Explaining buyers' responses to sellers' violation of trust

Abstract

PurposeThis study seeks to explain a buyer's response to a seller's violation of trust. Four negative responses (decline in trust, negative emotions, negative word‐of‐mouth (WOM) and reduction in repurchase intentions) and four explanatory variables (magnitude of violation, integrity versus capability‐based cause of failure, perceived likelihood of repeated violations and stage of trust prior to the violation) were identified. The study develops and tests hypotheses regarding the possible influence of the explanatory variables on each of the four negative responses.Design/methodology/approachAn experiment was conducted in which business professionals were given one of 16 scenarios, varied by levels of the four explanatory variables, describing a violation of trust in a business‐to‐business service situation. Respondents were asked questions regarding their probable response. Four‐way ANCOVA was used to analyze the results.FindingsThe study finds that stage of trust and perceived likelihood of repeated violation had significant main effects on decline in trust, negative WOM and repurchase intentions. Integrity‐based attribution influenced decline in trust, but magnitude of violation had no main effects. Three significant interactions were found.Research limitations/implicationsFindings show the importance of first impressions and reputation. Care should be taken to assure customers that violations will not be repeated. A major limitation was that scenarios cannot induce the same intensity of thought and emotion that real situations do.Originality/valueDespite extensive literature in service failure and recovery, this is perhaps the first study to rigorously examine and seek to explain a buyer's response to a seller's violation of trust.