Show simple item record

dc.contributor.convenorProfessor Gus Geursen
dc.contributor.authorHerington, Carmel
dc.contributor.editorDr Rachel Kennedy
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-03T04:48:10Z
dc.date.available2018-04-03T04:48:10Z
dc.date.issued2003
dc.date.modified2007-03-10T05:34:55Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/1955
dc.description.abstractTrust is a concept which has received extensive attention in the marketing literature (for example, Doney & Cannon 1997; Ganesan 1994; Ganesan & Hess 1997; Moorman, Deshpandé & Zaltman 1993; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Shemwell & Cronin 1995). Trust has received particular attention as a key concept in relationship marketing (for example, Morgan & Hunt 1994). Two competing models have generally been utilised to represent the trust concept. Whilst trust has frequently been measured using a unidimensional model (for example Doney & Cannon 1997; Dwyer, Schurr & Oh 1987; Larzelere & Huston 1980; Morgan & Hunt 1994, more recently attention has been given to using a two-dimensional approach to modelling the concept (for example Bowen & Shoemaker 1998; Ganesan 1994; Ganesan & Hess 1997; Kumar,Scheer & Steenkamp 1995). Two dimensions, representing benevolence and credibility (or honesty) are the most usually identified separate dimensions of trust. Hence, the decision as to how best to measure trust in marketing related research is confusing, given the equally successful approaches to modelling the concept reported in the literature. Despite this confusion, trust continues to play an important part in marketing research. Having been identified as a key variable in assessment of relationship marketing models (for example Morgan and Hunt 1994), trust is consistently being utilised in increasingly complex relationship marketing models. Therefore, it is important to find some consensus as to how best to measure trust in relationship marketing, especially as the models develop and grow. In addition, treatment of trust as multi-dimensional adds to the complexity of the model building and assessment. Such complexity may be unnecessary, if a two-dimensional model does not provide a substantially better fit than a unidimensional model. Hence, this paper focuses on examining the dimensionality of trust by examining two different measures of trust. The paper also assess empirically Doney and Cannon’s (1997) assertion that trust is better treated as a unidimensional construct.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherANZMAC
dc.publisher.placeAdelaide
dc.publisher.urihttps://anzmac.wildapricot.org
dc.relation.ispartofbookorjournalCelebration of ehrenberg and bass: Marketing discoveries knowledge and contribution: Proceedings
dc.relation.ispartofconferencenameANZMAC 2003
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleCelebration of ehrenberg and bass: Marketing discoveries knowledge and contribution: Proceedings
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2003-12-01
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2003-12-03
dc.relation.ispartoflocationAdelaide
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350204
dc.titleTrust: one dimension or two?
dc.typeConference output
dc.type.descriptionE1 - Conferences
dc.type.codeE - Conference Publications
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, Department of Marketing
gro.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2003. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this conference please refer to the conference’s website or contact the author(s).
gro.date.issued2003
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorHerington, Carmel A.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record