Alexander Blandina & Ellen Cohn Department of Psychology Changes in consumer trust due to consumer-brand relationships and perceptions of justice Research Question Results Discussion Between 65 to 85% of satisfied consumers defect a brand’s competitor even though reporting positive interactions with the brand (Reichheld, 1996). To explain this behavior, both consumer-brand relationships and perceptions of justice separately examine changes in consumer trust. Unfortunately, no researcher has studied the simultaneous effects of both factors. Could they interact to affect consumer trust? Table 1. Means and standard errors for the comparison between perceptions of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice within Study 1   Fair (PJ) Unfair (PJ) Main Effect Fair (DJ) 5.13 (.14) 4.40 (.11) 4.84 (.09)a Unfair (DJ) 4.54 (.11) 2.95 (.12) 3.67 (.08)b 4.76 (.09)a 3.74 (.08)b Study 1 In support of previous research, perceptions of justice produced significant differences in consumer trust High DJ and PJ caused a significant increase trust No effect found due to CBR Perceptions of distributive justice interacted with CBRs to affect consumer trust Within an exchange relationship, low DJ significantly lowered consumer trust compared to those who experienced low DJ within a communal relationship High DJ did not produce a significant difference between CBRs Study 2 Although not significant, interaction effect from first study was directionally replicated Lack of significance could be due to small sample and small effect size Participants considered Exchange and Communal CBRs as similarly positive May account for small effect found within first study Positive CBRs significantly increased consumer trust compared to negative CBRs Effect was removed when controlling for perceptions of justice Within negative CBRs, high perceptions of DJ predicted an increase in consumer trust while higher perceptions of PJ only had a marginal influence Within positive CBRs, both high perceptions of DJ and PJ significantly predicted increased consumer trust Implications First evidence of CBRs and perceptions of justice affecting consumer trust towards a brand and their actions Type of CBR interacts with different forms of justice perceptions to influence the way consumers think about brands Positive CBR brands could be inadvertently providing low DJ or PJ causing consumers to defect towards competitors To increase trust, branded firms must be aware of both the consumer expectations of their relationship and their perceptions of justice Future Directions Separate procedural and interactional justice Respectful treatment may be more pertinent than the application of fair procedures Utilize consistent trust scales to increase generalizability of results Unclear high DJ and PJ may directly affect consumer trust within CBR types Experimentally manipulate high and low perceptions of justice within negative and positive CBRs Perceptions of justice could influence future CBR norms and expectations Examine number of instances high or low instances of justice is needed to change a consumer’s CBR with brand Background a, b significant main effects of DJ & PJ All markers significant at p ≤ .05 Consumer Trust The belief that brand is reliable and capable of fulfilling promises A dynamic process that leads to both positive and negative outcomes (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002) Distributive Justice (DJ) Obtaining a fair outcome (e.g., receiving a refund for a defective product) Produces increased consumer loyalty, trust, satisfaction, and reduced negative word of mouth (Adams, 1965; Huppertz, Arenson, & Evans, 1978; Oliver & Swan, 1989; Tax et al., 1998) Procedural Justice (PJ) Receiving fair treatment within an interaction (e.g., consumer service provides respect and attentively listens to consumer complaints) Produces increased trust, commitment, and loyalty towards the brand (Sparks & McColl-Kennedy, 2001; Tyler, & Blader, 2003) Consumer Brand Relationships (CBRs) Forming a relationship with consumers increases consumer trust (Avery, Fournier, & Wittenbraker, 2014) Violation of relationship type leads to consumers holding a grudge against a business indefinitely (Gregoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009) Exchange - Consumer pays money for a service and trusts a business to perform it with quality (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) Communal - Individuals and businesses work towards helping one another without expectations of reciprocation (Aggarwal, 2004) Abusive - Consumers feel the brand does not seem to value them as a customer; no matter what is done to change or ignore the situation, the wrongful treatment continues (Miller, Fournier, & Allen, 2012) R2 = .39, F(1,264) = 4.62, p < .05, ƞ2 = .02 R2 = .22, F(1,43) = .55, p > .05 Method Study 1 272 participants: 68.6% Female, 89.7% Caucasian, Average age 19.23 (SD = 1.07), Mainly freshman (50.2%) & sophomores (32.5%) Procedure Participants read a vignette which manipulated DJ, PJ, and CBR Dependent Measure Consumer Trust M = 4.18 (1.23), α = .94 14 Items (7 point-likert scale) “Overall, the seller is not trustworthy” (r) “The seller was fair in its conduct throughout the transaction” Study 2 198 participants: 73.7% Female, 93% Caucasian, Average age 18.89 (SD = 1.27), Mainly freshman (45.3%) & sophomores (35.9%) Participants matched a brand from their personal experience with a description of one of eight different CBRs Consumer Trust M = 3.21 (1.58), α = .92 4 Items (7 point-likert scale) “I can count on the brand to do what is best for me.” References * Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity In social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2. Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101. Avery, J., Fournier, S., & Wittenbraker, J. (2014). Unlock the mysteries of your customer relationships. Harvard Business Review, 92(7), 8. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87. Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: the effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18-32 Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H. (1978). An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 250–260. http://doi.org/10.2307/3151255. Miller, F. M., Fournier, S., & Allen, C. T. (2012). Exploring relationship analogues in the brand space. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & M. Fetscherin (Eds.), Consumer-brand relationships: Theory and practice (pp. 30–56). New York, NY: Routledge. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58: 20-38. Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. (1989). Consumer percepcions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A field Survey Approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 21–35. http://doi.org/10.2307/1251411. Reichheld, F. F. (1996). Learning from customer defections. Harvard Business Review, 74, 56–67. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust , value , and loyalty in relational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15–37. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449. Sparks, B. A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2001). Justice strategy options for increased customer satisfaction in a services recovery setting. Journal of Business Research, 54(3), 209–218. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00120-X. Tax, S. S., Brown, S. S., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07. * * * ~ R2 = .35, F(2,91) = 24.31, p < .05 R2 = .18, F(2,101) = 10.81, p < .05 For more information: ab11@wildcats. unh.edu