" and when not to.

A researcher's decision to digin or back off is affected by a va-riety of factors including the levelof trust already present in the re-lationship, the posture taken inthe most recent critical incident,and the personal and profes-sional implications of the re-search findings for the managersinvolved. Respondents seemed toagree that to maintain relation-ships you have to, as one agencyresearcher put it, "Learn to losea few battles to win the war."The war, in this case, is themaintenance of trust in the rela-

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988 19

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

tionship and the ability to standfirm successfully on a positionwhen that is necessary.

Being a Truth Teller. Relatedto the idea of "digging in yourheels," respondents continuallyexpressed the importance ofhonesty in researcher-user rela-tionships. Most felt that beinghonest was a necessary ingre-dient to building trust. Re-searchers, in particular, felt theneed to be honest with theirclients by "showing all the cards"even if they are not all positive.As one researcher stated:

You've got to be a truth teller.You just can't play politics.Once you've got a reputationfor being a truth teller you'vegot it made in terms of havingyour research accepted.

Outside suppliers agreed thathonesty was a key to their rela-tionships with advertisers. Asone noted:

The advertising business is atrust business. It is essential tobe able to say to an advertiser,"Your advertising needs to bebetter." Creative people in theagency may resist this but youmust have the courage topresent this kind of thinking toyour clients.

Interestingly, in the interviews,both agencies and client firms ac-knowledged that they sometimeswithhold information from oneanother. Not surprisingly, eachparty believed the other holdsback more data more often.These beliefs reflect a basic lackof trust in these relationships.One reason that agency peopledo not share all research withtheir clients is that they feelclients cannot be trusted not tojump prematurely on a particularfinding during exploratory re-search and thereby inhibit theagency's thinking about an issue.Likewise, when managers don'tfeel they can trust researchers to

support their research agendas orinterpretations, they may refrainfrom asking for research or fromusing it when available. Zand(1972) documented the effecttrust has on informationexchange;

One who does not trust otherswill conceal or distort relevantinformation, and avoid statingor will disguise facts, ideas,conclusions, and feelings hebelieves will increase his expo-sure to others, so that the in-formation he provides will below in accuracy, comprehen-siveness and timeliness; andtherefore have low congruencewith reality . . . When othersencounter this behavior, ini-tially they will hesitate to re-veal information, reject influ-ence, and evade control.

Conversely, the greater the trustin researcher-user relationships,the greater the information ex-change, i.e., the greater the dis-closure of more accurate, rele-vant, and complete data aboutthe problem and one's thoughtsand feelings about thisinformation.

Two factors, among others,appear to affect both truth-tellerstatus and the effective balancebetween being a team player anddigging in your heels. First, assuggested earlier, when a userperceives the researcher as actingin the company's best interests,even when presenting bad news,trust in the researcher increases.Second, when research depart-ments have a discretionary re-search budget or are otherwiseless dependent on a few internalclients for their basic funding, re-searchers can yield more inde-pendent judgments. This occursbecause researchers are not as fi-nancially dependent on a specificmanager for the support of theirfunction. This independence in-creases the researchers' inclina-tions to act more in line with

overall corporate interests, bemore honest with clients, and topresent bad news. This budget-ary arrangement indirectly, butimportantly, fosters independent,honest, and trusting relation-ships between researchers andmanagers.

. . . Another factor whichimproves understandingbetween researchers andmanagers is their having

experience in oneanother's jobs.

Mutual Understanding ofNeeds, Capabilities, and Goals.A common understanding be-tween researchers and users withrespect to each other's needs,abilities, and goals is also essen-tial to a trusting relationship.This understanding helps re-searchers and users set more re-alistic boundaries on their expec-tations of one another and henceincreases the likelihood that theywill perceive one another as pre-dictable and dependable. Manyrespondents suggested that thisunderstanding is achieved mosteffectively when researchers arein close physical proximity tousers. This allows researchers todevelop better personal rapportwith users and to therefore feel agreater stake in the user's perfor-mance. Close proximity also in-creases researcher involvementin, and hence their familiaritywith, the marketing problems tobe researched. This, in turn,creates more focused and rele-vant research and a more realisticbasis for interpreting data andexpressing judgments.

Another factor which improvesunderstanding between re-searchers and managers is theirhaving experience in one an-other's jobs. When researchers

20 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

have had line experience and/ormanagers have had research ex-perience, their ability to empa-thize with the other increases.This ability can foster the devel-opment of trust by helping eachparty understand the constraintsand difficulties faced by theother.

A major barrier to gaining abetter understanding betweenadvertising agencies and theirclients is their sometimes verydifferent values, orientations,and cultures. Much has been saidin various forums about the ten-sion and conflict betweenagencies and clients arising fromthese differences. Evidence ofsuch tension and conflict wasalso present in the interviews.For example, many agencypeople gave the impression that,relative to their clients, they (1)are more involved in exploratorythan confirmatory research; (2)use a wider variety of quantita-tive and qualitative tools; (3) aremore oriented toward strategythan tactics; (4) prefer longer-runto shorter-run evaluation mea-sures; (5) work in a less risk-averse environment; (6) approachproblems or tasks with broaderbackgrounds; (7) have a broaderbasis for believing what it is theyknow; (8) have superior interpre-tive skills, and so on. This listcould include dress codes, con-versational differences, and evena strong sense of who is the"smarter" partner. Clients favor-ably distinguish themselves fromagencies along these very samedimensions. As a result, re-searchers and managers can bethought of as operating with twovery different sets of norms,values, and objectives indepen-dently of organizational context.Other research has documentedthese differences (Deshpandeand Zaitman, 1984). The impor-tant observation here is that eachparty believes they are distinctlydifferent from the other. When

The ability to manage badnews is central to the

development of trust betweenresearchers and managers.

one or the other party perceivesthese differences as being large, aform of xenophobia developswhich lessens or thwarts the de-velopment of trust.

As differences between thegroups are minimized and theygain a better understanding ofone another, users' trust in theirresearchers increases and usersare more likely to include re-searchers in their decision process.This in turn enhances the useful-ness of research and the abilityof researchers to provide morerelevant information. This meansmore varied perspectives arebrought to bear on decisions anda broader array of ideas will beshared. Moreover, unarticulatedknowledge—what it is we knowthat we don't know we know—which is so very important, hasmore opportunity to be surfaced,challenged for its validity, andused when appropriate. Manyrespondents felt that this form ofknowledge was among the mostuseful and that it was more likelyto be brought forth in the pres-ence of trusted colleagues withdifferent perspectives.

Managing Bad News. Theability to manage bad news iscentral to the development oftrust between researchers andmanagers. Researchers often ex-pressed how important it was forthem to be able to manage thecommunication of researchfindings that did not meet withmanagers' expectations or couldbe embarrassing for managers.Managers and agency executivesagreed that if they could notcount on their research team tohave a sense of etiquette when

they discovered bad news, re-searchers were less trusted.

Three skills surfaced as beingessential for bad news manage-ment. First, researchers in partic-ular made it clear that the moresignificant the bad news (i.e., thegreater the repercussions of theresearch results for decisions,reputations, or the bottom line),the greater the need to find andstress the good news in the samedata. Second, the more signifi-cant the bad news, the greaterthe need to develop valid expla-nations of the findings. By of-fering an explanation, managersfelt they were being given someunderstanding or insight, not justdata. Third, and perhaps mostimportant of all, is the re-searcher's ability to present con-structive ways of responding tothe bad news. Managers in par-ticular thought that the impact ofthe news could be softened byresearchers' suggestions of dif-ferent strategies for coping withthe problem.

Managers and researchers alsoagreed on the importance of theresearcher giving a manager ad-vance warning of bad news, i.e.,sharing it prior to its presentationto others. As one researcherstated:

You should show a draft of theresearch memo to decisionmakers first. This approachdoes run the risk of beingshown as a pushover, but youare also showing that youaren't going to surprise andembarrass decision makers.

When researchers do this, man-agers feel they have an opportu-nity to work with researchers topresent the results in a less dra-matic way or at least have time tothink about and consider viableresponses to the problem beforepresenting the data to colleaguesand superiors.

Supporting Answering andAsking Postures. Throughout

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH —OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988 21

T R U 5 T ! N R E S E A R C H

the interviewing process thereseemed to be a subtle but veryimportant psychological distinc-tion between doing research andhaving answers. A person from aresearch firm expressed thefeelings of several other inter-

Researchers identify withasking processes, whilemanagers identify with

answering processes; despitethe interdependence of theseprocesses, they often clash.

viewees when he commentedthat managers do not know howto ask researchable questions,"but they sure know how to askwhy research doesn't answer thequestions they do have!" A re-search director in a consumerproducts company commentedsimilarly, "[a specific vice presi-dent] doesn't want research, hewants answers." Suggestionswere made that managers areuncomfortable asking questionsand that research may reflectweakness and uncertainty: it ismanly or managerial to have ananswer whereas having a ques-tion is not. In other words, ad-mitting that one does not knowsomething acknowledges igno-rance and may render a managerless powerful. This may be onereason why most market researchis confirmatory, i.e., it verifiesthat a particular idea is good andavoids having additional ques-tions raised. It may also explainwhy both good and bad surprisestend to be dismissed. Even unex-pected good news impliessomeone's judgment was inerror.

The dilemma arises in that thereluctance to ask questions re-sults in considerable use of lim-ited knowledge in decisionmaking. Because asking systems

are a necessary part of answeringsystems, the more thorough theasking process the better the re-sulting answer. There is a catchthough. Researchers identifywith asking processes, whilemanagers identify with an-swering processes; despite theinterdependence of these pro-cesses, they often clash. Man-agers lose confidence in theability of research (and hence re-searchers) to provide answers if italso raises new questions and inthe process raises uncertaintyrather than decreasing it. This, inturn, decreases trust in the re-searcher to perform what man-agers see as critical answeringtasks. Researchers must managethese postures very delicately byproviding managers with a senseof progress in answering theirconcerns, while also assistingthem in finding out what theydon't know and what it is theydo know that they can be stillmore confident about.

Making a Believer Out ofYour Users. The importance ofbelievability surfaced repeatedlyin the interviews. Researchersagreed that if users buy into theresearch or put faith in what theresearch is suggesting, then trustin the relationship is fostered. Inthis case, trust also affects thebelievability of research results.Several factors appear to affectthe believability of research. First,when the researcher is credible,the research is more believable.That is, when the researcher isseen as having a distinctive ex-pertise, the research products aremore believable. In this case, aresearcher's reputation or priorprofessional affiliation or past ac-complishments color others' per-ceptions of his or her products.

Believability also requiresagreement that sound and robustmethods have been used in gen-erating research. This is some-times a point of conflict betweenagencies and advertisers.

Agencies, on the whole, appearto feel more comfortable with awider array of both qualitativeand quantitative techniques.Many client firms, on the otherhand, appear to rely on moreconventional quantitative surveyresearch methodologies. Excep-tions include the very large ad-vertisers who are more likeagencies in the scope of theirmethods. These advertisers have,for the most part, subsumed theagency's research role and weretherefore more like them thanother advertisers. Different pref-erences in methodologies cancreate serious barriers to believ-ing research results and there-fore contribute to the lack oftrust between these organi-zations.

Another quality mentioned asaffecting the believability of re-search was how effectively it waspresented. Aside from being or-ganized and persuasive, inter-viewees noted that it is importantthat research be presented in amanner consistent with howmanagers prefer to process anduse information. Some managersare highly skilled in using formal,analytically-driven research suchas opinion and attitude studiesand econometric analyses. Othersare very skilled in applying theirvaried, accumulated experiencesor intuitions when addressing thesame question. Very few man-agers seem to be adept at usingboth sources of information.Likewise, some managers aremore comfortable with "pictures"of data rather than numbers. Ifthe presentation can be tailoredto meet the individual needs anddynamics of the audience, thebelievability of the research in-creases. As one agency re-searcher suggested:

Client trust is won through atwo-step process. First, youneed good interpersonal skillsin pre-research consultation.

22 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

Second, you need to do a goodjob presenting the results. Aproblem here is that clients areoften not sophisticated enoughto appreciate a goodpresentation.Absorbing Uncertainty. The

final factor is related to trust inan indirect but important way.This concerns the ability of a re-searcher to absorb uncertainty. Itis rare for research to provide allthe essential information neededfor important marketing deci-sions. A truly comprehensive re-search effort may not be feasiblefor any number of reasonsranging from budgetary and timeconstraints, to methodologicallimitations, to the inherent unre-searchability of certain questions.Moreover, the research itself mayidentify but not clarify importantbut previously unthought ofissues. Also, every researchmethod has its limitations, par-ticularly with respect to how theresulting data can be analyzedand interpreted. As a result,major pockets of uncertaintyusually remain after research re-sults are in hand.

A number of respondents sug-gested that the more importantthe issue or decision the morelikely it is that some uncertaintywill remain. As we noted earlier,trust is especially important insituations characterized by un-certainty. We also noted thatmanagers prefer answers to theirquestions rather than still morequestions and that researcherstend to raise more questions.Some researchers, however, ap-pear to have a special ability to"fill in the blanks" where dataare missing and to act confidentlywith respect to these "addi-tional" data. Moreover, these re-searchers appear to be very com-petent in determining what themissing data would look like hadthey been acquired. This abilityto absorb uncertainty rather thanpass it along to managers is im-

portant even when data areavailable. Research findings oftenfall in a grey area where theyneither clearly endorse nor rejecta particular idea, proposition, oraction being considered. The dataare used along with other kindsof information to make a yes orno judgment. In both cases, i.e.,with respect to either missingdata or available but somewhatunclear data, the researcher'sability to act with confidencewith regard to ambiguous data isimportant. There appears to be akind of intuitive sense that is de-rived from both a formal, analyt-ical study and from reflected ex-perience with the product or rel-evant target market. That senseenables a researcher to extrapo-late and to say that he or she hasmuch more (or much less) confi-dence in particular findings than,say, what tests of statistical sig-nificance might provide.

Because managers must act asif data were clearer than theyoften are, they see as more de-pendable those researchers whoare willing to wander from thedata, i.e., researchers whosejudgments are not tied narrowlyto specific findings. When man-agers find they must make ex-trapolations from the research oruse their reflected experience tomake decisions, they need guid-ance as well as intellectual com-pany from their researchers. Re-searcher guidance in these ven-tures enhances the likelihood ofmaking the right decision andmay provide a basis for futuresharing of potential blame. In ei-ther case, when researchers helpabsorb some of the uncertaintyabout an important issue, man-agers sense they can depend onthem to help out when mostneeded.

Summary

Trust is present in all healthyrelationships. Researcher and

user relationships are no excep-tion. This article has discussedhow and in what ways trust isimportant, particularly with re-spect to the use of marketing re-search. We have defined the con-cept of trust and attempted tosensitize both managers and re-searchers to a set of factors thatfacilitate and inhibit its develop-ment and maintenance. Thesefactors are grounded in the expe-riences of the managers and re-searchers interviewed. We thinkthey offer a rich set of guidelinesfor researchers and users to ob-serve as they develop structurein their relationships with oneanother. •

References

Barabba, Vincent. "Bridging theGap Between Facts andWisdom." Presentation to theAmerican Marketing Association,May 1987.

Barber, Bernard. The logic andLimits of Trust. New Brunswick,N.J.: Rutgers University Press,1983.

Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Powerin Social Life. New York: JohnWiley & Sons, 1964.

Cagley, J. W. "A Comparison ofAdvertising Agency SelectionFactors: Advertiser and AgencyPerceptions." journal of Adver-tising Research 26, 3 (1986): 39-44.

Deshpande, Rohit, and GeraldZaitman. "Factors Affecting theUse of Market Research Informa-tion." Journal of Marketing Research19, 1 (1982): 14-31.

, and . "A Compar-ison of Factors Affecting Re-searcher and Manager Percep-tions of Market Research Use."Journal of Marketing Research 21, 1(1984): 32-38.

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988 23

T R U S T I N R E S E A R C H

and Compar-ison of Factors Affecting Use ofMarketing Information in Con-sumer and Industrial Firms."Journal of Marketing Research 24, 1(1987): 114-118.

Deutsch, M. "Trust and Suspi-cion." Journal of Conflict Resolution2 (1958): 265-279.

Claser, Edward M.; H. H.Abelson; and K. N. Garrison.Putting Knowledge to Use. SanFrancisco: Josey-Bass Publishers,1983.

Giffin, K. "The Contribution ofStudies of Source Credibility to aTheory of Interpersonal Trust inthe Communication Process."Psychological Bulletin 68, 2 (1967):104-120.

Heimer, Carol. "Uncertainty andVulnerability in Social Relations."Unpublished paper. Universityof Chicago, 1976.

Johnson-George, C , and W. C.Swap. "Measurement of SpecificInterpersonal Trust: Constructionand Validation of a Scale to As-sess Trust in a Specific Other."Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 43, 6 (1982):1306-1317.

Kempel, J. K., and J. G. Holmes."How Do I Trust Thee?" Psy-chology Today 20, 2 (1986): 28-34.

; ; and M. P. Zanna."Trust in Close Relationships."Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 49, 1 (1985): 95-112.

Krum, J. R.; P. A. Rav; and S. K.Keiser. "The Marketing ResearchProcess: Role Perceptions of Re-searchers and Users." Journal ofAdvertising Research 17, 6 (1987):9-22.

Larzelere, R. E., and T. L.Huston. "The Dyadic Trust Scale:Toward Understanding Interper-sonal Trust in Close Relation-ships." Journal of Marriage and theFamily A2 {1980): 595-604.

Michell, P. C. "Accord and Dis-cord in Agency-Client Percep-tions of Creativity." Journal of Ad-vertising Research 24, 5 (1984):9-24.

Rotter, Julian B. "A New Scalefor the Measurement of Interper-sonal Trust." Journal of Personality35, 4 (1967): 651-665.

Scanzoni, J. "Social Exchangeand Behavioral Interdepen-dence." In Social Exchange in De-veloping Relationships. R. L. Bur-gess and T. L. Huston, eds. NewYork: Academic Press, 1979.

Shapiro, Susan P. "The SocialControl of Impersonal Trust."American Journal of Sociology 93, 3(1987): 623-658.

Wackman, D. B.; C. T. Salmon;and C. C. Salmon. "Developingan Advertising Agency-ClientRelationship." Journal of Adver-tising Research 26, 6 (1986): 21-28.

Zeltner, H. "Client Agency Con-flicts." Advertising A%e, March 5,1984.

24 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH —OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1988