Perceived Trust in Business-To-Business Sales

Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business Sales: A New MeasureAuthor(s): Richard E. Plank, David A. Reid and Ellen Bolman PullinsReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1999),pp. 61-71Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40471734 .

Accessed: 25/01/2013 20:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:17:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40471734?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Methods in Sales Research James M . Comer, University of Cincinnati

Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business Sales: A New Measure

Richard E. Plank, David A. Reid, and Ellen Bolman Pullins

Measures of trust in the selling literature have usually relied on general measures of trust developed from other contexts which then may have been modified to fit the sales or sales management context. In this paper, trust is conceptualized specifically within a business-to-business sales context as containing three correlated components: salesperson trust, company trust, and product/service trust. A ten-item, three- factor scale is developed that demonstrates the appropriate reliability and validity for use in future studies incorporating the concept of perceived trust in business-to-business buyer-seller contexts.

Introduction A fundamental characteristic of successful buyer-

seller relationships, as various authors have noted (e.g., Hawes, Mast and Swan 1989) is that of trust. Unfortunately, the widespread importance and interest in trust has also led to it being defined and operationalized in a variety of ways. Thus, there is no true consensus on a definition of trust nor any accepted cross-disciplinary paradigm. Many of the existing definitions of trust have treated it solely as a personality construct. Results of many of these studies, across multiple disciplines, have frequently had non-significant findings (Butler 1991). Butler notes that existing conceptualizations do not take into account the multidimensional nature of the construct, as well as its many antecedents.

Richard E. Plank (Ph.D., City University of New York) is Professor of Marketing at the Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University. His research has appeared in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the Journal of Busi- ness Research, the Journal of Academy Marketing Science, the European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Manage- ment, and the International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, among others. His primary research interest is in the integration of selling and sales management and supply management. David A. Reid (Ph.D., State University of New York at Binghamton) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at The University of Toledo. His research has appeared in Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, among others. Ellen Bolman Pullins (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at The University of Toledo. Her research interests are in the areas of salesperson training, buyer-seller interactions, and buyer-seller negotiation. Her research has been published in Journal of the Academy of Market- ing Science and various conference proceedings.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the development of a multidimensional measure of trust specifically for use in a sales context. The paper is divided into four major sections. First, we review the sales literature on trust. This is followed by the development of the nomological net and conceptual and operational definitions of trust used in the study. We then present the study and our analysis and conclude with a brief discussion of the research and managerial implications of the new measure.

Literature Review

Conceptualizing Trust As noted above, trust has been defined and

operationalized in variety of ways, within and across disciplines. These definitions, according to Dwyer and Lagace (1986), can be conceptualized in one of three ways. The first views trust as a personality trait or generalized expectancy (e.g., Rotter 1967). The second treats it as a predisposition toward another or belief that another will behave in a matter beneficial to the other party (e.g., Driscoll 1978). The third views it from the standpoint of risking behaviors (e.g., Schurr and Ozanne 1985), which reflects a willingness on the part of the buyer to accept the possibility of vulner- ability on his/her part in the transaction.

Numerous studies (e.g., Schurr and Ozanne 1985; Swan, Trawick, Rink, and Roberts 1988) have examined some aspect of trust within the buyer/seller dyad. This research has generally suggested a linkage between a set of trust earning components, trust and suc-

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Volume XIX, Number 3 (Summer 1999, Pages 61-71).



62 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

cess in sales. Research in trust building in sales has offered sets of components for trust building. Swan and Trawick (1987), for example, suggested that being de- pendable/reliable, honest/candid, competent, customer- oriented, and likable/friendly were all likely to lead to trust of the salesperson by the buyer. This logically suggests that some behaviors that salespeople do lead to trust on the part of the buyer.

Sales research also indicates that sellers who de- velop a trusting perception on the part of their buyers are more likely to be successful than those who do not. It is widely accepted that trust and the development of a trusting perception in selling contexts is considered a necessary ingredient to long term selling success (e.g., Hawes 1994). Also, when queried, organizational buyers rank trustworthi- ness as one of the most important characteristics a seller can have (Hayes and Hartley 1989).

Defining Buyer Trust The sales literature is fairly consistent on the defi-

nition of trust. For the most part, interpersonal trust relates to a belief on the part of the trusting person that obligations are fulfilled. The Swan and Nolan (1985) definition reflects this. Specifically, they de- fine trust as the situation where "the industrial buyer believes and feels that he can rely on what the salesperson says or promises to do in a situation where the buyer is dependent upon the salesperson's hon- esty and reliability" (Swan and Nolan 1985, p. 40). As defined, this definition reflects Dwyer and Lagace's (1986) notion of trust as a predisposition rather than personality or risking behaviors. To date, however, in the sales literature trust has been viewed from a global perspective as an overall impression of the salesperson. However, the notion of global versus situation-specific trust is one that needs to be considered. As noted by Butler (1991), there is a tremen- dous amount of literature that supports the importance of specific measures of trust performing much better in prediction and explanation.

In the buyer-seller literature, the object of trust in studies has been unidimensional. Specifically, research has concentrated purely on interpersonal trust, that is trust of another person. However, when a buyer does business with a seller, trust of the salesperson is only one category of obligation; s/he also needs to consider the obligations or expected functions associated with the product/service itself and the company that stands behind the product/service. Therefore, the measure developed for this study is based on the idea that trust is based on multiple

objects in buyer-seller relations. While these different dimensions of trust are likely to be correlated, they are unique dimensions and need to be captured. It is also suggested that certain behaviors that salespeople do are more likely to affect one or the other of the dimensions (Plank and Reid 1994). Thus, trust is conceptually defined, in this study, as follows:

Trust is a global belief on the part of the buyer that the salesperson, product and company will fulfill their obligations as understood by the buyer.

As noted above, trust can also be viewed as being related to multiple objects. These individual components of trust, from the buyer's perspective, can be defined as follows:

Salesperson trust is the belief that the salesperson will fulfill his/her obligations as understood by the buyer.

Product trust is the belief that the product / service will fulfill its functions as understood by the buyer.

Company trust is the belief that the company will fulfill all its obligations as understood by the buyer.

The various dimensions of trust are conceptualized as the fulfillment of obligations or functions. Thus, we operationalize the constructs of each dimension by obtaining the buyer's beliefs about the object related to the obligation-fulfilling characteristics.

Nomological Network A nomological net of constructs was developed to

support the validity of the newly developed measures. Figure 1 shows the antecedents and consequences that we propose are related to our conceptualization of trust. Relationships we do not test in this study are delineated with thin lined arrows.

The model suggests that salesperson behaviors contribute to the development of trust. It is also posited that trust, in and of itself, is predictive of sales effectiveness.

Plank and Reid (1994) suggest that the quality of behaviors is what drives sales performance, not just whether they were performed. Following their reasoning, one would also expect behaviors to drive trust since the buyer's perception of trust is likely to be based primarily on overt actions. While the sales literature on trust has suggested a number of antecedents to trust, these have been general in nature and not linked to specific types of behaviors. A major category of behaviors is communication behaviors, which can be classified in a number of different ways. We suggest the following three broad



Summer 1999 63

Figure 1 Nomological Net for Testing Trust Measure*

Getting ^^^^^^^^> Salesperson I Information r- P™"1^^^^ ^ Trust |W ι Information r- P™"1^^^^

;?l_i^jv ^ Trust |W

ι- i/ / ι ""' 1 Ν 1 ι- wüSL '/* ι ""' 1

Γγ8 Eftectlveness

JX / Giving ^^ ^ Company ψ

Information Trust Γ

Buyer's Trust

► Theoretical Predictions, untested

■^^Theoretical Predictions, tested

*This model contains proposed relationships that could be used to test the validity of the three dimensions of trust. While theoretically there are multiple paths to test, due to the nature of the data collected, only those illustrated by thick solid lines are actually tested in this paper.

categories: getting information, using information, and giving information as capturing the essence of face-to-face selling. In essence, communication represents the primary strategic advantage inherent in the use of personal selling and constitutes the salesperson's most important strategic role. Thus, these behaviors on the part of salespeople are likely to be linked to trust; however, not all behaviors or sets of behaviors would contribute equally to trust nor to the perceptions of the objects of trust (i.e., the salesperson, product, or company).

The Study Measure Development

The measures were developed by reviewing the items used in other scales (Rotter 1967; Swan,

Trawick, Rink, and Roberts 1988; Lagace 1991) and comparing them to the operational definitions developed. While not using any of the indicators from these scales in their entirety, they provided the conceptual underpinning for the current scale. Twenty-one indicators of trust, seven for each construct, were then developed by the authors to re- flect the three objects of trust. All 21 items were then subjected to a series of small groups of currently employed part-time graduate students along with individual interviews with three buyers. All participants interviewed were asked to rate each question as to whether it met the definition of the construct. This purification process reduced the set of questions to 15 items, five in each construct. The questions were then presented to four gradu-

ate classes containing 64 students from two univer- sities. Most of these individuals were currently em-




ployed with either purchasing or sales backgrounds and were thus felt to be appropriate given the nature of the study (Lamb and Stem 1980). The individuals in this phase of the pretest were asked to choose the best category that each question fit into, in case they perceived it might be possible to place the categories into more than one group or no group. Only those items that were correctly classified 90% of the time were included in the next set. All but two items were classified correctly 100% of the time. An open discussion followed. No ambiguity was felt to be present.

The sample of 15 indicators was then pretested with a convenience sample of 180 local buyers, of which 111 responded. Results of an exploratory factor analysis indicated that the questions were un- derstandable and operated as expected. The trust items were scaled on a one to five scale, with one being "strongly agree" and five being "strongly dis- agree." The appendix provides the actual questions.

Five items relating to specific behaviors were included on the questionnaire which have implications for the nomological validity discussed for trust. They were:

•This salesperson asked probing questions, •This salesperson used questioning to assess my needs,

•This salesperson listened to me, •This salesperson listened very carefully, and •This salesperson performed product/service demonstrations.

Each indicator was scored by the respondent on a scale of one to five with one representing high quality and five representing low quality. In addition, a respondent could give an answer of 8 indicating that the salesperson did not exhibit that behavior so that the buyer could evaluate it. The first four variables were used to test the linkage of questioning and listening (getting information) behaviors to salesperson trust. The last item was used to test the linkage of doing good demonstrations (giving information) to product trust.

The sales effectiveness variable was obtained as a function of our data collection procedure where we collected responses on whether the salesperson got the order or not. Half of the sample received a questionnaire asking them to evaluate a salesperson who got the order in a recent buying situation, while the other half were asked to evaluate a salesperson who did not.

Data Collection The National Association of Purchasing Manage-

ment supplied a listing of 5000 members from all

50 states and Puerto Rico. From this list, 2324 names were randomly selected and mailed a final questionnaire. Given the study's budget, a single wave mailing with no pre-notification or second reminder was used. Of the total mailings, only 9 were undeliv- erable, making the list 99.6% deliverable. Of those 2315 actual deliveries, a total of 568 completed us- able questionnaires were received for a response rate of 24.5%. In order to explore possible nonresponse bias, a comparison was made of early (first quartile) and late (last quartile) respondents in terms of their demographic profile and on responses to the trust items. The resulting chi-square and ANOVA tests showed no significant differences, which suggests a lack of nonresponse bias. Two questionnaires were developed. Both were

identical with respect to the questions asked, the only difference being that one questionnaire asked the buyer to evaluate a salesperson from a recent negotiation that got the business. The other questionnaire asked the buyer to rate a salesperson who did not get the business. An equal number of both types were sent out by randomly dividing the sample into the two types of questionnaires. Out of the 568 questionnaires returned, 291 (51.2%) were responses about successful salespeople and 277 (48.8%) were responses about unsuccessful salespeople.1

Demographics The sample included 66.5% male and 33.5% fe-

male respondents. Manufacturing (56.3%) domi- nated the industries represented in the sample. In terms of company size, 76% of the firms represented had more than 100 employees. Respondents had an average of ten years of purchasing experience. Demographics of the sample were compared to published NAPM demographics for gender and work experience.2 A test of proportions on gender indicated a slightly higher female response while a t-test on experience indicated no statistically significant differences. We also tested to determine if the raters of unsuccessful salespeople were different from the raters of successful salespeople on any of the eight demographic type questions we asked. Company size and years of experience were open- ended questions from which a mean response could be determined. Average number of salespeople seen, time spent reading professional material, and de- partment size were categorical, but had 5 or 6 categories and thus a mean category response could be calculated. In each of the above cases an ANOVA was used to determine if the means were different.



Summer 1999 βδ

The F probabilities ranged from .069 for time spent reading professional material to .670 for average number of salespeople seen. In all cases these were above .05 and thus were not different. A test of equal variances was also undertaken and in all cases the variances were statistically equivalent. The other three variables gender, certification sta- tus, and SIC industry classification were subjected to chi-square tests to determine if the categorical response patterns differed between the two groups. They did not. Thus, it appears that there is no significant bias caused by differences in demographic type variables across the raters of unsuccessful versus successful salespeople.

Testing of the Scale Testing of the scale was accomplished in several

stages starting with an exploratory analysis. This was followed by a confirmatory analysis using LISREL 8 and other analyses which support the validity of the scale. Exploratory Analysis. We began with an explor-

atory factor analysis3 and an examination of coefficient alpha for proposed subscales. A scree test indicated that a three-factor solution was appropriate. Table 1 provides the initial factor solution. If the scale had factored as expected, items ΤΙ, Τ4, T7, T10, and T14 would have formed one subscale, items T2, T5, T8, T12, and T15 the second subscale, and items T3, T6, T9, Til, and T13 the third. While T14 loaded, it is weak, as are Til and T9. Items T2 and T7 did not load cleanly. In general, however, this initial analysis supports our contention that there are three underlying components of trust: salesperson, product, and company trust. In addition, coefficient alphas were examined for each subscale. This examination suggested that only items T2, T7, Til, and T14 might be problematic. Next, Lisrel 8 was used to examine the standard-

ized residuals. Each subscale originally contained standardized residuals greater than 2. On this ba- sis, it was determined which items should be dropped in order to assure that all standardized residuals were below 2. Consistent with the findings of the exploratory factor analysis dropping items T2, T9, and T14 provided a satisfactory solution. Next, AVE's for each scale were computed. Because the average variance extracted (AVEs) of product trust and salesperson trust were below .5, T5 and T10 were eliminated. Additional AVE results will be discussed in the validity section that follows. Chronbach's alphas were computed for the

revised scales. The standardized alpha for company trust was .726, for product trust was .767, and for salesperson trust was .874. Coefficient alphas are reported rather than LV reliabilities since they are practically equivalent (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Confirmatory Analysis. Next, confirmatory factor

analysis using Lisrel 8 was undertaken to determine whether or not the three-factor model fit the data. A one-factor model, the null model, was run. The initial run provided a chi-square of 417.18 with 44 degrees of freedom (p=. 00), thus indicating the model did not fit. A goodness of fit index of .85, and adjusted goodness of fit index of .76 and a Compara- tive fit index of .86 also attested to the poor fit of the null model. Finally, the RMSEA of .15 also supports this conclusion. Figure 2 shows the results of the proposed three-

factor model. As can be seen, the model is not significant (χ2=86.95, ρ=.000), not surprising due to the large sample size.4 However, the goodness of fit (.97), the adjusted goodness of fit (.95) and compara- tive fit (.98) indices are high, and the root mean square error of approximation (.058) is low. Overall, these results indicate that a three-factor model is viable and that the data fit the proposed structure. In addition, because we propose that trust is a

multi-dimensional construct, a second order model was run with trust as a latent variable indicated by the three subscales of trust. Results of this model are presented in Figure 3 and parallel the results of the first order model. The average variance extracted (AVE) was .74, well above the .5 and Phi-squared criteria.

Validity Issues First, in looking at the items retained, face valid-

ity appears clear. Second, discriminant validity across the three subscales was tested using three separate tests. Using the average variance extracted (AVE) procedure, the salesperson trust and product trust, as well as company trust and product trust differ from each other at an acceptable level. For each of these two pairs of dimensions, the average variance extracted exceeds .5 and the squared structure link between the dimensions([with SPTR/ PRTR's AVE=.59 [phi-squared=.18] and COTR/ PRTR's AVE=.66 [phi-squared=.23]). While the AVE of salesperson and company trust

(AVE=.6O) exceeds .5, it is not greater than the phi- squared (.71). Therefore, the phi was constrained to one for this combination. The constrained model chi-square (χ2=82.77, ρ=.000) was subtracted from the unconstrained model chi-square (χ*=19.75,



ββ Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analytic Results: Maximum Likelihood with Oblique Rotation

Item if Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality Loading Loading Loading

COTRUST PRTRUST SPTRUST

T1 .30 -.00 .58 .66 T2 -.10 .27 .31 .17 T3 .83 .03 .01 .73 T4 .21 -.00 .69 .72 T5 .12 .50 .08 .39 T6 .94 .01 -.02 .84 T7 .00 .14 .10 .04 T8 .09 .60 -.03 .41 T9 .47 .07 .26 .51 T10 .04 .02 .61 .41 T11 .37 .12 .17 .34 T12 .06 .76 -.00 .63 T13 .62 .09 .16 .64 T14 .29 .06 .40 .45 T15 -.01 .81 .04 .67

Interfactor Correlations Squared Canonical Correlations F1 & F2 = .562 Factor 1 = .949 F1 & F3 = .683 Factor 2 = .731 F2 & F3 = .403 Factor 3 = .562

p=.011). The difference (63.02) with 1 df was significant, providing some support of discriminant validity (p<.01). Finally, a correlation matrix of all constructs is shown in Table 2. Although some measure of discriminant validity between COTR and SPTR is demonstrated, it should be noted that these two constructs appear to be psychometrically close. Each of the three dimensions of trust should be

related to the success of the salesperson. To test this we used four separate regression procedures with successful or unsuccessful as the independent variable and each of the three dimensions (calculated by weighting the indicators by their loadings and summing them) in turn as the dependent variable. Results were significant and are shown in Table 3. All three subscales and the overall scale of trust were related to the success of salespeople, with the successful people being perceived as more trustworthy than those salespeople who were unsuccessful. Two specific behaviors that are likely to be linked

to trust as part of the "getting information" are the

questioning and listening behaviors on the part of the salesperson. Both questioning and listening have not been studied extensively in sales contexts but are thought to be very important contributors to sales performance (e.g., Castleberry and Shepherd 1993; Ramsey and Sohi 1997 ). Following that reasoning, a regression was done of the effect of selected single item questions that dealt with listening and questioning on salesperson trust. Product demonstration behaviors are also proposed to be related to product trust. It would be expected that higher quality questioning and listening would re- sult in higher salesperson trust and higher quality demonstrations to product trust. Table 4 presents the results of that analysis. As the findings indicate, quality questioning and

listening behaviors have a significant impact on salesperson trust. In addition, product demonstration was proposed to be related to product trust and this relationship is also significant. No behaviors specifically related to company trust were collected



Summer 1999 67

Figure 2 LISREL VIII - Full First Order Model

Sj- .69-> T8 *4- / PRTR '

ε5=.οι->τ4 < - " - - - - ^ -^f sptrA / I

E6=1.16->T7-4 "

'^/'y ^-^ ' ' / A6=79 ^-^ ' ' /

1 Φ23=·83 /

ε9=54->Τ11 -4 ^Z^^^^ '^'y

Slo=.42->T13 + ΤΤ^Γ

Variances of the is: PRTR=.61; SPTR=1.12; COTR=.88

and this represents a deficiency in the convergent validity for that dimension.

Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this paper was to report on the

development of a trust scale specifically for use in sales effectiveness research. The scale was different than other scales in that it was specific to the context and it was a multiple factor scale incorporating multiple objects of trust (salesperson, company and product/service). The scale factored as expected, demonstrated internal consistency, and was significantly related to sales effectiveness. It was highly correlated with antecedent behaviors such as listening and questioning on the part of the salesperson. As such, the scale appears to be a robust, internally reliable, and nomologically valid measure.

Of course, as with any exploratory study, the usual caveats and limitations apply. The findings are based on only one sample. It is always possible that the sample may not be representative of the popu- lation of industrial buyers at large. As is the case with all survey research, the research design relied on the memory of the respondents and therefore is subject to possible recall issues. In addition, the nomological net tested was incomplete. Most significantly, there were no behaviors that could be linked to the company trust measure. In addition, other relationships, including possible moderators, were not tested. Two additional limitations are worth noting. As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of shared variance between COTR and SPTR. This is a theoretically interesting finding and represents an opportunity for additional investigation. Also, criterion validity was not assessed in this




Figure 3

USREL VIII - Full Second Order Model

Si=.69-> T8 ̂ f - '

Λι= 82

^f PRTR Λ ε2=.35->Τ12^

" ~^--

' V ηι /V Ν.

Λ2=1.00^ - * Vjl^X Ν.

ε3=.32->Τΐ5*-£Τ^ t Γι1=10^'.

ε6=1.16->Τ7^7ς " '

'Vy ' ΓΜ-1.74 /'} J

ετ=.28-> T3 ̂ ^^^^ yS

ε8=.26->Τ6^- " _^" " ^ - ■ - _^^ /* X y/

Λ,-1.00 " " ' _^^

-=^=^^/ *"~ C0TR Vr31=1.9l

ε9=.54->Τΐ 1 + ~^~ - - - *"~ 'J'y

ειο=.42->Τ13-4^- - * |

Λιο=·89 ζ3=..Ο3

Variance of ξ! =.25

study. How this multidimensional measure corresponds with other measures of trust represents an area for further investigation. Further validity testing is recom- mended for future studies involving this scale. Despite these limitations, the results would ap-

pear to suggest the three-factor model offers a valu- able and useful method for measuring trust. The findings with regards to the validity of the measure were interesting in their own right. Trust was highly related to success at least as measured by simple analysis using ANOVA. It appears that company trust may be the most related while product/service trust may be less related. By providing a situation-specific multi-dimen-

sional measure of trust, many interesting questions about the role of trust in face-to-face selling may be explored in the future. For example, is the relationship between trust and performance moderated by

other factors such as purchase situation or is company trust always linked to performance? Are there times when salesperson trust or product trust may be more important? We also believe that it will be important to explore issues associated with the relationships between the dimensions. For instance, does salesperson trust carry over to trusting the company or the product? Finally, is there a typical sequence in which the three dimensions are developed, or is a particular sequence more effective? Each of these questions offers interesting avenues for future research. Managers may find the scales helpful as well.

Knowledge of which dimensions, salesperson, company, or product, are strongest or weakest can help in determining where they should put their empha- sis in positioning or in training decisions. In addition, relating specific behaviors to dimensions or



Summer 1999 69

Table 2 Correlations of Study Variables

123456789 1 . Probing questions 2. Assess needs .045* 3. Listened to me .293 .216 4. Listened carefully .544 .078* .405 5. Demonstrations .399 .141 .621 .540 6. COTR -.242 -.158 -.425 -.351 -.422 7. PRTR -.231 -.237 -.246 -.214 -.216 .580 8. SPTR -.293 -.210 -.548 -.386 -.545 .691 .449 9. Effectiveness -.205 .053* -.343 -.310 -.347 .588 .414 .558 10. TRUST -.314 -.215 -.508 -.424 -.512 .916 .694 .895 .631

'Not significant; all other variables significant (p < .01)

Table 3 Analysis of Variance-Trust Scales by Success of Salesperson

Mean Mean

Variable Success Unsuccess F-Test Ρ -Value R Square

Total Trust 23.02 34.25 320.16 0.000 .397

SP Trust 7.77 11.78 225.19 0.000 .310

CO Trust 6.20 10.27 264.87 0.000 .345

PR Trust 9.05 12.20 103.44 0.000 .170

Note: based on scoring direction, high trust is characterized by lower scores.

Table 4 Linear Regression of Listening and Questioning Behaviors on Trust

Independent Dependent Adjusted Variable Variable Coefficient SE df F R2

1 . This salesperson asked probing questions. SPTR -.687 .100 498 46.82* .084

2. This salesperson used questioning to assess my needs. SPTR -1 .013 .108 498 87.29* .147

3. This salesperson listened to me. SPTR -1.407 .097 498 210.30* .295

4. This salesperson listened very carefully. SPTR -1.346 .092 498 213.70* .299

5. This salesperson performed product/service demonstrations. PRTR -.335 .061 499 29.78* .054

'Significant (p < .01)




skills that assist in the development of trust can be accented in training salespeople. Certainly as new developments in this area continue, managers will be able to use the scales in further assessing their sales force's strengths and weaknesses.

References Butler, J. K. (1991), "Toward Understanding and Measuring

Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory," Journal of Management, 17 (3), 643-663.

Castleberry, Stephen B. and David C. Shepherd (1993), "Effective Interpersonal Listening and Personal Selling," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13 (1), 35-49.

Dion, Paul A. and Peter M. Banting (1995), M Buyer Reactions to Product Stockoute in Business-to-Business Markets," In- dustrial Marketing Management, 24 (August), 341-350.

Drieooll, J.W. (1978), "Trust and Participation in Organizational Decision Making as Predictors of Satisfaction," Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44-56.

Dwyer, F. and R. Lagace (1986), "On the Nature and Role of Buyer-Seller Trust," in ΑΜΑ Educators' Conference Pro- ceedings, (T. Shimp and S. Sharma, eds.), Chicago, Ameri- can Marketing Association, 40-45.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimen- sionality and Its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Re- search, 25 (2), 186-192.

Hawes, Jon (1994), "To Know Me is to Trust Me," Industrial Marketing Management, 23 (August), 215-19.

, Kenneth E. Mast, and John E. Swan (1989), Trust Earning Perceptions of Sellers and Buyers," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 9 (1), 1-8.

Hayes, H. Michael and Steven W. Hartley (1989), "How Buyers View Industrial Salespeople," Industrial Marketing Man- agement, 18 (1), 73-80.

Lagace, Rosemary R. (1991), "An Exploratory Study of Reciprocal Trust Between Sales Managers and Salespersons," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11 (Spring), 49-58.

Lamb, Charles W. and Donald W. Stem Jr. (1980), "An Evalua- tion of Students as Surrogates in Marketing Studies," J. Olsen, ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol VII, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 796-799.

Moore, James R., Donald W. Eckrich, and Lorry T. Carlson (1986), "A Hierarchy of Industrial Selling Competencies," Journal of Marketing Education, 8 (Spring), 79-88.

Plank, Richard E. and David A. Reid (1994), 'The Mediating Role of Sales Behaviors: An Alternative Perspective of Sales Performance and Effectiveness," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14 (Summer), 43-56.

Ramsey, Rosemary P. and Ravipreet S. Sohi (1997), "Listening to Your Customers: The Impact of Perceived Salesperson Listening Behavior on Relationship Outcomes," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 25 (2). 127-137.

Rotter, J.B. (1967), "A New Scale for the Measurement of Inter- personal Trust," Journal of Personality, 35, 651-65.

Schurr, P.H. and J.L. Ozanne (1985), "Influence on Exchange Processes: Buyers' Preconceptions of a Seller's Trustwor- thiness and Bargaining Toughness," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March), 39-53.

Swan, John E. and Johannah Jones Nolan (1985), "Gaining Cus- tomer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for the Salesperson, Vourna/ of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 5 (2), 39-48.

and I. Fred Trawick (1987), "Building Customer Trust in the Industrial Salesperson: Process and Outcomes," in A. G. Woodside, ed., Advances in Business Marketing, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 81-113.

, I. Fred Trawick, David R. Rink, and Jenny J. Roberts (1988), "Measuring Dimensions of Purchaser Trust of Industrial Salespeople," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8 (May), 1-9.

Endnotes 1Review of the data revealed some bad responses. Probably

because of the length of the total questionnaire, some individuals appeared to have responded with a string of the same or similar responses without fully attending to the items. This was revealed when reverse scored items were answered in the same direction as other items. Therefore, a rule was determined for the elimination of these responses. If a reverse scored item was not at least 2 responses different from any other responses, excluding the midpoint (3), on the same subscale, then the respondent's data was eliminated. Two graduate assistants reviewed all 568 respondents' data, individually applying the rule. Their coding shared agreement on 97% of the responses. Differences were resolved by one of the researchers. This coding resulted in the elimination of 50 respondents, or about 9% of the total data, resulting in a final set of 518 respondents.

2Comparing the respondents on demographic variables to the published information on NAPM membership (Dion and Banting 1995) shows that this sample has slightly more experience (13.8 years versus 12.6 years) and has a slightly higher female content (33.5% versus 29%). These differences are, however, minimal and the sample appears to be a reasonable representation of the NAPM membership from where the sample was drawn from.

^he initial factor analytic method was maximum likelihood with an oblique (promax) rotation. Maximum likelihood was used since the scale was new and as such had not been previously tested. An oblique rotation was used as the subfactors were expected to be correlated and thus the oblique rotation was theoretically more acceptable.

4Results were rerun with n=200 to test the chi-square for the null model (χ2=160.58, ρ=.00), the chi-square was still not significant. However, for the three factor model (χ2=33.47, ρ=.4Ο), the chi-square was now significant.



Summer 1999 71

Appendix Measures of Trust

T1 This salesperson did everything possible for our company (SPTR)

T2 The product/service will not meet our needs without question (PRTR)

T3 The company this salesperson works for will stand behind us (COTR)

T4 This salesperson will always use good judgment (SPTR)

T5 This product/service has the technical attributes necessary to do the job (PRTR)

T6 The company can be counted upon to do right with us (COTR)

T7 The salesperson is not a real expert (SPTR)

T8 The product/service will give us little trouble in use (PRTR)

T9 This salesperson's company has quality people working for them (COTR)

T10 The salesperson is like a good friend (SPTR)

T1 1 The salesperson's company has a poor reputation (COTR)

T12 The product/service will please all those in our company who use it or are responsible for it (PRTR)

T13 The company will do what it takes to make us happy (COTR)

T14 When the salesperson tells me something it must be false (SPTR)

T15 This product/service will do everything we want it to do (PRTR)

SPTR=Trust of salesperson COTR=Trust of company PRTR=Trust of product/service The identification of these subscales did not appear in the actual questionnaire. Italicised statements are reverse scored. Note: Questions T2, T5, T9, T10, and T14 are not indicators in the final validated scale.



Perceived Trust in Business-To-Business Sales

Documents

journalofpersonal selling

ofpersonalsellingand sales management

understood bythebuyer

sales management

exploratory study

personal selling

business sales

order model