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: DR. RAPHAEL AKAMAVI

1
 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; Shockley-

Zalabak, 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, front-

line 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 on As recoded and inputed Question number on

questionnaire into SPSS questionnaire

The retailing firm does not Retailer cares about Benevolence Question 1

care about customers customers needs

needs

The retailing firm’s policies Retailers policies are not Identification or Value

are in conflict with my in conflict with my values Congruence Question 1

values

The retailing firm doesn’t Retailer values its Psychosocial risk

value its customers customers Question 2

Purchasing from this Purchasing from this Psychosocial risk

retailing firm is in conflict Retailer is not in conflict Question 3

with my social status with my social status

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-noticeable-

difference 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

4 Retailer will ensure customers get good Financial Risk of Retailing Firm

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 Employees Integrity

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

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

Retailer will ensure customers get good value for their

-8.091 .000 2.08
money

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

-4.045 .000 2.34
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

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

-5.336 .000 2.16
problem

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

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 Std T-test Sig. level

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
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 Sig.

Gender N Mean Std 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

Employees treat customers with respect Male 25 2.20 1.080 -.299 .766

Female 25 2.28 .792 -.299 .767

Retailer values its customers 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

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 Mean Std T-test Sig. level

Pair 1 Retailers practices are consistent 2.34 .982

Employees actions consistent with -.753 .455

2.42 .883
retailers policies

Pair 2 Retailer cares about customers needs 2.24 .847

.521
Employees will do their best to help me .604
2.16 1.113
if i have a problem

Pair 3 Retailers policies are not in conflict with

2.46 .908
my values
-.694 .491
Employees act in ways consistent with
2.58 .906
my values

Pair 4 I am confident in the retailers ability to

2.14 .783
perform well
-1.288 .204
Employees are capable of performing
2.26 1.006
their duties well

NOTE:

N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents

Sig. level = Significance Level

Std = Standard deviation

29
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 Mean Std T-test Sig. level

Pair 1 Retailer will not sell harmful product to me 2.48 1.015

1.353 .182
Retailer sells good quality products 2.30 .886

Pair 2 Employees treat customers with respect 2.24 .938

.417 .679
Retailer values its customers 2.18 .873

Pair 3 Retailer will find new ways to make

2.78 .996
checking out faster 2.322 .024

Employees assist in locating goods 2.36 1.102

Pair 4 Retailer will ensure customers get good

2.08 .804
value for their money
-1.791 .079
Using my credit or debit card at the retailer
2.34 1.154
is safe and secure

NOTE:

N = 50, where N is Number of Respondents

Sig. level = Significance Level

Std = Standard deviation

30
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 719

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.

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 Teng’s Conceptual

Framework for Pharmaceutical

Buyer-Supplier Relationships’,

Group & Organization

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

33
464

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

analysis of antecedents and benevolence

consequences of trust in a

corporate brand’, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No.

9/10: 999-1015

Shays, E., (2003), ‘Earning the Honesty, integrity, objectivity,

client's trust’, Consulting to independence and

Management, 14, 4; pg 2 only competence

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

Winograd, G., (2000), honesty, concern,

‘Organizational trust: What it competence, identification

means, why it matters’,

Organization 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