Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Affective trust in buyer-seller relationships: a two-dimensional scale

Akrout Houcine Mbaye Fall Diallo Wafa Akrout Jean-Louis Chandon
Article information:
To cite this document:
Akrout Houcine Mbaye Fall Diallo Wafa Akrout Jean-Louis Chandon , (2016),"Affective trust in buyer-seller relationships: a
two-dimensional scale", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2014-0223
Downloaded on: 27 February 2016, At: 04:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 27 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Carlos Ferro, Carmen Padin, Göran Svensson, Janice Payan, (2016),"Trust and commitment as mediators between
economic and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships", Journal of Business & Industrial
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 13-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0154

Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro, Jun Kang, (2016),"B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply
chains", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 1-12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2015-0022
David Vidal, Hervé Fenneteau, Gilles Paché, (2016),"Should I stay or should I go? Customers’ reactions faced with the
deterioration of a business relationship", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 47-58 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2014-0124

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365403 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Affective trust in buyer–seller relationships: A two-dimensional scale

1. Introduction

Trust has been studied for 30 years in several disciplines and continues to attract the interest

of researchers in B2B (business-to-business) marketing. The latest work on trust has

spearheaded the beginnings of research oriented toward the study of processual aspects

(Huang and Wilkinson, 2013; Ekici, 2013) and forms of trust, including cognitive and
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

affective components (McAllister, 1995; Anderson and Kumar, 2006; Young, 2006).

Researchers are unanimous on the need to consider the emotional basis of trust differently, yet

complementarily, from its knowledge base (Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Ganesan, 1994; Doney

and Cannon, 1997; Lewicki et al., 2006). However, if the cognitive component has been the

subject of multiple measurements, the affective one, variously called “identity-based trust”

(Colman, 1990), “relational trust” (Rousseau et al., 1998), “affect-based trust” (McAllister,

1995) and “affective trust” (Swan et al., 1999; Anderson and Kumar, 2006), deserves more

attention (Swan et al., 1999; Schoorman et al., 2007; Young, 2006).

The lack of exploration of the affective level in the field of B2B marketing can be explained

by two factors. First, affective variables are much more complex to control and measure than

cognitive variables. Second, managers in inter-firm relationships are reluctant to respond on

their emotional states and prefer to deal with questions about their cognitive states (Young

and Albaum, 2003).

However, it is essential to understand affective trust for both theoretical and managerial

reasons. Theoretically, the emotional aspect of trust has been little discussed and, at best, has

been part of the expectations of the trustor (Andaleeb, 1992; Kumar et al., 1995). Moreover,

the B2B literature has examined cognitive trust, but it has not been focused on measurement

1
 of the affective component of trust (Young, 2006), whereas the effects of negative and

positive emotions do influence the phases of business relationships and buyer–seller

relationships, as underlined by Anderson and Kumar (2006). On practical grounds,

investigating affective trust will allow managers to understand how to manage a lasting

relationship in the B2B context. Currently, integrating social and psychological constructs as

affects is a key issue for business leaders who seek to provide new ways to maintain the

relationship. In fact, an emotional bond strengthens and reinforces economic and structural

bonds (Svensson, 2004).

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Consequently, the aim of this paper is to develop a measurement scale of affective trust in the

buyer–seller relationship (interpersonal trust), specifically in the maintenance stage of the

relationship, which is a critical stage (Dwyer et al., 1987). By addressing this fundamental

topic, our study highlights the importance of the affect aspect of trust in the maintenance

phase of the relationship. It should be noted here that unlike scales in B2C (business to

consumer) literature (e.g., Johnson and Grayson [2005] in financial services), current scales in

B2B literature rely more on the cognitive dominant design within unidentified relationship

stages. Therefore, by focusing on the specific stage at which affective trust is expected to

occur in the buyer–seller relationship, we contribute to existing research by bringing further

clarification about trust in the B2B context. Furthermore, since no measurement scale based

on the core component of trust in its emotional aspects has, to our knowledge, been developed

in B2B marketing, this research provides a measurement tool to operationalize affective trust

in the buyer–seller relationship, including both affective attachment and sentiment of security.

After a first part dedicated to the conceptual framework, in the second part we will discuss

our method and research design, followed by a discussion of the results. Finally, we will

discuss the limitations of our study as well as directions for further research.

2. Conceptual framework

2
 As part of the recent trend in research, our theoretical framework is structured around the idea

that affective trust is intrinsically interpersonal (McAllister, 1995) and time dependent

(McAllister et al., 2006). Blois (1999) argued that the affective element attributed to trust and

not to reliance stems from the fact that trust is only granted by individuals. After developing

these main points, we propose a new definition of affective trust before analyzing its

dimensionality.

2.1. Interpersonal trust: Distinction between cognitive and affective trust

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Interpersonal trust, the subject of this study, concerns the relationship between two

individuals representing their respective companies (e.g., buyer/seller, buyer/retailer,

retailer/seller, etc.). As such, interpersonal trust plays a crucial role in trust development

between partner firms (Mouzas et al., 2007). Though interlinked, interpersonal and inter-firm

trust are two very distinct concepts (Zaheer et al., 1998; Weck and Ivanova, 2013).

In the B2B marketing literature, interpersonal trust has been addressed as an expectation

(Dwyer et al., 1987; Sako, 1997; Zaheer et al., 1998) or as a belief about the partner (Schurr

and Ozanne, 1985; Anderson and Narus, 1990; Kumar et al., 1995) and/or as behavioral

willingness or intention (Strutton et al., 1996; Shou et al., 2011). These definitions emphasize

the role of expectation/belief or the behavioral component of interpersonal trust. However,

scholars in the B2B marketing literature have paid very little attention to the affective facet of

interpersonal trust.

Research in sociology, in particular that of Lewis and Weigert (1985), has highlighted the

affective component of trust. These authors state that “trust succeeds where rational prediction

alone would fail” (p. 969) and that “trust in everyday life is a mix of feeling and rational

thinking” (p. 972). While adopting the position of Lewis and Weigert (1985), McAllister

(1995, p. 26) clearly differentiates cognitive-based trust as a process of information

3
 processing from affect-based trust, which is considered as “emotional bonds between

individuals and genuine care and concern for the welfare of partners.” It consists of emotional

bonds between individuals performing an emotional investment in trusting relationships and

real concern for the welfare of partners, while considering that these feelings are reciprocal.

Several studies have adopted the same perspective by applying it to different contexts

(Costigan et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2010).

2.2. Affective trust: A time-dependent concept

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

The question of the relationship between cognitive and affective forms of trust has drawn very

little attention from researchers in B2B marketing. McAllister (1997, p. 90) states that

“[b]aseline confidence in partner dependability and reliability precedes the development of

more in-depth affiliations,” and argues that the affective form of trust can emerge only after a

certain level of cognition-based trust is established. These conclusions highlight the

importance of taking into account the dynamic aspect of trust in understanding its affective

form. In fact, the question of the transformation of trust has been highlighted by researchers in

social psychology and sociology (Gabarro, 1978; Rempel et al., 1985; Shapiro et al., 1992).

Lewicki and Bunker (1996) distinguish three forms of situational trust: trust based on

calculation, trust based on knowledge, and trust based on identification. Unlike other forms of

trust, the latter relates to a very limited number of relationships and develops only after long

years of interaction.

More recently, the empirical study by McAllister et al. (2006) confirmed the emergence of

“trust-based identification” as a distinct form of trust. In this sense, the emergence of the

affective form is rather influenced by the fulfillment of promises, link density, and intensity of

interactions. It should be noted, however, that this situation cannot be achieved in most cases

and occurs only after several years of interpersonal collaboration. While recognizing the

primacy of calculative and cognitive trust respectively in the exploration and expansion

4
 phases of the relationship, we believe that as interactions intensify between buyers and sellers,

emotional ties, strengthened by the results obtained, arise (Figure 1). Therefore, we chose to

use the analytical framework of Dwyer et al. (1987), which was confirmed by recent

empirical testing by Jap and Anderson (2007). We argue that selecting only relationships

located in the maintenance phase (commitment according to the classification of Dwyer et al.,

1987), characterized by the importance of emotional ties as well as a long-term orientation

between the partners, is more accurate to the specification of affective trust. Thus, this

framework can better capture the emotional aspects felt by the buyer.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

TAKE IN FIGURE 1

2.3. Affective trust: Definition and dimensionality

Theoretical background

Prior studies have argued that trust is subject to the influence of affects (Johnson-George and

Swap, 1982; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; McAllister, 1995). For the purpose of our research,

the term affect is used to refer to both affective attachments (i.e., an experience of feeling

connected and joined) and affective states1 (i.e., general liking, sentiment; Williams, 2001).

Sentiments and attachments are enduring affective states or feelings about one or more social

objects such as relationships between exchange partners (Lawler, 2001). Affects have mainly

been studied outside the scope of B2B marketing, and the scarcity of research on the role of

emotions in trusting buyer–seller relationships (Schoorman et al., 2007) has led us to mobilize

research in other disciplines. Repeated social interactions, by means of trust, not only reduce

the uncertainty of exchange partners, but also help to create an “emotional buzz” (Lawler,

2001). Some authors, including Jones (1996), consider trust, without specifying its form, as

1
Affective states are different from affective responses (e.g., anger, disappointment, joy) known to influence how people
evaluate their feelings for, attachment to, and trust in others (e.g., Jones and George, 1998; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996).

5
 inherently emotional, and stress that positive affects are the basis of the interpretation of the

trustor of the reliability of the trustee. Positive emotional content, an integral part of affective

states, generates confidence and that is why, when trust is betrayed, the emotional pain of

remorse is felt along with other strong emotions (e.g., resentment) against the author of the

betrayal (Lewis and Weigert, 2012). Andersen and Kumar (2006) also point out that positive

or negative emotions condition the perception of the reliability of exchange actors.

Definition of affective trust

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Previous studies have provided several definitions of affective trust (e.g., McAllister, 1995;

Anderson and Kumar, 2006; Ergeneli and Metin, 2007; Huang and Wilkinson, 2013; etc.).

However, none of these came with a measurement scale. In light of the literature and research

summarized in Table 1, we can argue that despite the use of a variety of terms, the work of

McAllister (1995) represents a cornerstone for most authors. Drawing on the literature and

qualitative study (see the section on methods and research design), we believe that as

relationships deepen and stabilize, affective trust has both a sense of security and the

interpersonal affective attachment conducive to a flourishing relationship. We therefore

propose to consider affective trust in the maintenance phase of a buyer–seller relationship as

follows: “Affective trust is a psychological state that refers to a sentiment of security and a

durable affective attachment comprising the acceptance of vulnerability based on

expectations in terms of socio-emotional benefits.”

This definition highlights the fact that affective trust is based on a combination of a sentiment

of security and sustainable affective attachment, suspending the inherent vulnerability within

the buyer–seller exchange relationship. The latter, albeit in the maintenance phase, is never

sanitized. Indeed, the vulnerability is always concomitant to exchanges, because on the one

hand, lasting relationships are not without their dark side (Ambler and Grayson, 1999) and on

the other, as Jones (1996) rightly claims, taking heed of one’s emotions in trust is justified. In

6
 fact, positive affect removes neither the awareness nor the threat of possible exploitation

completely (Möllering, 2006). Yet, when the trustor reaches a sentiment of security and has a

durable affective attachment, the trustor no longer expects to be harmed.

-----------------------------

Insert Table 1

------------------------------
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

As part of a lasting interpersonal exchange, several authors have explicitly addressed the

emotional aspect of trust, considering benevolence or goodwill to be the affective component

of trust (Andaleeb, 1992; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Kumar et al., 1995). This integration of

benevolence – which corresponds to good intentions and takes into account the interest of the

partner in the exchange relationship – as an affective component of trust appears to be

questionable. Firstly, benevolence is a central component of perceived trustworthiness and is

rather characteristic of the trustee, which is not trust in itself (e.g., Mayer et al., 1995).

Secondly, the fact that the seller intends to respect the interests of the buyer may only result

from an enlightened approach in which he/she imposes restrictions and preserves a sufficient

level of mutual satisfaction to continue to benefit from cooperation. Schoorman et al. (2007)

recognize that their initial model (Mayer et al., 1995), incorporating goodwill among

perceptions of reliability, had an exclusively cognitive approach. Furthermore, studies of

affective trust mainly emphasize the perceptions of the trustor of the trustee’s affect toward

him (e.g., Johnson-George and Swap, 1982). Measurement of affective trust is often grounded

in those perceptions. This view of affective trust is also illustrated by Jones’s (1996)

conceptualization, designated “in terms of a distinctive, and affectively loaded, way of seeing

the one trusted” (p. 4). However, we believe that it is essential to take into account the

7
 dispositional attribution of the buyer in evaluating both his/her affect state during an

interpersonal relationship and his/her own perceptions of the seller’s affects devoted to

him/her. We believe that this is crucial in order to examine affective trust as a concept that

embodies two fundamental aspects of affect. This bidimensional conceptualization is

addressed below.

Dimensions of affective trust

Sentiment of security-based trust

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Lasting interpersonal relationships are sources of stability (Lawler, 2001). This has been

argued to associate them directly with the development of trust (Liu et al., 2008). Anderson

and Weitz (1989) also emphasize that stable “dyads” are characterized by cordial

relationships. This warmth is simply an expression of self-confidence, a sense of serenity and

security, and mutual respect between partners (Lawler and Thye, 1999). It should be noted

that this sense of security is not so much the result of the frequency of interpersonal

interactions per se. Although direct contacts (versus indirect ones) catalyze

affective/emotional aspects, the sentiment of security results from the perception of repeated

interactions as vectors of positive emotions (Lawler, 2001). Conversely, the more interactions

are marked by negative affects, the more parties begin to doubt, which disrupts trust and

compromises the relationship. Moreover, respect underpinning this sentiment of security is

likely to discourage behavioral deviations, opportunism, and a complete violation of trust.

Building on a meta-analysis, Swan et al. (1999, p. 94) define the affect component of trust as

“feeling secure or insecure about relying on the salesperson” in a risky situation. This trust-

based sentiment corresponds in our view to a lasting psychological state that is similar to an

assurance or security toward the exchange partner, and in fine to an exchange relationship.

Furthermore, as shown by Gordon (1981), Homans (1961), and Lawler (2001), the feeling of

security secures the link between the emotions and the interpersonal relationship.

8
 Appreciating something (e.g., event, person, behavior, object) involves noticing and

acknowledging its value or meaning and feeling a positive emotional connection to it (Adler

and Fagley, 2005). Thus, we can deduce that the feelings of security (or self-confidence)

generated in the course of exchange relationships strengthen the reciprocal affective

attachment between the persons involved in the exchange.

Affective attachment-based trust

According to Anderson and Kumar (2006), affective trust, with its basis of positive emotions,

creates a reciprocal attachment between buyer and seller, favoring the formation of strong,
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

more durable personal links. Like the feeling of security, interpersonal affective attachment is

formed when the relationship is seen as a stable source and conveying positive emotions. The

relationships that develop over time can reach a very high level and a deeper form of trust,

which implies a strong affective attachment to the trustee as well as the relationship (Wang et

al., 2010). This affective attachment is particularly motivating for the parties in the exchange,

not only because it leads to a lasting relationship, but because it also invokes a person’s need

to belong (to what, to whom), which is “a powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive

motivation” (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, p. 497). Lawler (2001) reinforced this idea by

pointing out that those involved in a lasting exchange need both emotional attachment and

emotional investment in the relationship. This gives them an emotional experience to ensure

their personal well-being, in particular with respect to the decision to continue to trust.

Simpson (1990) indicates that compared to avoidant attachments, a secure attachment is

associated with trust.

In a study of customer–seller relationships in the context of direct selling, Young and Albaum

(2003) also considered this attachment as “relatedness affects.” From the foregoing, and

following Lawler and Yoon (1996), we define the affective attachment as an inertial

emotional strength between the exchange partners, reflecting affective trust and leading to

9
 relationship maintenance to the exclusion of other alternatives, even in light of attractive

alternatives.

3. Methods and research design

For the development of our measurement scale, we followed established construction

procedures (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Rossiter, 2002). According to

Churchill (1979), measurement scale development should follow several steps, including both

qualitative and quantitative surveys. This process can be summarized as follows: domain
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

specification, generation of questionnaire items, empirical survey, an iterative process of scale

purification based on reliability assessment and validity checks, and, finally, the development

of norms. However, since then, scale development and scale validation have received some

attention that focuses on new, improved methods and techniques to enhance traditional scale

development (Terblanche and Boshoff, 2008). For instance, Gerbing and Anderson (1988)

underlined the importance of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. According to

them, the availability of statistical procedures such as confirmatory factor analysis provides

additional evidence of construct validity.

A central theme recently debated in marketing is related to the concept of construct validity.

In fact, Rossiter (2002) contends that the traditional approach of scale development has led to

some “absurd practices,” such as the mechanistic application of exploratory factor analysis

models to identify the dimensionality of constructs, or the expectation of journal referees that,

unless the almost “magical” 0.70 level is reached by coefficient alpha, a multi-item measure

“cannot be any good.” He therefore offers an alternative approach of scale development (C-

OAR-SE),2 which lays the emphasis on content validity. This approach is summarized as

follows: 1) construct definition (conceptual definition of the construct); 2) object

2
The C-OAR-SE contribution is taken into account in this research by paying special attention to item selection,
by including experts’ judgments, and by focusing on construct meaning rather than on only statistical
coefficients.

10
 classification (classification of the focal object in one of three categories: concrete singular,

abstract collective, and abstract formed); 3) attribute classification (the dimension on which

the object is being judged); 4) rater identification (which should involve either individual

raters, expert raters, or group raters); and 5) enumeration (ways to derive a total score from

the scale items).

This approach has been criticized in subsequent studies (e.g., Diamantopoulos, 2005), which

found that it could lead to potential confounding of denotative and connotative meaning
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

during construct definition and object classification, and to the use of single-item measures. In

this research, we used the paradigm of Churchill (1979), revised by Gerbing and Anderson

(1988), while taking into account the aforementioned contributions on scale development

(especially Rossiter, 2002). We also verified the item specification relative to constructs

(reflexive or formative), as suggested by Jarvis et al. (2003). We found that all items are

reflexive in line with previous studies on trust in marketing (Anderson and Narus, 1990;

Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Kumar et al., 1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997). The process used in

this research is depicted in six stages in Figure 2.

11
 ***TAKE IN FIGURE 2 ***

4. Analysis and results

4.1. Qualitative study and scale development (Study 1)

Because affective trust is not widely investigated in buyer–seller relationships, a qualitative

approach must be used. Thus, to identify specific items of each theoretical component of this

concept, 15 in-depth interviews were conducted with purchasing managers involved in long-
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

term buying processes (on average six years of experience in the firms). The exploratory

research consisted of three stages: selecting participants, implementing the study, and

analyzing the results.

Participants

We first had to identify the person or persons who hold decision-making power in the

purchasing process. Accordingly, we proceeded in two steps. In the first step, we drew up a

list of 250 companies from the CDAF databases that met two criteria: 1) the existence of a

formalized purchasing function in the organization; 2) a date of establishment of the firm >10

years ago to be sure that it had potential long-term relationships with some suppliers. Of these

250 companies, 60 agreed to contribute to our study.

Procedure and results

The second step involved the formation of firms that have lasting relationships with their

suppliers. Prior to the interview we sent respondents a brief description of the main stages of a

relationship using Dwyer et al.’s (1987) analytical framework. This enabled the interviewee

to grasp the specificities of the maintenance stage and allowed them to choose the right

supplier corresponding to a stable and closer relationship. All 60 firms have lasting

12
 relationships; the content of the exchange is products or services and having interpersonal

exchanges. To implement the study, a semi-structured interview guide was designed with the

main intention of obtaining a full understanding of the nature of trust. The following four

themes were investigated: (1) the characteristics of the relationship between buyer and

supplier (seller); (2) a description of feelings and emotions experienced within the

relationship with the seller; (3) the nature of trust; and (4) the factors conducive to more a

trusting relationship.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Our purpose was to capture the nature of trust in a specific context, namely in the

maintenance stage of the relationship between buyers and sellers. The first part of the

interviews was devoted to understanding the buyer–supplier relationship and the individuals

involved in it to get as many details as possible. In particular, we sought to understand the

feelings and emotions of the buyer within the current relationship with the seller. Interviewees

were then asked about their perceptions of the seller’s affect (see Table 2). Sequential coding

brought out certain themes that guided our choice of subsequent respondents. We then varied

the profiles until we reached saturation – further observations no longer provided new

information able to enrich the theory – in the fifteenth interview (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

-----------------------------

Insert Table 2

------------------------------

In the third stage, by referring to their experiences, feelings, and affects, interviewees offered

a range of their own perceptions of the relationship with respect to the seller, many of which

were linked not to the buyer’s perception of the seller’s affect toward him/her, but rather to

the buyer’s feelings within the relationship. Following that process, 15 items mixed between

affects and sentiments were generated for the pre-test. These items were evaluated by three

13
 experts. Five items that had two negative evaluations were withdrawn. Qualitative pre-tests

were carried out to validate the final list of ten items on five people responsible for purchasing

in the industrial, service, and retailing sectors (Members of the CDAF – French Company of

Buyers).

4.2. Factorial structure assessment and purification (Study 2)

Survey overview

The resulting item pool contained ten items formulated on a seven-point Likert scale
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

(Appendix 1). The inquiry also included four main questions: the firm’s sector, the duration of

the relationship with the business partner, the position occupied, and the duration in the

position (business experience), since these variables are critical in a B2B context. They were

put into a self-administered questionnaire along with a consequence of affective trust:

investment in the relationship (measured by three items adapted from Smith and Barclay,

1997). Appendix 1 provides the item formulations of the scales used. Data were collected

using the Sphinx online system targeting respondents based in France. The link containing the

questionnaire was sent to team members and managers involved in purchasing via email in

December 2012. Respondents belong to the CDAF network3 and were asked not only to fill in

the questionnaire, but also to send it to their colleagues. Only managers involved in the

maintenance phase were targeted using a screening question. This stage allowed us to gather

63 respondents who completely and properly filled out the questionnaire. In the absence of

known quotas for B2B buyers in France, we used diversity as a key criterion to assess the

sample’s diversification. An inspection of the sectors included in the survey showed diversity

(industry: 58.7%, service: 23.8%, and retailing: 17.5%). The duration of the relationship with

the business partner was ten years on average. Occupations were divided into three main

3
French Company of Directors and Purchasing Managers.

14
 categories: management positions (30.2%), buyer positions (38.1%), and other support

positions (31.7). The duration in the position occupied was nine years on average. This

distribution of respondents showed diversity on the four criteria considered.

Exploratory factor structure

Exploratory factor analysis results (SPSS 18 software) showed that the data can be reduced to

a few components because KMO (0.87) and Bartlett’s test (p<0.001) are acceptable. After a

Varimax rotation using principal components factor analysis, we identified two factors
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

consistent with the qualitative inquiry. The total variance explained was greater than 50%

(Table 3). The variable “trust 9” was removed because its communality was very low (R2 =

0.06). We also deleted “trust 1” since it loaded quite highly on two factors (r (Factor1) = 0.42; r

(Factor2) = 0.56). The reliability of each dimension is higher than 0.60 (α=0.67). At this

exploratory stage, given sample size (N=63) and the context (B2B), we decided to keep the

scale with this factorial structure (eight items split into two dimensions) for confirmatory

factor analysis with a larger sample. This choice was in line with more recent

recommendations on using structural equation modeling to assess scale validity instead of

focusing on the exploratory stage (Terblanche and Boshoff, 2008). It is also consistent with

Rossiter’s 2002 C-OAR-SE approach on the importance of content validity.

-----------------------------

Insert Table 3

------------------------------

15
 4.3. Scale purification and validation (Study 3)

Survey overview

In Study 3, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis on the structure obtained in the

exploratory factor analysis stage (Study 2). The data collection procedures used for the second

study were replicated for the validation sample. A total of 153 completed questionnaires were

judged to be usable. A random sample of 15 respondents was contacted to verify the

questionnaire administration procedures, but no issues were reported. The sample comprised
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

respondents from three main sectors: industry (58.7%), service (23.8%), and retailing

(17.5%). The duration of the relationship with the business partner was nine years on average.

Occupations were distributed into three main categories: management positions (25.2%),

buying positions (52.3%), and other support positions (22.5%). The duration of the position

occupied was eight years on average. This distribution of respondents also showed diversity

in all four specific variables, as in Study 2.

Reliability, validity, and model specifications

In the confirmatory stage, we used maximum likelihood estimation on the covariance matrix

with Amos 18. A measurement model using the eight items established during Study 2

(exploratory analysis) provided a satisfactory fit to the data. To evaluate measurement model

fit, three types of fit indices (absolute, incremental, and parsimonious) were used following

the suggestions in prior research. Although we specified a two-dimensional model based on

conceptual grounds, we also assessed a concurrent model specification: a unidimensional

model. Figures 3b and 3c show that the two-dimensional models (first-order and higher-order

models) fit well to the data after the deletion of item 2 and item 3 (loadings less than 0.5).

Since the unidimensional model (Figure 3a) does not fit the data and is not conceptually

justified, it should be discarded. Based on previous specifications of trust in B2B studies

16
 (Ganesan, 1994; Kumar et al., 1995; Doney and Cannon, 1997), and given the low correlation

between the two dimensions (r=0.46), we decided to choose the first-order model as the final

scale to operationalize affective trust in buyer–seller relationships.

TAKE IN FIGURE 3a

TAKE IN FIGURE 3b
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

TAKE IN FIGURE 3c

The scale’s internal consistency was adequate for each dimension, as composite reliability

(ρJoreskög) values and Cronbach’s alphas were above the recommended cut-off criteria (0.7;

Table 4). The convergent validity of each dimension is fulfilled since AVE values (ρVC) are

greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The discriminant validity of the constructs is

supported, since the construct AVE (average variance extracted) values are greater than their

squared correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Following Cheung and Lau (2008), we used

bootstrapping in Amos employing the bias corrected method (1000 replications, CI = 95%) to

ensure that the results were not subject to sample size.

-----------------------------

Insert Table 4

------------------------------

17
 In this research, we used the paradigm of Churchill (1979), revised by Gerbing and Anderson

(1988), while taking in the aforementioned contributions on scale development (especially

Rossiter [2002], as highlighted above). Therefore, we also assessed the nomological validity

of the scale by including it in a larger network. A model including a consequence of affective

trust such as investment in the relationship (Authors, 2007) is provided in Appendix 2. It fits

the data well: [χ2 = 20.88, df =18, p=0.28; RMSEA= 0.03; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; and

χ2/df=1.16]. The results indicate a significant positive relationship between security-based

trust and investment in the relationship (γ=0.25, p<0.05), but no significant effect was found
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

between affective attachment-based trust and investment in the relationship (p>0.05). These

results are analyzed and discussed in the conclusion.

Testing scale invariance across sectors

We also verified the scale’s measurement invariance so that valid comparisons of the

construct could be made and interpreted across business sectors. Assessing measurement

invariance is critical in B2B relationships, because it concerns the extent to which the

psychometric properties of the observed indicators are transportable (generalizable) across

different sectors. Previous research has stressed that three levels of invariance should be

fulfilled: configural invariance (i.e., whether the basic factor structure holds for different

groups/sectors), metric invariance (i.e., the extent to which the relationships between the

factors and the items are equivalent across the groups/sectors), and scalar invariance (i.e., the

equality of intercept terms in the two groups/sectors; Campbell et al., 2008; Steenkamp and

Baumgartner, 1998). Given the sample size, a bootstrapping procedure (as above) was

undertaken to ensure that the results are not subject to sample size (Cheung and Lau, 2008).

We assessed invariance based on multiple group analysis and delta χ2 tests, as reported in

Table 5. Configural invariance is satisfied, as we found satisfactory model fit for both sectors

(see Table 5). We conducted two other tests for metric and scalar invariance. In each step, we

18
 compared a freely estimated model with another one where specific coefficients (loadings or

intercepts) were constrained to equality. The results were satisfactory in both cases (see Table

5). We can therefore make meaningful comparisons between industry and service/retail

sectors using the proposed measurement scale.

-----------------------------

Insert Table 5

------------------------------
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

5. Conclusion, discussion, and implications

Researchers in B2B marketing are unanimous that trust is paramount to the sustainability of

the customer–supplier relationship and that the understanding of this complex concept, which

comprises an affective nature (Johnson-George and Swap, 1982; McAllister, 1995; Williams,

2001), deserves more depth. Moreover, it has been argued that greater profits are yielded from

harvesting existing accounts than from cultivating new customers, and therefore long-term

customer–supplier relationships require much more attention.

The aim of this article is to develop and validate a measurement scale of trust in lasting

relationships between buyers and sellers. This research serves several theoretical interests.

First, it offers a wide, reliable, and valid measure to fill the gaps in the current literature on

the affective form of trust, since that tends to be more valued. The measurement scale of

affective trust in a buyer–seller relationship is developed and tested across industrial,

retailing, and service sectors in the French B2B context. We used a qualitative stage as part of

the research, and the quantitative study demonstrated that the Affective Trust Scale (ATS) is a

valid and reliable instrument in the B2B context. Existing scales do not fully capture the

19
 emotional dimension as a basis of affective trust, but rather measure the trustor’s perception

of the trustee’s affect toward him/her as a fairly cognitive basis for the trustor’s trust

(Möllering, 2006). This research goes further, with the question of whether or not the trustee

is believed to have positive affect for the trustor. In doing so, we firstly specified the

relational context – in our case the maintenance phase of the buyer–seller relationship (Dwyer

et al., 1987). Secondly, we focused our investigation mainly on evaluating buyers’ affect

states during interpersonal relationships, and to a lesser extent their perceptions of the seller’s

affects devoted to them.

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Second, the findings are also consistent with the separability of affective trust from other

forms of trust (cognitive and behavioral trust) and echoed the research of McAllister (1995)

concluding that cognitive and affective trust are empirically distinct. Möllering (2006, p. 196)

states that “future trust research has to become less detached and needs to get closer to the

idiosyncratic interpretations and experiences of actors who are affected by trust.” This

research therefore contributes to the existing literature on trust in business relationships by

providing a measurement scale that is derived consistently from the literature review and by

taking a phase-specific study (maintenance phase) into account. As the emotional tie deepens,

affective trust will exceed what could have been expected, given the cognitive elements

exchanged. This is reflected by a sentiment of security and affective attachment, leading to a

blossoming relationship. The final two-dimensional scale with six items was found to be

reliable and met the criterion of convergent and discriminant validity in B2B sectors.

Interestingly, nomological validity indicates that a sentiment of security has a positive effect

on relationship investment, whereas affective attachment is not involved in such investment.

This result demonstrates that affective attachment is not sufficient to induce behavioral trust.

Thus, promoting only affective attachment is not necessarily the most suitable tool to boost

20
 the relationship. Affective attachment and sentiment of security function in tandem to form

affective trust.

Third, the Affective Trust Scale (ATS) provides researchers with a tool to test theories

empirically within a process perspective of trust. Time and emotions have a remarkable role

in the dynamics of trust. Hadjikhani and LaPlaca (2013, p. 302) aptly point out that the time

dimension deserves more depth and “requires new analytical tools and research approaches.”

Time and the phase of the relationship may be necessary preliminary requirements for a
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

firm’s customer relationship management (Johnston and Hausman, 2006).

With respect to the relationship life cycle, researchers can use multiple measures of trust –

attitudinal or affect trust measures – depending on the presence or absence of affects (Young

and Albaum, 2003).

Finally, the Affective Trust Scale (ATS) can help firms to identify key parameters in buyer–

seller relationships. It is important for the seller to collect information to determine the stage

of the relationship before spending money on targeting customers, since they may not be

ready to broaden the scope of their contract (Visentin and Scarpi, 2012). The ATS can be very

useful for companies to assess the state of the relationship and the strength of the bond in a

timely manner and, therefore, anticipate the relational orientation. Segmentation based on

relational phases requires tailoring to each form of trust strategy, and hence accurate

identification of the relationship phase could help to better categorize and subcategorize

customers with respect to the sentiment of security and degrees of affective attachment.

Furthermore, an understanding of the two dimensions is useful for key account managers to

adjust relationship management toward specific actions (e.g., sentiment of security and/or

affective attachment). As evidenced by Visentin and Scarpi (2012), a firm’s intention to

upgrade its contract with a seller stems from the evaluation of single experiences with the

21
 partner and from an overall evaluation of the relationship. While the renewal of the buyer–

seller contract may be a routinized operation in many industries, upgrading a contract requires

a decision. The ATS could be very useful to guide managers in taking the right decision, by

focusing on both sentiment of security and affective attachment dimensions of affective trust.

6. Limitations and future research studies

The Affective Trust Scale (ATS) developed and tested in the B2B French context needs to be

evaluated taking into account several limitations. First, the specific context was a sample of
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

buyers in France experiencing lasting relationships, suggesting that an extension of the study

to other countries would be desirable. For example, a replication of Lohtia et al.’s (2009)

research by studying long-term relationships between US sellers and French buyers and using

a less global measure of trust such as the ATS would be valuable. Second, when exploring

affects and trust, this study considered the perspective of the buyers; a suitable and more

informative method would have been a dyadic study. Also, the ATS needs to be further

validated and confirmed in other contexts, for instance within buyer–supplier relationship

intensity as a predictor of a retailer’s new product adoption (Lin and Chang, 2012). Moreover,

even with the assumption that interpersonal trust has to develop in line with the trajectory of

an inter-organizational relationship (Zaheer et al., 1998), future studies could also examine

more accurately the interplay between inter-organizational and interpersonal trust. On

considering the connection between inter-organizational and interpersonal trust in durable

inter-firm collaboration, one is led to questions of the unit of analysis, which in turn are

inseparable from the construct definition and its sub-dimensions (Zaheer and Harris, 2006).

This could be a fruitful path for future research.

22
 REFERENCES

Adler, M. G. and Fagley, N. S. (2005), “Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value

and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 73,
February, pp. 79–114.

Ambler, T. and Grayson, T. (1999), “The dark side of long-term relationships in marketing
services”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, February, pp. 132–141.

Andaleeb, S. S. (1992), “The trust concept: Research issues for channels of distribution”,
Research in Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 1–11.

Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. A. (1989), “Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial

channel dyads”, Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 310–323.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Anderson, J. C. and Narus, J. (1990), “Model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partner”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42–58.

Andersen, P. H. and Kumar, R. (2006), “Emotions, trust and relationship development in

business relationships: A conceptual model for buyer–seller dyads”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 522–535.

Baumeister, R. F. and Leary, M. R. (1995), “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp.
497–520.

Blois, K. J. (1999) “Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its status”,

Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 197–216.

Campbell, H. L., Barry, C. L., Joe, J. N. and Finney, S. J. (2008), “Configural, metric and
scalar invariance of the modified achievement goal questionnaire across African American
and White university students”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 988–1007.

Cheung, G. W. and Lau, R. S. (2008), “Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent
variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296–325.

Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P. and Morris, M. W. (2008), “From the head and the heart: Locating
cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 51, pp. 436–452.

Churchill, G. A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64–73.

Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

23
 Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S. and Berman, J. J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303–317.

Diamantopoulos, A. (2005), “The C‐OAR‐SE procedure for scale development in marketing:

A comment”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 1–9.

Doney, P. M. and Cannon, J. P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35–51.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer–seller relationships”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 11–27.

Ekici, A. (2013), “Temporal dynamics of trust in ongoing inter-organizational relationships”,

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 932–949.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Ergeneli, A., Ari, G. S. I. and Metin, S. (2007), “Psychological empowerment and its
relationship to trust in immediate managers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1,
pp. 41–49.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18,
February, pp. 39–50.

Gabarro, J. J. (1978), “The development of trust, influence and expectations”, in Athos, A.

and Gabarro, J. J. (Eds), Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and Understanding in
Relationships, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 290–303.

Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long term in buyer–seller relationships”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1–19.

Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70–87.

Gerbing, D. W. and Anderson, J. C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 186–192.

Gordon, S. L. (1981), “The sociology of sentiments and emotion”, in Rosenberg, M. and

turner, R. H. (Eds), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, Basic Books, New York,
pp. 562–592.

Hadjikhani, A. and LaPlaca, P. (2013), “Development of B2B marketing theory”, Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 294–305.

Hansen, M. H., Morrow, J. L. and Batista, J. C. (2002), “The impact of trust on cooperative
membership retention, performance, and satisfaction: An exploratory study”, International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 41–60.

Homans, G. (1961), Social Behavior, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.

24
 Huang, Y. H. and Wilkinson, I. F. (2013), “The dynamic and evolution of trust business
relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 455–465.

Jap, S. and Anderson, E. (2007), “Testing a life-cycle theory of cooperative

interorganizational relationships: Movement across stages and performance”, Management
Science, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 260–275.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie S. B. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003), “A critical review of construct

indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, September, pp. 199–218.

Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005), “Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 500–507.

Johnson-George, C. and Swap, W. (1982), “Measurement of specific interpersonal trust:

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other”, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 1306–1317.

Johnston, W. J. and Hausman, A. (2006), “Expanding the marriage metaphor in understanding

long-term business relationships”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 446–452.

Jones, G. and George, J. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 531–546.

Jones, K. (1996), “Trust as an affective attitude”, Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 4–25.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K. and Steenkamp, J.-B. (1995), “The effects of perceived
interdependence on dealer attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 348–
356.

Lawler, E. J. (2001), “An affect theory of social exchange”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 107, pp. 321–352.

Lawler, E. J. and Thye, S. R. (1999), “Bringing emotion into social exchange theory”, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 25, pp. 217–244.

Lawler, E. J. and Yoon, J. (1996), “Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of

relational cohesion”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, pp. 89–108.

Lee, D. Y. and Dawes, P. L. (2005), “Guanxi, trust, and long-term orientation in Chinese
business markets”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 28–56.

Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1995), “Trust in relationships: A model of trust

development and decline”, in Bunker, B. B. and Rubin, J. Z. (Eds), Conflict and Justice,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 133–173.

25
 Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships”, in Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of
Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114–139.

Lewicki, R., Tomlinson, E. and Gillespie, N. (2006), “Models of interpersonal trust

development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence and future directions”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 991–1022.

Lewis, J. D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4,
pp. 967–985.

Lewis, J. D. and Weigert, A. (2012), “The social dynamics of trust: Theoretical and empirical
research, 1985–2012”, Social Forces, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 25–31.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Lin, J-S. C. and Chang, Y-C. (2012), “Retailers’ new product acceptance decisions:
Incorporating the buyer–supplier relationship perspective”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 89–99.

Liu, Y., Li, Y., Tao, L. and Wang, Y. (2008), “Relationship stability, trust and relational risk
in marketing channels: Evidence from China”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 432–446.

Lohtia, R., Bello, D. C. and Porter, C. E. (2009), “Building trust in US-Japanese business
relationships: Mediating role of cultural sensitivity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.
38 No. 3, pp. 239–252.

Lui, S. S. and Ngo, H-Y. (2004), “The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation
in non-equity alliances”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 471–485.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1995), “An integrative model of

organizational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709–734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 24–59.

McAllister, D. J. (1997), “The second face of trust: Reflections on the dark side of
interpersonal trust in organizations”, Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 6, pp. 87–111.

McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R. J. and Chaturvedi, S. (2006), “Trust in developing

relationships: From theory to measurement”, Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta
GA, August.

Möllering, G. (2006), Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity, Elsevier, Oxford.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and
users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314–328.

26
 Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20–38.

Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S. and Naude, P. (2007), “Trust and reliance in business
relationships”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos. 9/10, pp. 1016–1032.

Ng, K. Y. and Chua, R. Y. J. (2006), “Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential
effects of cognition- and affect-based trust”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 43–66.

Rempel, J. B., Holmes, J. G. and Zanna, M. P. (1985), “Trust in close relationships”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 95–112.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002), “The COARSE procedure for scale development in marketing”,

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305–335.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer C. (1998), “Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 393–404.

Sako, M. (1997), Prices, Quality and Trust – Inter-Firm Relations in Britain and Japan.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C. and Davis, J. H. (2007), “An integrative model of

organizational trust: Past, present and future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No.
2, pp. 344–354.

Schurr, P. H. and Ozanne, J. L. (1985), “Influences on exchange processes: Buyers’

preconceptions of a seller’s trustworthiness and bargaining toughness”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 939–953.

Scott, J. E. (2000), “Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology”,

Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 81–113.

Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H. and Cheraskin, L. (1992), “Business on a handshake”,

Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 365–377.

Shou, Z., Guo, R., Zhang, Q. and Su, C. (2011), “The many faces of trust and guanxi
behavior: Evidence from marketing channels in China”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 503–509.

Simpson, J. A. (1990), “Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships”, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 971–980.

Smith, B. J. and Barclay D. W. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on
the effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 3–
21.

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Technique, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

27
 Strutton, D. E., Pelton, L. E. and Tanner, J. F. (1996), “Shall we gather in the garden: The
effect of ingratiatory behaviors on buyer trust in salespeople”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 151–162.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance in

cross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90

Svensson, G. (2004), “Vulnerability in business relationships: The gap between dependence

and trust”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 469–483.

Swan, J. E., Bowers, M. R. and Richardson, D. (1999), “Customer trust in the salesperson: An
integrative review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 93–107.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Terblanche, N. S. and Boshoff C. (2008), “Improved scale development in marketing: An

empirical illustration”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 105–
119.

Visentin, M. and Scarpi, D. (2012), “Determinants and mediators of the intention to upgrade
the contract in buyer–seller relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 1133–1141.

Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C. and Noe, R. A. (2010), “The role of mentor trust and protégé
internal locus of control in formal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 358–367.

Webber, S. S. and Klimoski, R. J. (2004), “Client-project manager engagements, trust, and

loyalty”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 997–1013.

Weck, M. and Ivanova, M. (2013), “The importance of cultural adaptation for the trust
development within business relationships”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.
28, No. 3, pp. 210–220

Williams, M. (2001), “In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust
development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 377–396.

Williams, M. (2007), “Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A

threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 595–621.

Yang, M.-H., Chandlrees, N., Lin, B. and Chao, H.-Y. (2009), “The effect of perceived
ethical performance of shopping websites on consumer trust”, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 15–24.

Young, L. (2006), “Trust: Looking forward and back”, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 21 No.7, pp. 439–445.

28
 Young, L. and Albaum, G. (2003), “Measurement of trust in salesperson–customer
relationships in direct selling”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 253–269.

Zaheer, A. and Harris, J. (2006), “Interorganizational trust”, in Shenkar, O. and Reuer, J.

(Eds), Handbook of Strategic Alliances, Sage, London, pp. 169–198.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, Y. B. and Perroke, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects
of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 141–159.

Appendix 1. Measurement items

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Construct and sources Measurement items

Affective trust (creation) Trust 1: I can talk freely with him about the difficulties my firm
is encountering and know that he will listen.

Trust 2: He and I are able to talk like friends.

Trust 3: He and I do only talk about commercial issues (R).

Trust 4: I am sure that he will always make me his best offer.

Trust 5: I feel very at ease in my relationship with him.

Trust 6: I have great respect for him and vice versa.

Trust 7: I have strong emotional links with him.

Trust 8: If I could no longer work with him, I would feel that I

have lost a personal relationship.

Trust 9: The idea of working with him strengthens me.

Trust 10: We have both made considerable emotional

investments (Christmas, get-well cards…, dinners/lunches…) in
our professional relationship.

Investment (adapted from Invest 1: We have invested the time and energy to develop our
Smith and Barclay, 1997) relationship (0.85).

AVE= 0.77 Invest 2: We have made efforts to further our relations (0.91).

ρJoreskög/α = 0.87 Invest 3: We have invested in employee training for this

relationship (deleted – loading < 0.5)

29
 Appendix 2. Nomological network of affective trust in buyer–seller relationships

AABT7 AABT8 AABT10

.74 .82 .62

AABT Inv1
ns .88
Investment in
0.46** the relationship
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

.87
0.25*
SBT
Inv2

.80
.75 .67

SBT4 SBT5 SBT6

Note: ** Significant at p< 0.01; * Significant at p< 0.01; ns = not significant relationships.
AABT=Affective attachment-based trust; SBT=Sentiment of security-based trust.

Acknowledgment:

The CDAF (Compagnie des Directeurs & Acheteurs de France), Spot a Partner and Toluna Quick
Survey are gratefully acknowledged.

30
 List of figures

Figure 1: Affective trust, the result of a process (adapted from Lewicki and Bunker, 1996)

Affective Trust

Cognitive Trust

Calculative Trust
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Exploration Expansion Maintenance

Relationship phases
 Figure 2. Scale development process and research design
Qualitative study
(Study 1)
N=15
1. Content analysis and
categorization of discourses.
2. First generation of items:
- 2 sub-dimensions and 15
items.
- Check of face validity by
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)
three experts (10 items).
Scale
construction
First data collection Second data collection
(Study 2) (Study 3)
N=63 N=153
3. Exploratory factor 5. Confirmatory factor
analysis (item analysis, analysis (reliability and
dimensionality, variance validity).
extracted).
6. Further validation
4. Test of reliability
(measurement invariance
across sectors, relationships
with other variables).
Scale Scale
purification validation
 Figure 3a. Uni-dimensional model of affective trust in buyer–seller relationships
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Figure 3b. Two-dimensional first-order model of affective trust in buyer–seller relationships

 Figure 3c. Two-dimensional higher-order model of affective trust in buyer–seller relationships
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)
 List of tables

Table 1: Definitions of affective trust in management and B2B marketing literature

Examples of studies Affective trust definitions
Johnson-George and “Emotional trust refers mainly to the extent to which a trustor is
Swap (1982) willing to be open to the trustee and does not fear emotional harm
from the trustee.”
Lewis and Weigert “Trust succeeds where rational prediction alone would fail”; “trust
(1985, pp. 969, 972) in everyday life is a mix of feeling and rational thinking.”
McAllister (1995, p. “Affect-based trust” stems from “emotional bonds between
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

26) individuals” and from the expression of “genuine care and concern
for the welfare of partners.”
Costigan et al. (1998, “Affect-based trust involves a deep emotional investment in
p. 306) relationship. A trustor’s deep care and concern for the trustee
characterize such a relationship.”
Swan et al. (1999, p. “Affect is feeling secure or insecure about relying on the
94) salesperson.”
Scott (2000, p. 84) Affective trust is “the social view of trust and has a more emotional
connotation. It encompasses care, concern, benevolence, altruism, a
sense of personal obligation, commitment, mutual respect,
openness, a capacity for listening and understanding, and a belief
that sentiments are reciprocated.”
Hansen et al. (2002, p. “Affective trust is subjective in nature because it is based on the
43) moods, feelings, or emotions that one has concerning the perceived
trustworthiness of an individual, group, or organization.”
Webber and Klimoski “Affective trust is grounded in reciprocal interpersonal care and
(2004, p. 1000) concern or emotional bonds.”
Anderson and Kumar “Trust based on affect is assumed to create deeper levels of trust,
(2006, p. 531) which can create conditions for closer collaboration that may even
resist trust violations.”
Ng and Chua (2006, p. “Affect-based trust, on the other hand, arises from social
45) interactions with others, and reflects confidence in others that
develops along with concern for their welfare.”
 Ergeneli and Metin “Affect-based trust requires deep emotional investment in a
(2007, p. 43) relationship.”
Chua et al. (2008, p. “Affect-based trust involves empathy, rapport, and self-disclosure.”
436)
Wang et al. (2010, p. “Affect-based trust occurs as a product of social exchange, i.e., the
359) positive emotions generated via perceptions of care and concern
motivate one to continue reciprocating socio-emotional benefits.”
Huang and Wilkinson “Affective trust is based on beliefs that the exchange partner cares
(2013, p. 456) about your welfare, will act positively towards it and take care to
avoid harming it.”
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)
 Table 2. Sample respondent comments

Themes Illustrative comments

“Trust allows me not to have doubts about the intentions of the seller. It is a
feeling of both serenity and peace of mind.”

“A sense of security is now firmly rooted in the relationship. The

partnership is relatively stable, durable and safe. Our dealings are entirely
positive in this respect. This relationship is built up over the years or even
decades, which allows us to work with a certain peace of mind.”
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Sentiment of “Trust. It’s being able to rely on someone without asking questions about
security his/her ability or willingness to produce the work in a good manner and
within the time.”

“There is a friendly climate between us. We have a good relationship owing

to its efficacy and duration, and in addition, I am very satisfied with his
work.”

“A friendly atmosphere prevails between us. Now we have a good

relationship based on mutual respect.”

“It’s being calm and having peace of mind. In this case, it does not say: But
what will it still make me, what will still happen? We must remain calm and
know how to solve problems together, if by chance there are!”

“It is a trust that is largely based on reciprocity. The fact that it is

completely sincere in both directions of the relationship allows us to calmly
deal with the business.”

“Over time, we got to know and appreciate each other ... I now consider
him someone close ... Besides, we do not hesitate to talk about subjects
outside work.”

“It’s when you’ve got problems that you find out who your real friends are,
and in business it’s pretty much the same.”
 “After eight years of collaboration, there is a link created between the seller
Affective and myself. For example, he invites me to see football matches and I invite
attachment
him to play golf, of course. So there is attachment behind it.”

“It is important for me to maintain a relationship and friendly spirit with

the seller.”

“We increasingly work together. Therefore it creates more attachment

between us but also more links between our respective companies.”

“The act of trust has established a quasi-friendly link while remaining

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

professional, of course.”

“Before, we had a relationship that was exclusively professional. Now he

doesn’t need to only talk about business with me.”
 Table 3. Factor structure of items used to measure affective trust in buyer–seller
relationships (N = 63)
Factors and loadings
Items Factor 1 * Factor 2 *
Trust 3: He and I do only talk about commercial issues (R). 0.61

Trust 4: I am sure that he will always make me his best offer 0.76

Trust 5: I feel very at ease in my relationship with him 0.75

Trust 6: I have great respect for him and vice versa 0.74
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Trust 2: He and I are able to talk like friends 0.76

Trust 7: I have strong emotional links with him. 0.75

Trust 8: If I could no longer work with him, I would feel that I 0.70
have lost a personal relationship
Trust 10: We have both made considerable emotional 0.71
investments (Christmas, get-well cards…, dinners/lunches…)
in our professional relationship.
Variance explained 27.51% 24.28%
Cronbach alpha (α) 0.67 0.67
KMO = 0.74;
Bartlett Test: p < 0.001 (p <
0.001); MSA > 80 %

Note: * Factor 1=Sentiment of security-based trust (SBT); Factor 2=Affective attachment-based trust
(AABT).
 Table 4. Psychometric properties of the measurement scale of affective trust (N = 153)
Stand. Non-stand. AVE r² (3)
loadings(1) loadings and
Reliability and convergent/discriminant validity
bootstrap
intervals(2)

Sentiment of security-based trust (SBT): ρJoreskög

=.78 ; α =.78

Trust4: “I am sure that he will always make me his .80 *** 1.08 ***
best offer.”
[0.49 ; 0.79]
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Trust5: “I feel very at ease in my relationship with .75 *** 0.74 *** .54
him.” [0.69 ; 0.90]

Trust6: “I have great respect for him and vice .66 *** 1.00 ***
versa.” [0.64 ; 0.84] .21

Affective attachment-based trust(AABT): ρ Joreskög

=.76; α =.76

Trust7: “I have strong emotional links with him.” .74 *** 1.27 ***

[0.63 ; 0.83]

Trust8: “If I could no longer work with him, I .80 *** 1.48 *** .52
would feel that I have lost a personal relationship.”
[0.68 ; 0.90]

Trust10: “We have both made considerable .62 *** 1.00 ***
emotional investments (Christmas, get-well [0.46 ; 0.74]
cards…, dinners/lunches…) in our professional
relationship.”

Notes: (1) *** Significant at p< 0.01. (2) Associated bootstrap intervals [lower bound; upper bound]
should not include zero for significance of the relationship. (3) Squared correlation between the two
dimensions.
 Table 5. Scale invariance across business sectors (with bootstrapping)
Industry Service/Retailing
Security-based trust (SBT) Stand. Non-stand. Stand. Non-stand.
coefficients coefficients coefficients coefficients
(a) (a)
and bootstrap and
intervals bootstrap
intervals
Trust4: “I am sure that he will 0.67 1.05 0.64 1.11
always make me his best
[0.40; 0.86] [0.42; 0.82]
offer.”
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)

Trust5: “I feel very at ease in 0.78 1.00 0.81 1.00

my relationship with him.”
[0.59; 0.91] [0.67; 0.95]
Trust6: “I have great respect 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.75
for him and vice versa.” [0.59; 0.88] [0.62; 0.89]
Affective attachment-based
trust (AABT)
Trust7: “I have strong 0.72 1.04 0.78 1.56
emotional links with him.” [0.52; 0.87] [0.58; 0.93]
Trust8: “If I could no longer 0.76 1.36 0.84 1.66
work with him, I would feel [0.59; 0.90] [0.65; 1.04]
that I have lost a personal
relationship.”
Trust10: “We have both made 0.68 1.00 0.54 1.00
considerable emotional [0.45; 0.82] [0.24; 0.74]
investments (Christmas, get-
well cards…, dinners/
lunches…) in our professional
relationship.”
Invariance testing through χ2 tests
Model specification χ2 (df), RMS TLI CFI χ2/df ∆χ2 (df), p
p EA
Industry (N = 76) 2.60 (8), 0.000 1 1 0.32
 p = 0.95
Service/Retailing (N = 77) 11.87 (8), 0.070 .94 .97 1.47
p = 0.16
M1. Unconstrained 14.38 (16), 0.000 1 1 0.89 -
p = 0.57
M2. Loadings constrained 16.17 (20), 0.000 1 1 0.80 1.79 (4),
(metric invariance) p = 0.70 p > 0.05
M3. Intercepts constrained 25.93 (26), 0.000 1 1 0.99 11.55 (10),
(scalar invariance) p = 0.46 p > 0.05
Note: (a) All standardized (non-standardized) coefficients are significant at p<0.01.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:34 27 February 2016 (PT)