The Relationship Between Consumer Percieved Risks And Consumer Trust

ASSIGNMENT TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER PERCIEVED RISKS AND CONSUMER TRUST STUDENT ID: 200885167 MODULE TITLE: MARKET RESEARCH MODULE CODE: 56189 SUBMISSION DATE: 23RD APRIL 2009 MODULE LEADER:

1

DR. RAPHAEL AKAMAVI

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

1

LITERATURE REVIEW

2

Trust

2

Risk

3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

7

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

10

LIMITATION

11

RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

11

REFERENCES

13

APPENDIX

17

Figure 4 – Gantt Chart for the Study

17

Table 4 – Items used to measure Antecedents of Risk

18

Table 5 – Results of Mean Ranking

19

Table 6 – Items used to measure Antecedents of Trust

20

Table 7 – Results of Mean Ranking

21

Table 8 – Results of One-Sample T-test

22

Table 9 – Results of One-Sample T-test

23

Table 10 – Results of Independent Sample T-test

24

2

Table 11 – Results of Independent Sample T-test

25

Table 12 – Results of Paired Sample T-test

26

Table 13 – Results of Paired Sample T-test

27

Table 14 – Correlation Matrix

28

Table 15 – Summary of Trust and Risk

29

SAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE

3

INTRODUCTION Consumers are often more inclined to try and avoid a mistake rather than benefit from utility in their buying decisions (Harridge-March, 2006). They are said to perceive products to have both positive and negative attributes (Kim et al., 2008) and this leaves them with the possibility of either making a positive or a negative decision when choosing products. As a result, consumers will try to use every cue around that they can get to make their decisions – and thus reduce the associated or anticipated risk. Doing so is inevitable because if buyers always insist on getting the goods or using the goods before paying, commerce will be slow and difficult to coordinate (Tullberg, 2008). Nevertheless, it should be noted that one can seldom know the trust-relevant properties of the trusted party directly from observation (Branzei et al., 2007). Therefore, since not everything can be verified before a transaction takes place, risk is not eliminated and there is a need for trust (Tullberg, 2008) This study’s aim is basically to examine the variances in consumer’s perception of trust in a retailing firm. Its two main objectives are; i.

To identify if there are significant differences in customer’s perceived trust in the cues/features associated with the retailing firm and the trust they have in the retailing firm

ii. To determine whether customer’s perceived trust in the cues/features associated with the retail firm has any significant effect on their perceived risk in the retailing firm From this stems the research questions that; i.

Does the customer’s perceived trust in the employee differ from their trust in the retailing firm?

ii. Is there any relationship between customers’ trust in the features associated with the retailing firm and their perceived risk in the retailing firm? 4

LITERATURE REVIEW TRUST Many authors agree that for every exchange relation, trust is an essential part of it (Kim et al, 2008; Fichman, 2003). However, the level of trust in play in every relationship varies. This is because trust is affected by the characteristics of customers, salespersons, the company, and interactions between the two parties involved (Kim et al., 2008; Romaniuk and Bogomolova, 2005). Mayer et al., (2007) in amending their previous definition of trust (in Mayer et al. (1995)) acknowledged the fact that trust is bound not to vary only across persons (Conchar et al. 2004) but also across domains. This variation is said to be dependent on the antecedents of trust relative to the given situation. These antecedents of trust include benevolence, ability, integrity (Mayer et al., 2007), competence (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002) and identification/value congruence (Pirson and Malhotra, 2008; ShockleyZalabak, 2000). (See table 15) When someone (trustor) decides to trust another person (trustee), it is agreed that the trustor has chosen to be vulnerable to the actions of the trustee. One key variable that therefore reduces the doubts, worries, and anxieties about being exploited in a social exchange relation is trust (Rousseau et al., 1998 cited in Thau et al. 2007). Trust is defined for the purpose of this research as “the willingness of a party (trustor) to make him/herself vulnerable to the actions of another party (trustee)” (Mayer et al., pg 712) based on the expectation that the other will always act in the best interest of the trustor without taking advantage or abusing (Cho, 2006) the trustor’s willingness to remain in a relationship with the trustee even though the trustee has the ability to do so. Trust in this context is therefore a subjective belief (Kim et al., 2008) due to bounded rationality on the part of the trustor. Trust is said to be significant when there’s a perceived risk – an uncertain and uncontrollable future (Kim et al., 2008). This is because individuals do not know what the motives and

5

intentions of others are (Kramer, 1999 cited in Harridge-March, 2006) and as such would use trust as a sort of measure for assessing relationship (Ambler, 1997)

RISK Risk (subjective believe) exists when there is a belief that a potential negative consequence exists (Solomon et al., 2006). However, it should be noted that the consequences could either be positive or negative i.e. not necessarily negative alone (Blackwell et al., 2006). Risk is said to be important because it is conceptualized to include both uncertainty and consequences (Conchar et al., 2004). Risk becomes a necessary facet “when there is a less than 100 per cent probability that things will turn out as expected” (Harridge-March, 2006). Different situations and products may create different degrees of risk and also different forms of risk (Popielarz, 1967). The extant literature on risk and its antecedents show varying numbers of antecedents of risk by different scholars. For the purpose of this study components of risk include, financial, physical, performance or functional, time or convenience and psychosocial risk i.e. psychological or social risk. (See table 15) The relevance of trust in relation to risk in a customer-retailer relationship is that “trust can trigger increased purchasing to the extent that it reduces the complexity and perceived risks of purchasing (Walczuch and Lundgren, 2004). Thus, it becomes an effective means of reducing a consumer’s uncertainty (Morgan and Hunt, 1994 cited in Sichtmann, 2007). Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) argues that consumers trust consists of two distinct facet, frontline employees (FLEs) and management policies and practices (MPPs). They claim that trust judgments would be based on observed behaviour in the case of the FLE and on the basis of the policies and practices governing the exchange in the case of the MPPs.

6

Therefore we propose hypothesis 1 (H1) as There is a significant difference in Consumer’s perceived trust in the employees of a retailing firm and their perceived trust in the firm. In reality, customers hardly find the chance to know personally the key decision makers of a retail outlet or the owner(s). As a result they would have to draw on other cues/features to make inferences concerning the relevant characteristics of the retailers.

These

characteristics would then be used to decide whether or not to trust the trustee (Doney et al., 1998) i.e. the concerned retailing firm.

Using the halo or spill-over effect (Zboja and

Voorhees, 2006), or the theory of “affect transfer” (Duplesis 1994; Walker and Dubitsky, 1994) and also the concept of classical conditioning as employed in umbrella branding (Blackwell et al., 2006) we propose that consumers will or have a tendency to transfer their perceptions about any feature/cue that can be associated with the retail outlet to the retailer i.e. hypothesis 2 (H2) states that There is a relationship between Consumer’s perceived risk in a cue/feature of a retail outlet and their perceived trust in the retailing firm Among such features/cue might be the outlook of the retail outlet (Mitchell and Harris, 2005), the size, salesperson, product (Plank et al., 1999), the attitude of the employees, quality of service derived from employees (Harris, C., and Goode, M. H., 2004), etc.

7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study is purely a quantitative research instead of the more preferred option of triangulation. This ensures that the limited resources available were concentrated on only one method (Bryman and Bell, 2007) to obtain optimum results. The time-scale for the research can be seen in the Gantt chart in figure 4. It took 3 months to complete the study. The option of using a questionnaire to obtain data was chosen as it is economical and the questions could be standardised to allow for easy comparison (Saunders et al., 2003). A field survey of 50 respondents using a 25-item self-administered questionnaire was used in this research. This was due to the time constraints and financial implication of using a large sample size. A non-probability sampling method was used because of inability to get a full data of the customers of the chosen retail firm. This sampling method was preferred because it offers a greater degree of freedom and flexibility in selecting the individual respondents (Parasuraman et al., 2004). The measures used were developed by reviewing items employed in measuring the same constructs by other scholars (Plank et al., 1999; Sirdeshmukh, 2002; Papadopoulou, 2002; Conchar et al., 2004) and adjusting them so as to correspond with the intended direction of the research. From the initial 48 items developed, after two sessions with a market research professional (my tutor), a thorough literature review on the constructs and a rating of the items on a scale of 1 – 5 (very relevant to very irrelevant) as a form of pre-test by three Business school Masters students to check the content validity of the items (Creswell, 2003), a 25 item questionnaire was arrived at. The resulting questionnaire (after carefully making necessary changes to ensure better clarity and improve the content and arrangement of the various items) was then piloted to see that the questions were able to measure and convey the right meaning for the 8

intended constructs. After a final adjustment, the field survey was carried out and an equal number of males and females (25 each) responded. A Likert-scale of 1 – 5 with 1 as strongly agree and 5 as strongly disagree was used for all the constructs to facilitate easy statistical comparison with the exception of some items which were reverse-coded. However, for easy comparison, when inputting the items, they were re-written and respondents responses to the questions were recoded accordingly (table 1).

As

shown

As recoded and inputed

Question

questionnaire

into SPSS

questionnaire

The retailing firm does not

Retailer

care

customers needs

about

on

customers

cares

about

number

on

Benevolence Question 1

needs The retailing firm’s policies

Retailers policies are not

Identification

are in conflict with my

in conflict with my values

Congruence Question 1

The retailing firm doesn’t

Retailer

Psychosocial

value its customers

customers

or

Value

values

Purchasing

from

this

Purchasing

values

its

risk

Question 2 from

this

retailing firm is in conflict

Retailer is not in conflict

with my social status

with my social status

Psychosocial

risk

Question 3

Table 1: Reverse coded questions Risk

and

Trust

antecedents

used

were

four

each;

Physical,

psychosocial,

time/convenience and financial risk for components of risk, and Integrity, Benevolence, Identification/Value congruence and Competence for Trust.

9

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS From the literature review and discussion above, the conceptual framework identifying the relationship between the key constructs included in the study is presented in figure 1, 2 and 3 below;

Figure 1: The model of Trust and Risk in a retail firm and Perceived risk in cues of the retail firm

Figure 2: The model of Trust and Risk in cues of the retail firm and Perceived trust in the retail firm

10

Figure 3: An empirical model linking trust in employee, trust in retailing firm, consumer trust, perceived risk in retailing firm, perceived risk in cues associated with the retailing firm and the corresponding antecedents of trust and risk (See Table 1 for meaning of abbreviated words) INTEG – Integrity

CUE R – Perceived risk in cue/feature

BENE – Benevolence

associated with retailing firm

IDEN – Identification/Value congruence

PHY_R – Physical risk

COMP – Competence

PSY_R – Psychosocial risk

RET T – Trust in retailing firm

T CON_R – Time/Convenience risk

RET R – Perceive risk in retailing firm

FINAN_R – Financial risk

EMP T – Trust in Employee

PRD – Product

CON T – Consumer trust

EMP – Employee CRD - Credit card electronic system

Table 2: The full meaning of the abbreviated words in figure 3 11

Using four items each for risk in retailing firm, trust in retailing firm, trust in employee and risk in cues/features associated with the retailing firm, the analysis of the key constructs is Provided In Table 3 Below. Table 3: Summary of Finding For The Constructs For Consumer Perceived Risk And Trust In A Retailing Firm And Cues Associated To It

12

The summary of the analysis on the constructs needed to justify the proposed hypotheses listed in table 3 above as shown that our first hypothesis (H1) which states that there is a significant difference in Consumer’s perceived trust in the employees of a retailing firm and their perceived trust in the firm should be rejected. The implication of this is that since consumers don’t perceive any difference in trust between the retailing firm and the employees, when an employee exhibits incompetency, lack of integrity, or does not act in the best interest of the customer, this kind of negative actions may not have an effect on customer-retailer relationship. As the results show, they will not relate with the retailing firm on the ground of how they are treated by the employees. The second hypothesis though not significant for all relationships between antecedents of trust in retailing firm and perceived risk in cues/features associated with the firm is still in agreement with the hypothesis.

The hypothesis in summary proposes that the risk

consumers have in a cue could affect their trust in the retailer. This, as the theory of affect transfer states is proven to be possible by the results of the correlation analysis. However, none of the components showed a strong relationship though moderate, modest relationship should nonetheless be ignored. The correlation showed that integrity and competence of the retailing firm are very important. It showed moderate relationship between competence of the retailing firm and physical risk of the product including time and psychosocial risk of the employee. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS Managers should however focus more on ensuring that the retailing firm is perceived as a firm that can be trusted rather than investing too much on front-line employees as hypothesis H1 has shown. Marketing strategy, public relation or other forms of advertisement should not be adapted to specific gender. Perception of risk and trust is not significantly different, therefore the

13

same strategy or package can be designed for both genders in the bid to improve their relationship with the retailing firm. Managers should ensure that even when certain compulsory changes need to be made in the policies and practices of the firm they are done gradually at basically a just-noticeabledifference threshold (Blackwell et al., 2006).

This been that the correlation showed

relationship between risk (psychosocial risk of employee, time risk of employee and physical risk of product) and integrity. The customer must be able to perceive consistency in the retailing firms activities which means firms must not change suddenly. The problem with this aspect of customers comfort in firm’s consistency is that such could lock the firm into a sphere of rigidity and slow response to changes in the environment and therefore cause a strategic dissonance for the firm’s strategy and intent (Johnson, et al., 2008). Managers should therefore invest in ensuring that while they satisfy their customers’ expectations they avoid the risk of going obsolete. LIMITATION The sample size and time duration could not allow for a thorough justice to be done to the constructs. The age groups were also a bit skewed towards older ages because many of the younger age group potential respondents refused to respond to the questionnaires. Inexperience in how to perfectly use the SPSS package was also a limitation as one could not use its inherent capability to leverage the limited data collected RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION Further research should be carried out making use of a larger sample and checking to see if the duration of the relationship between the retailer and the customer has any effect on their perceived trust or risk in the retailer and cues associated with it. The nature of the variations in the influences of perceived risk across the stages of consumer decision process (Mitchell, 1992) should also be researched.

14

The extant literature on trust and risk have been able to draw a link between risk as an important factor that is necessary to build trust in a relationship.

Managers should

therefore place so much emphasis on maintaining the trust that customers have in them and ensure that they do not abuse it.

15

REFERENCES Blackwell, D., Miniard, W., & Engel, F., (2006), Consumer Behaviour, 10th edn., USA, Thomson South-Western. Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Camp, D., (2007), ‘Culture-contingent signs of trust in emergent relationships’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104: 61–82 Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, B., (2002), ‘Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect’, Journal of Brand Management, 10, 1: 33-58 Cho, J., (2006), ‘The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82, Issue 1: 25-35. Creswell, J. W., (2003), Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn, California, Sage Publications, Inc. Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J., (2005), ‘Does brand trust matter to brand equity?’, The Journal of Product and Brand Management; 14, 2/3: 187-196 Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J., (2001), ‘Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty’, European Journal of Marketing, 35, 11/12: 1238 - 1258 Doney, M., Cannon, P., & Mullen, R., (1998), ‘Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3: 601-620 Du Plessis, Erik, (1994), “Understanding and using likability”, Journal of Advertising Research, 34, no. 5, (Sep/Oct): RC_3 – RC_10 Fichman, Mark, (2003), ‘Straining towards Trust: Some Constraints on Studying Trust in Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 24, No. 2: 133-157.

16

Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V., (2009) ‘Customer Experience Management in Retailing: An Organizing Framework’, Journal of Retailing, 85: 1–14 Harris, C., & Goode, M. H., (2004), ‘The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online service dynamics, Journal of Retailing, 80: 139 – 158 Havlena, W. J. & DeSarbo, W. S., (1991), “On the measurement of perceived consumer risk”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 4: 927 – 939 Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R., (2008), Exploring Corporate Strategy, FT Prentice Hall, England Kasper, H., Van Helsdingen, P., & Gabbott, M., (2006), Services Marketing Management, A Strategic Perspective, 2nd edn., England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Kim, J., Ferrin, L., & Raghav Rao, H., (2008), ‘A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents’, Decision Support Systems, 44: 544 – 564. Li, F., Zhou, N., Kashyap, R., & Yang, Z., (2008), ‘Brand trust as a second-order factor, An alternative measurement model’, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50 Issue 6: 817- 839 Littler, D., & Melanthiou, D., (2006), ‘Consumer perceptions of risk and uncertainty and the implications for behaviour towards innovative retail services: The case of Internet Banking’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13: 431–443 Luk, T. K., & Yip, S. C., (2008), ‘The moderator effect of monetary sales promotion on the relationship between brand trust and purchase behaviour’, Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 6: 452 - 464 Mayer, C., Davis, H. & Schoorman, F., (1995), ‘An integrative model of organizational trust’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20. No. 3: 709-734. 17

Mayer, C., Davis, H. & Schoorman, F., (2007), ‘An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2: 344–354. Meyer, Christopher and Andre, Schwager (2007), ‘Understanding Customer Experience’, Harvard Business Review, February: 117 – 126. Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne, & Harris, Greg, (2005), ‘The importance of consumers' perceived risk in retail strategy’, European Journal of Marketing, 39, 7/8: 821 – 837 Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D., (2008), ‘Unconvntal insight for managg stakeholder trust’, Mit Sloan Management Review, vol. 49 no. 4 Plank, R. E., Reid, D. A., & Pullins, E. B., (1999), ‘Perceived trust in business-to-business sales: a new measure’, The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19 (3): 61–71. Papadopoulou, P., Kanellis, P., & Martakos, D., (2002), “Trust formation and relationship building in electronic servicescapes”, ECIS, June 6–8, Gdańsk, Poland: 1487 – 1497 Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Krishnan, R., (2004), Marketing Research, Houghton Mifflin Company, U.S.A. Popielarz, T., (1967), ‘An exploration of perceived risk and willingness to try new products’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4: 368 – 372 Riegelsberger, J., Angela Sasse, M., McCarthy, D., ‘The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62: 381–422. Romaniuk, J. & Bogomolova, S., (2005), ‘Variation in brand trust scores’, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 13, 4: 363 – 373 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A., (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd edn, England, Pearson Education Limited.

18

Sengün, E., & Wasti, S., (2007), ‘Trust, Control, and Risk: A Test of Das and Teng’s Conceptual Framework for Pharmaceutical Buyer-Supplier Relationships’, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 32, no. 4: 430-464 Shays, E., (2003), ‘Earning the client's trust’, Consulting to Management, 14, 4; pg 2 only Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. & Winograd, G., (2000), ‘Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters’, Organization Development Journal, 18, 4: 35 – 48 Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B., (2002), ‘Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges’, Journal of Marketing, 66, 1: 15 – 37 Sichtmann, Christina, (2007), ‘An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 9/10: 999-1015 Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, K., (2006), Consumer Behaviour, A European Perspective, 3rd edn., England, Pearson Education Limited. Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennet, J., & Sczesny, S., (2007), ‘The relationship between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors’, Human Relations, 60, 8: 1155 - 1179. Tullberg, Jan, (2008), ‘Trust—The importance of trustfulness versus trustworthiness’, Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 37, Issue 5: 2059-2071 Verhoef, C., Lemonb, N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, A., (2009), ‘Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies’, Journal of Retailing, 85: 31–41. Walczuch, R., Lundgren, H., (2004), ‘Psychological antecedents of institution-based consumer trust in e-retailing’, Information & Management, 42: 159–177 Walker, D. & Dubitsky, T. M., (1994), “Why liking matters,” Journal of Advertising Research, 34, no. 3, (Mar/June): 9 – 18

19

APPENDIX

Figure 4: Gantt Chart for the research

20

Table 4: Items Used To Measure Constructs And Their Corresponding Constructs No.

Item

Antecedents of Risk

1

Retailer will not sell harmful product to me

Physical Risk of Retailing Firm

2

Retailer values its customers

Psychosocial Risk of Retailing Firm

3

Retailer will find new ways to make

Time or Convenience Risk of Retailing

checking out faster

Firm

Retailer will ensure customers get good

Financial Risk of Retailing Firm

4

value for their money 5

Retailer sells good quality products

Physical Risk of Cue of Retailing Firm

6

Employees treat customers with respect

Psychosocial Risk of Cue of Retailing Firm

7

Employees assist in locating goods

Time or Convenience Risk of Cue of Retailing Firm

8

Using my credit or debit card at the retailer

Financial Risk of Cue of Retailing Firm

is safe and secure NOTE: Number 2 and 6 were reverse-coded in the questionnaire

21

Table 5: Formatted Table: Mean Ranking - Antecedents Of Perceived Risk In Retailing Firm And Cues Associated With The Retailing Firm Rank Variables

Mean

Std

1

Retailer will ensure customers get good value for their money

2.08

.804

2

Retailer values its customers

2.18

.873

3

Employees treat customers with respect

2.24

.938

4

Retailer sells good quality products

2.30

.886

5

Using my credit or debit card at the retailer is safe and secure

2.34

1.154

6

Employees assist in locating goods

2.36

1.102

7

Retailer will not sell harmful product to me

2.48

1.015

8

Retailer will find new ways to make checking out faster

2.78

.996

NOTE: N = 50, where N is Number of respondents Scale of 1 – 5 with 1 for Strongly Agree & 5 for Strongly Disagree Std = Standard deviation

22

Table 6: Items Used To Measure Constructs And Their Corresponding Constructs

No.

Item

Antecedents of Trust

1

Retailers practices are consistent

Retailing firm’s Integrity

2

Retailer cares about customers needs

Retailing firm’s Benevolence

3

Retailers policies are not in conflict with my values

Retailing firm’s Identification

4

I am confident in the retailers ability to perform well

Retailing firm’s Competence

5

Employees actions consistent with retailers policies

6

Employees will do their best to help me if I have a

Employees Integrity

Employees Benevolence problem 7

Employees act in ways consistent with my values

Employees Identification

8

Employees are capable of performing their duties well

Employees Competence

NOTE: Number 2 and 3 were reverse-coded in the questionnaire

23

Table 7: Formatted Table: Mean Ranking - Antecedents Of Trust In Retailing Firm And Employees Of The Retailing Firm Rank Variables

Mean

Std

1

I am confident in the retailers ability to perform well

2.14

.783

2

Employees will do their best to help me if I have a problem

2.16

1.113

3

Retailer cares about customers needs

2.24

.847

4

Employees are capable of performing their duties well

2.26

1.006

5

Retailers practices are consistent

2.34

.982

6

Employees actions consistent with retailers policies

2.42

.883

7

Retailers policies are not in conflict with my values

2.46

.908

8

Employees act in ways consistent with my values

2.58

.906

NOTE: N = 50 Scale of 1 – 5 with 1 for Strongly Agree & 5 for Strongly Disagree Std = Standard deviation

24

Table 8: Formatted table of One-Sample T-test for Antecedents of Perceived Risk in Retailing Firm and Cues associated with the Retailing Firm Variable

T-test

Sig. level

Mean

Retailer will not sell harmful product to me

-3.623

.001

2.48

Retailer sells good quality products

-5.584

.000

2.30

Employees treat customers with respect

-5.729

.000

2.24

Retailer values its customers

-6.639

.000

2.18

Retailer will find new ways to make checking out faster

-1.562

.125

2.78

Employees assist in locating goods

-4.106

.000

2.36

-8.091

.000

2.08

-4.045

.000

2.34

Retailer will ensure customers get good value for their money Using my credit or debit card at the retailer is safe and secure NOTE: N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents Scale of 1 – 5 with 1 for Strongly Agree & 5 for Strongly Disagree Sig. level = Significance Level

25

Table 9: Formatted Table Of One-Sample T-Test For Antecedents Of Trust For Retailing Firm And Employee Of Retailing Firm Variable

T-test Sig. level

Mean

Retailers practices are consistent

-4.754

.000

2.34

Employees actions consistent with retailers policies

-4.646

.000

2.42

Retailer cares about customers needs

-6.348

.000

2.24

-5.336

.000

2.16

Retailers policies are not in conflict with my values

-4.204

.000

2.46

Employees act in ways consistent with my values

-3.280

.002

2.58

I am confident in the retailers ability to perform well

-7.769

.000

2.14

Employees are capable of performing their duties well

-5.200

.000

2.26

Employees will do their best to help me if I have a problem

NOTE: N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents Scale of 1 – 5 with 1 for Strongly Agree & 5 for Strongly Disagree Sig. level = Significance Level

26

Table 10: Formatted table of Independent Sample T-test for Antecedents of Trust for Retailing Firm and Employee of Retailing Firm Gender

N

Mean

Retailers practices are

Male

25

2.36

1.036

.143

.887

consistent

Female

25

2.32

.945

.143

.887

Employees actions consistent Male

25

2.40

.816

-.159

.875

with retailers policies

Female

25

2.44

.961

-.159

.875

Retailer cares about

Male

25

2.36

.995

1.002

.321

customers needs

Female

25

2.12

.666

1.002

.322

Employees will do their best

Male

25

2.24

1.012

.504

.616

to help me if I have a problem Female

25

2.08

1.222

.504

.616

Retailers policies are not in

Male

25

2.36

.860

-.775

.442

conflict with my values

Female

25

2.56

.961

-.775

.442

Employees act in ways

Male

25

2.60

1.000

.155

.878

consistent with my values

Female

25

2.56

.821

.155

.878

I am confident in the retailers Male

25

2.16

.746

.179

.859

ability to perform well

Female

25

2.12

.833

.179

.859

Employees are capable of

Male

25

2.32

1.180

.418

.678

performing their duties well

Female

25

2.20

.816

.418

.678

NOTE: N = Number of Respondents Sig. level = Significance Level Std = Standard deviation

27

Std

T-test

Sig. level

Table 11: Formatted table of Independent Sample T-test for Antecedents of Perceived Risk in Retailing Firm and Cues associated with the Retailing Firm Variables

T-test Gender

N

Mean

Std

Sig. level

Retailer will not sell harmful product to

Male

25

2.56

1.083

.553

.583

me

Female

25

2.40

.957

.553

.583

Retailer sells good quality products

Male

25

2.48

.963

1.452

.153

Female

25

2.12

.781

1.452

.153

25

2.20

1.080

-.299

.766

Female

25

2.28

.792

-.299

.767

Male

25

2.16

.898

-.160

.873

Female

25

2.20

.866

-.160

.873

Retailer will find new ways to make

Male

25

2.64

.995

-.994

.325

checking out faster

Female

25

2.92

.997

-.994

.325

Employees assist in locating goods

Male

25

2.48

1.229

.767

.447

Female

25

2.24

.970

.767

.447

Retailer will ensure customers get good

Male

25

2.20

.764

1.057

.296

value for their money

Female

25

1.96

.841

1.057

.296

Using my credit or debit card at the

Male

25

2.60

1.225

1.620

.112

retailer is safe and secure

Female

25

2.08

1.038

1.620

.112

Employees treat customers with respect Male

Retailer values its customers

NOTE: N = Number of Respondents Sig. level = Significance Level Std = Standard deviation

28

Table 12: Formatted table of Paired Sample T-test for Antecedents of Trust for Retailing Firm and Employee of Retailing Firm Variables Pair 1

Mean

Retailers practices are consistent

Std

T-test

2.34

.982

2.42

.883

2.24

.847

Sig. level

-.753

Employees actions consistent with

.455

retailers policies Pair 2

Retailer cares about customers needs

.521 .604

Employees will do their best to help me 2.16

1.113

2.46

.908

if i have a problem Pair 3

Retailers policies are not in conflict with my values -.694

.491

-1.288

.204

Employees act in ways consistent with 2.58

.906

2.14

.783

my values Pair 4

I am confident in the retailers ability to perform well Employees are capable of performing 2.26 their duties well

NOTE: N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents Sig. level = Significance Level Std = Standard deviation

29

1.006

Table 13: Formatted table of Paired Sample T-test for Antecedents of Perceived Risk in Retailing Firm and Cues associated with the Retailing Firm Variables Pair 1

Pair 2

Pair 3

Mean

Std

T-test

Retailer will not sell harmful product to me

2.48

1.015

Retailer sells good quality products

2.30

.886

Employees treat customers with respect

2.24

.938

Retailer values its customers

2.18

.873

2.78

.996

1.353

.182

.417

.679

2.322

.024

-1.791

.079

Retailer will find new ways to make checking out faster Employees assist in locating goods

Pair 4

Sig. level

2.36

1.102

2.08

.804

Retailer will ensure customers get good value for their money Using my credit or debit card at the retailer 2.34 is safe and secure

NOTE: N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents Sig. level = Significance Level Std = Standard deviation

30

1.154

31

Table 15: Summary of Trust and Risk from various authors AUTHOR AND JOURNAL

TRUST

RISK

Mayer, C., Davis, H. & Schoorman,

ability, benevolence, and

F., (2007), ‘An integrative model of

integrity

organizational trust: Past, present, and future’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2: 344–354. Luk, T. K., & Yip, S. C., (2008), predictability, 17 competence ‘The moderator effect of monetary 18 and integrity, ability and sales promotion on the relationship good will between brand trust and purchase behaviour’, Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 6: 452 - 464 Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-

Trust is seen been consistent,

Alemán, J., (2005), ‘Does brand

competent, honest and

trust matter to brand equity?’, The

responsible

Journal of Product and Brand

Competence - the ability and

Management; 14, 2/3: 17-196

willingness to keep promises and satisfy consumers’ needs.

Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-

Credibility, ability, reliability,

Alemán, J., (2001), ‘Brand trust in

altruism, benevolence,

the context of consumer loyalty’,

honesty,

European Journal of Marketing, 35, 11/12: 1238 - 1258 Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, B.,

functional types -

(2002), ‘Product-class effects on

Financial, physical

32

brand

commitment

and

brand

and performance risk

outcomes: The role of brand trust

and emotional types -

and brand affect’, Journal of Brand

social, and

Management, 10, 1: 33-58

psychological

Mayer, C., Davis, H. & Schoorman,

Integrity - trustor's perception

F., (1995), ‘An integrative model of

that the trustee adheres to a

organizational trust’, Academy of

set of principles that the trustor

Management Review, Vol. 20. No.

finds acceptable.

719

3: 709-734 Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., & Camp,

Benevolence, integrity,

D., (2007), ‘Culture-contingent

predictability, ability

signs of trust in emergent relationships’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104: 61–82 Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D., (2008),

- integrity, managerial

‘Unconvntal insight for managg

competence, technical

stakeholder trust’, Mit Sloan

competence, benevolence,

Management Review, vol. 49, no.

transparency and identification

4

(or value congruence

Sengün, E., & Wasti, S., (2007), Goodwill, competence

Performance risk and

‘Trust, Control, and Risk: A Test of

relational risk

Das

and

Framework

Teng’s for

Buyer-Supplier Group

&

Conceptual

Pharmaceutical Relationships’, Organization

Management, Vol. 32, no. 4: 430-

33

464 Sichtmann, Christina, (2007), ‘An Competence and credibility analysis

of

antecedents

consequences corporate

of

trust

brand’,

and benevolence in

a

European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 9/10: 999-1015 Shays, E., (2003), client's

trust’,

‘Earning the Honesty, integrity, objectivity,

Consulting

to independence and

Management, 14, 4; pg 2 only

competence

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. & Reliability, openness & Winograd,

G.,

‘Organizational

trust:

means,

why

Organization

(2000), honesty, concern,

it

What

it competence, identification

matters’, Development

Journal, 18, 4: 35 – 48 Havlena, W. J. & DeSarbo, W. S.,

performance,

(1991), “On the measurement of

financial, safety,

perceived consumer risk”, Decision

social, psychological,

Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 4: 927 – 939

and time/opportunity risk

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., &

Competence refers to a

Sabol, B., (2002), ‘Consumer trust,

partner's capability, reliability,

value, and loyalty in relational

or confidence in performing

exchanges’, Journal of Marketing,

tasks according to expectation

66, 1: 15 – 37

and obligation

Cho, J., (2006), ‘The mechanism of Benevolence is concerned with

34

trust and distrust formation and the partner's motives (e.g., their relational outcomes’, Journal goodwill intention, caring, and of Retailing, Vol. 82, Issue 1: 25- altruism), which serve as the 35.

bases of judgments that he/she will show consideration for the needs and interests of the other and will promote the other's best interests.

A positioning typology of

Financial risk could be

consumers’ perceptions of the

interpreted in two ways: (i) risk

benefits offered by successful

that a particular purchase will

service brands, Jamie Burton and

lead to subsequent financial

Christopher Easingwood, Journal

loss but also (ii) risk that a

of Retailing and Consumer

purchase results in financial

Services, Volume 13, Issue 5,

loss because a cheaper option

September 2006, Pages 301-316

was available, offering a ‘same for less’, ‘less for much less’ or ‘more for less’ value position (Kotler et al., 2001) thus capturing price or cost as perceived by the consumer (Donath, 1991; Sharp and Dawes, 2001)

Littler,

D.,

&

Melanthiou,

D., Kaplan et al. (1974) identified

(2006), ‘Consumer perceptions of five types: performance, risk

and

uncertainty

and

the physical, financial,

implications for behaviour towards psychological and social.

35

innovative retail services: The case Roselius (1971) added time of Internet Banking’,

Journal of loss (Hoyer and MacInnis,

Retailing and Consumer Services, 1997). 13: 431–443

36