THE MEASUREMENT OF TRUST IN MARKETING STUDIES: A REVIEW OF MODELS AND METHODOLOGIES Maria Antonietta Raimondo227 ISTEI, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo, 1 - 20126 Milano, Italy Ph. ++39-02-64486641 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Marketing literature has repeatedly shown that trust between firms, and between firms and consumers, is a crucial factor in the move from discrete market transactions to continuous exchange relationships. Although there is a general agreement about the fundamental role of trust in the management of market relationships, there is as yet no complete agreement about its definition, nor about its measurement. This paper presents a review of marketing literaure on trust. The aim is to emphasize some problems still open in defining the meaning of the trust concept and in identifing its origins and effects in market relations; and to illustrate the main approaches and methodologies that have been used in the measurement of the concept itself. Results indicate a great variety of definitions and measurements in the different contexts studied and, as a consequence, a lack of completely satisfying and widely agreed models and methods of operazionalization, suitable for evaluate the role of trust in market relationships and its process of generation and growth over time. 1. Introduction The evolution of the competition forces firms to cope with an increasing difficulty in the management of technological options and market relations. Technologies are in continuous, incessant, development; market relations are frequently threatened by new or more aggressive competitors. In this situation, the behaviour of entrepreneurs and managers is turned in search of new models to manage market relations, suitable for operating with success in front of continuous change and a high level of uncertainty228. Most firms have reacted to this dynamics by trying to develop long-term cooperative relationships with other firms (Valdani 1997; Lanza 1998) and, above all, with the clients, final and intermediate (Busacca 1994; Castaldo 1994; Costabile 1999). Such relationships are 227 Maria Antonietta Raimondo is doctoral student in Strategy, Management and Quantitative Methods at University of Milan-Bicocca and research assistant at University of Calabria (Campus of Arcavacata). The author wishes to thank professors Sandro Castaldo, Michele Costabile, Gian Luca Marzocchi and Gabriele Troilo for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article; nevertheless, she must be considered personally responsible for stated contents. 228 Such uncertainty is mostly caused by the increasing variety and great variability of technological options, and these impact on the value propositions offered to the market, influencing at the same time the stability of demand preferences and the competitive positioning of the firm (Vicari 1991; Rullani 1992; Busacca 1994; Valdani 1995). based on mutual trust, and are intended to control the variety, the variability and, as a consequence, the indetermination of the development’s trajectories that markets are taking (Vicari 1991; Rullani 1992; Busacca 1997). Trust established between firms, and between firms and consumers, is one of the fundamental resources that firms can make use of in order to control complexity229. The continuous growth of trust makes it possible, according to several authors, to pursue the objective of the firm’s value generation and diffusion (Guatri 1991; Vicari 1991; Guatri and Massari 1992; Busacca 1994; Costabile 1996b and 1998; Vicari, Busacca and Bertoli 1999). Although there is general agreement about the fundamental role of trust in the management of market relations, there is as yet no complete agreement about its definition, nor about the conditions that determine its development. Measurement of the construct of “trust” by means of processes and methodologies that satisfy the basic requirements of validity and reliability is more problematic still (Churchill 1979; Bayle 1995). As a first approach, trust, whether in someone or something, can be defined as an attitude, characterised by the belief in the counterparty’s reliability, for example supplier or client. More specifically, according to some authors, this is the belief (Castaldo 1995) that the behaviour of the counterparty is predictable in terms of its direction and intensity, which means that future actions of the counterparty will conform to obligations assumed, implicity or explicity. In general, this perception of reliability comes from experience, and more particularly from a sequence of satisfactory interactions, that is a series of evaluative processes from which a systematic confirmation of expectations emerges (Costabile 1996a). Although the concept of trust is now used in many disciplines (Rousseau et al. 1998), it was originally the object prevalent of study in social psychology and sociology (Rotter 1967; Mutti 1987 and 1998; Gambetta 1989; Roninger 1988 and 1992). Within these disciplines, as it results evident in the review of studies about this topic performed by Castaldo (1995), trust appears to be defined by two constitutive components: the first one is predictability of the behaviour of the subject – or organization – in whom trust is placed, which comes from learning process based on experience; the second one is the certainty that the person concerned could not behave opportunistically and that his actions would be aimed to achieve joint benefits. Interest in trust in marketing studies arose, instead, in the second half of the 1980’s, but researches about this topic are become frequent only in 1990’s, generating a copious literature and a broad debate (Swan, Trawick and Silva 1985; Shurr and Ozanne 1985; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Anderson and Weitz 1987; Anderson and Narus 1990; Andaleeb 1992; Busacca 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Castaldo 1995; Smith and Barclay 1997; Doney and Cannon 1997; Guibert 1998). This was coupled with the development of relationship marketing and refered especially to the context of business to business markets. The trust concept has been the object of particular attention in research about markets relations in which two specific parties are involved: one which gives trust (trustor) and one to which trust is given (trustee) These relationships can take place at different levels: between individuals, between firms, or between firms and individuals (Baccarani 1995); there has 229 Trust is a business resource in a broad sense, as it concerns both relationships with suppliers and partners (towards whom a principle of reciprocity is generally in use) and relationships with customers. With reference to the latters, trust is a business resource, but it resides in the cognitive system of the customers (Vicari 1991; Busacca 1994; Castaldo 1995). been no lack of efforts to differentiate trust towards the individuals from that towards the organizations (Doney and Cannon 1997; Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone 1998), but most of these studies do not hypothesise any distinction on this point. Besides, they assume that there is a symmetry in the trust relationships. Trust is perceived, then, as a dyadic phenomenon that is characterised by reciprocity, even if this symmetry is not always confirmed (Ganesan 1994). Marketing literature has been much inspired by social-psychological works and, like them, has not developed any models for trust management, nor any agreed definition about how to operazionalize and measure the concept. The huge quantity of research work on trust offers, in fact, a great variety of definitions and measurements from the different contexts that have been studied, although it is this heterogeneity of methods and contexts that, probably, inhibits the consistent development of agreed models about components of trust and its role in exchange processes. In the light of these considerations, this paper offers a review of the marketing literature on trust with the objective of illustrating the main approaches that have been used in the measurement of the concept itself, showing the methodologies and techniques of measurement that seem to offer the best reliability from the viewpoint of the evaluation and control of intangible assets of firm. In order to achieve this objective, some problems still open in defining the meaning of the concept and in identifing its origins and effects in market relations will first be dealt. A review of the principal methods of measurement that have been proposed in marketing literature as a way of operazionalizing the construct of trust will then be presented; this will show the limits and advantages of the methods concerned. Finally, some guidelines for future research on the subject will be identified. 2. Trust in marketing studies: origins, effects, open problems Marketing literature has repeatedly shown that trust is a crucial factor in the shift from discrete market transactions to continuous exchange relationships (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987). Trust has thus a central role in the development of relationship marketing, which refers to all activities intended to establishing, developing and maintaining exchange relationships with clients (Morgan and Hunt 1994). The most significant contributions to the conceptualization and measurement of the trust construct can be found, in particular, in studies of inter-organizational relationships, and therefore in the area of business to busines marketing (Ferrero 1992; Castaldo 1995; Blois 1999). The fields of business to business marketing that have particularly encouraged the research on trust are sales management (in the industry and service sector) and channel management, where the attempt is to understand how trust develops between seller (of supplier firm) and buyer (of buying firm or distributor). Some recent studies have also considered the trust concept in the area of consumer marketing, that is in the relationships between firms and final consumers. This is particularly the case of studies aimed to analize the constructs involved in the customer buying behavior, such as satisfaction, brand image and customer loyalty (Valdani and Busacca 1992; Busacca 1994; Vicari 1995; Berry 1995; Gruen 1995; Gurviez 1995; Busacca and Castaldo 1996; Fletcher and Peters 1997; Costabile 1999). On the grounds of exhaustive review done by Castaldo (1995), it is possible to affirm that the conceptualization of trust concept in the marketing literature has been at the beginning unidimensional. In particular, the meaning recognized to trust by some authors, both in the area of sales management (Swan and Nolan 1985; Swan, Trawick and Silva 1985; Hawkes, Strong and Winick 1996) and in the area of channel management (Schurr and Ozanne 1985; Dwyer and Oh 1987; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987), reflects the first of the elements proposed in social psychology, that is to say it refers to expectations of the counterparty’s behaviour and, more specifically, to the certainty that the counterparty will keep his promises (Rotter 1967). Trust has thus been defined only with reference to the dimension of “reliability”, considered as probability, more o less high, that the expections of performance – tipically from a firm – are followed by actual performance lined up with the expectations. Subsequently, other definitions of trust, as those provided by Anderson e Weitz (1989) and Anderson e Narus (1990) in the studies on distribution channels and by Crosby, Evans and Cowles (1990) in the study of the relationships between salespeople and consumers in the services sector, have emphasized some new dimensions (Castaldo 1995). The conceptualization of the construct and its dimensions is certainly one the most controversial issues in the studies about the topic. Indeed, most of authors have offered a conceptualization of the trust in terms of multidimensionality, but there is not agreement about number and nature of these dimensions. According to some authors, for example, trust would depend on the perception that there is not opportunism from the counterparty, which would be, in its turn, reinforced by the certainty that a behaviour is intented to achieve a joint objective (goal congruence). This is the view, even if there are some other changes, of Andaleeb (1992) who, refering to channel relationships, has affirmed that trust is influenced by the party’s perception about the motivations governing the other party’s actions. The stronger the belief is that these motivations are debatable, or even opportunist, the more difficult it is to grant trust. The same author says that the formation of trust can be adequately explained only by taking into account another dimension: exchange partner ability, or rather the perception of that competence. To come to the point, Andaleeb (1992), who is quoted subsequently by Fletcher and Peters (1997), suggests to conceptualize the trust of a party “A” in a party “B” by reference to two basic elements: A’s perceptions of B’s motivations (or intentions); and/or A’s perceptions of B’s ability to produce the desired outcomes. On the basis of these considerations, Andaleeb (1992) identifies a scheme for categorizing the different levels of trust that can be found in market relationships, by using two dimensions combined in different ways to form different types of trust (figure 1). Figure 1 – Categories of trust ABILITY High Low e v i S sit Bonding trust Hopeful trust E o P V I T O e v M i at Unstable trust Distrust g e N Source: Andaleeb (1992) This matrix, subsequently considered also by Busacca and Castaldo (1996), allows both to conceptualize the multidimensional nature of trust and to hypothesize different configurations of it. Indeed, it would not exist only one type of trust, but different types, which can be identified by combining the perceptions about motivations and ability of the counterparty – tipically the supplier230. Also Ganesan (1994), to whom more recently Doney and Cannon (1997) also refer, proposes two dimensions of trust, which are very similar to those identified by Andaleeb (1992): a) credibility, which depends on the buyer’s belief that the supplier has the required expertise to carry out his role effectively and reliability; b) benevolence, based on the buyer’s belief that the supplier acts on the basis of intentions that are beneficial to the buyer himself. In the same point of view, finally, Castaldo (1995) and Busacca and Castaldo (1996) propose a conceptualization tri-dimensional of the construct, taking account both the dimension originally identified in the studies of social psychology, that is the predictability of the behaviour, and the dimensions identified by Andaleeb (1992): the perceptions about ability and the perceptions about motivations of the firm. Among the authors who have proposed a multidimensional definition of trust, Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpandè (1992), in a study of the relationships between providers and users of market research, identify a cognitive and behavioural dimensions of trust. The cognitive dimension would consist of the belief in the partner’s reliability (trustworthiness), or 230 When the ability of the exchange partner is expected to be high, and when the perceptions of his motivation are also positive, trust in the partner is “bonding”, or “full” as it is defined by some authors (Blois 1999). When the perceptions about the partner’s motivations are positive, but those about his ability to produce the desired outcomes are not favourable, this leads to the situation defined by Andaleeb (1992) as “hopeful trust”, in the sense that an improvement of the ability of supplier is expected, but the commitment in the relationship is related only to the perception that there is not opportunism in the conterparty. The third category of trust is called “unstable trust”, because it results from a positive perception of the other party’s competencies, but negative perceptions of his motivations. In these conditions, the relationship is potentially full of conflit. When, finally, both the motivations and the competencies of the other party are perceived as negative, this creates a situation in which trust is transformed into distrust, and the termination of the relationship becomes a realistic possibility. For further details about different types of trust, besides Andaleeb (1992), see also Castaldo (1995) and Busacca and Castaldo (1996). credibility, which comes from his motivation and knowledge – therefore taking form in the same way proposed by Andaleeb (1992) and Ganesan (1994). The behavioural dimension, instead, would concern the behavioural intention, that is the concrete act of placing trust in the partner, and this implies vulnerability and uncertainty in the trustor, the person doing trust. Morgan and Hunt (1994) do not agree with last definition. Indeed, even though they identify two different dimensions of the construct, they hold that trust also exists in the presence of the cognitive component alone. That is, it would be enough that the buying firm believes in the honesty and reliability of the supplier firm. The behavioural intention incorporated in the willingness (“willingness to act”) identified by Moorman, Zaltaman and Deshpandè (1992) would be implicit in the concept of trust itself. Morgan and Hunt (1994), on this point, argue that, although it might be appropriate to have items that incorporate “declared willingness” into a measure of trust, willingness is redundant to its definition: willingness to rely should be seen as a result (or, alternatively, as a potential indicator) of trust, and not as one of its constitutive dimensions. The most recent marketing studies are characterized by a further development, still as regards to the discussion about multidimensionality of the construct. More specifically, recent works on the conceptualization of the trust have been dominated by two trends (Fenneteau and Guibert 1997): the first one suggests a distinction between the cognitive and affective dimensions of trust; the second one, conversely, leads to the conceptual differentiation of the concepts of perceived trustworthiness, that is the degree to which a subject perceives his partner as trustworthy, trust and trusting behaviour, which is the behavioural manifestation of trust. Regarding the first tendency, researchers seem to maintain that trust is based on both knowledge (cognition-based trust) and feelings or emotions (affect-based trust) that the trustor has in dealings with the trustee (McAllister 1995). Regarding the second tendency, the contribution of Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) is emblematic. They hold that perceived trustworthiness and trusting behaviour are, respectively, a determinant and a consequence of trust and, therefore, that these two concepts are distinct from trust concept itself. According the authors, the three factors that lead a subject to consider a partner trustworthy (that is the three components of trustworthiness) are: ability, which relates to the partner’s competence to supply what the trustor expects; integrity, which relates to the fact that the partner is guided by principles acceptable to the trustor; benevolence, which relates to the intention of the trustee to do his best for the trustor, putting to one side his egoistic profit motives, and generally always acting in the interest of the trustor. In the light of these distinctions, trust can be therefore defined as the willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of the other party, on the basis of the expectation that the other one will carry out a particular action for the trustor, irrespective of the ability to control that party. This definition is very similar to that of Gambetta (1989), to which it adds the critical element of vulnerability. Making oneself vulnerable means taking a risk, but according to Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) trust does not represent the real assumption of the risk, rather it is the willingness to assume it. The risk is only inherent in the behavioural manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable. The difference between the willingness to assume the risk and the assumption of the risk itself sanctions the difference between trust and trusting behaviour. On the basis on what these authors hold, then, trust would be an unidimensional construct, which is strongly related with others classes of constructs: some cognitive constructs, as the perception of ability and absence of opportunism – similarly to what Andaleeb (1992) and Ganesan (1994) have proposed – and perceptions of goal congruence in a broad sense (sharing principles); and some comportamental constructs, as behavioural intention to trust – as originally proposed by Moorman, Zaltman and Despandè (1992) – and vulnerability. Similarly, in a study of the relationships between partners in sales alliances, Smith and Barclay (1997) consider the concepts of perceived trustworhtiness and trusting behavoiur as two distinct, but linked, dimensions of trust. These impact on the effectiveness of the relationship, that is on perceived performance objectives and reciprocal satisfaction. In particular, mutual perceived trustworthiness, which is defined as the degree to which partners have joint expectations of a fiduciary responsability in the performance of their individual roles and believe that each of them will act in the best interest of the partnership, is composed of four dimensions. The first three of these are character, role competence and motives – which can be assimilate respectively to the integrity, ability and benevolence identified by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995). The fourth dimension is judgement, defined as the belief that each partner is able to apply his own knowldge to a given situation, and thus to decide and act appropriately in favour of partnership interest. Mutual trusting behaviours are the actions of both partners, that reflect a willingness to vulnerability in the face of uncertainty, and are defined by five components: relationship investiment, influence acceptance, communication openess, control reduction and forbearance from opportunism. Although the relationship between mutual trustworthiness and mutual trusting behaviour is iterative from a dynamic point of view, Smith and Barclay (1997) think it is appropriate to hypothesize that the former occurs prior to the latter at any given moment. The differentation between trust and perceived trustworthiness is of great importance from the conceptual point of view, as it leads to revise, one more, the meaning of trust and to reflecte on its development process. In relation to this aspect, the conclusions of review about trust done by Castaldo (1995) are agreeable. The most part of authors propose a definition of trust related to the perceptions of counterparty’s reliability, ability and absence of opportunism. Nevertheless, it is also quite recurrent the distinction between cognitive dimensions, always related to the above components, and comportamental or emotive dimensions. In this sense, then, the problem is still open, taking account that the distinction between different dimensions of trust has not conceptualized yet enough, nor supported significantly by researches or experiments which can do definitely evidence of it231. Similar problems, in terms of incomplete evolution of studies about the topic, concern the exam of trust’s origins and effects. For management purposes, besides, the analysis of determinants of trust is more important. The results of this analysis, in fact, would allow to identify the factors on which investiments should be made in order to increase business resources and, thus, the competitive capacity of the firm; similarly, the analysis of 231 Taking account only the cognitive dimension, it is possible to observe, for example, that perceived reliability, conceptualized by some authors as one of the different dimensions of trust, is mainly due to the satisfation accumulated from previous interactions between parties, and is evaluated, in its turn, with respect to two dimensions: the ability to perform the obligations and, in achieving them, the motivation to behave in a non- opportunist way. It can be hyphotized, then, that the perceptions refered to the ability and to the lack of opportunism of the counterparty impact on the expectations and perception of reliability, but do not belong directly to the domain of trust concept. consequences would allow to evaluate the role of trust in the context of relational activities (Castaldo 1994; Costabile 1999), and thus its value in the process of increasing the firm’s intangible assets (Busacca 1994). The figure 2 shows the factors most frequently identified as determinants and consequences of trust, which are drawn from Castaldo (1995). Figure 2 – The antecedents and consequences of trust in market relations ANTECEDENTS CONSEQUENCES Ability/competencies Reduction of decision-making Motivations/absence of opportunism uncertainty Interpersonal factors Increase of the commitment Satisfaction Reduction of level of conflit Communication Use of non-coercive power Cooperation Increase of the satisfaction Transaction specific investiments Effectiveness of the communication TRUST Similarity between the partners Facilitation of collaborative Shared goals/values/culture behaviours Reputation Greater probability of allocating Organizational structure and culture resource in the relationship of the partners Greater possibility of influencing and Characteristics of the transaction persuading the partner object Reduction of transaction costs Continuity of the relationship Source: adapted from Castaldo (1995) Although the figure 2 gives a wide picture of the variables identified as determinants and consequences of trust by numerous empirical studies and previous review about this topic (Castaldo 1995; Blois 1999), several controversies can be found in marketing literature. Generally, these can be lead to the different meaning recognized to trust construct and, consequently, to the distinction between determinants and consequences. Many authors have defined trust with elements that others, instead, have considered as its determinants. At the same time, there are determinants intended as consequences by some authors and both as determinants and consequences by others. Generally speaking, the antecedents and consequences variables can be related to the communication and interaction processes, to the structural elements of relationshp and to the personal factors of the exchange actors. Among these antecedents, still as regards to the study of Castaldo (1995), it can be found: personal characteristics of the partner, such as honesty, sincerity, moral integrity, frankness, emphaty, reliability and affinity with trustor (Swan and Nolan 1985; Swan, Trawick and Silva 1985; Moorman, Deshpandè and Zaltman 1993; Doney and Cannon 1997); transaction specific investiments (Ganesan 1994); similarity between the partners (Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990) and shared values which the partners pursue (Morgan and Hunt 1994); goal congruence (Anderson and Weitz 1989); reputation (Anderson and Weitz 1989; Ganesan 1994; Doney and Cannon 1997); partners’ organizational structure and culture and characteristics of the transaction object, in particular its degree of complexity and difficulty of expressing certain evaluations of its qualitative level (Moorman, Desphandè and Zaltaman 1993). Among the consequences of trust, many variables have been also discovered: commitment, in the sense of the lasting effort that individuals make to maintain a relationship (Moorman, Zaltman and Desphandè 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Ganesan 1994; Geyskens et al. 1996; Nielson 1998); the level of conflit (Anderson and Narus 1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994); non- coercive power (Morgan and Hunt 1994); greater probability of allocating resources in favour of subjects who are trusted (Anderson, Lodish and Weitz 1987; Nielson 1998); reduction of transactions costs (Zaheer and Venkatraman 1995; Cummings and Bromiley 1996); greater ease in persuading or influencing the partner (Swan and Nolan 1985; Swan, Trawick and Silva 1985) and consequently greater sales (Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Dion, Easterling and Miller 1995; Dahlstrom and Nygaard 1995; Kumar 1996; Doney and Cannon 1997); in general, facilitation of collaborative behaviour and continuity of the relationship (Anderson and Weitz 1989; Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Ganesan 1994; Mohr and Speckman 1994; Kumar 1996). Nevertheless, as previously seen, the results of the studies and researches present some controversial issues with reference to some types of antecedents and consequences, mainly because of the ambiguity of their roles (cause and effect) and the objective difficulty of classifying them. These ambiguities come from the existence of circular causal links and concern quite always crucial factors in defining the construct and its main causal links. For example, some authors have proposed to consider the ability and the motivation of a subject as antecedents of trust (Swan and Nolan 1985; Swan, Trawick and Silva 1985; Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Moorman, Deshpandè and Zaltman1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Selnes 1998). These elements have been, instead, considered as components of trust by Andaleeb (1992), Ganesan (1994), Busacca and Castaldo (1996), Doney and Cannon (1997), Fletcher and Peter (1997). The problems of identifing the determinants of trust are connected to the effects that it produce, in a retroactive way, on the determinants themselves. The discussion about categorization of some variables which interact with trust as determinants or consequences is still open, but it will not matter if it is carried out from a dynamic viewpoint, that is refered to the evolutive path of trust relationship. The finding of an element as determinant or consequence of trust is, in fact, the result of the causal circularity of relationships, and this can be examined only by taking on a dynamic perspective. The level of satistaction generated in the relationship, the quality of communication between parties, the propensity to cooperate, the reputation, are all elements which can emerge as determinants or consequences at a given point in the time, but can have – in a presumible way – a prevailing role of antecedentens or a preaviling role of consequences in the dynamic process of trust development. As intuition suggests, for example, from a static viewpoint satisfaction feeds trust, not vice versa232. Nevertheless, when the relationship develops, an high trust stock can affect the quality and quantity of communication between parties, and consequently the understanding of customer expectations, and the correct formation of expected performance that the firm can offer. Then, in a dynamic prospective, trust affect satisfaction, by means of communication variable. 232 The opposite relationship may be found in presence of faith rather than trust. About the distinction between the concepts of faith and trust, see Luhmann and Hart, which are the authors of two papers in Gambetta (1989), and Castaldo (1995) Because of the same reasons of perspective, other ambiguous variables are communication and reputation. With reference to the first, many authors believe that trust is a substitute of information (Vicari 1991; Castaldo 1995), and consider it as an element that makes the communication timely, credible, and so more effective. In these cases, communication would be considered a consequence of trust and not an antecedent (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Morh and Nevin 1990). Other studies, however, have intended communication as a determinant of trust (Anderson, Lodish and Weitz 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Selnes 1998). As said before, an effective communication contributes to define with clearness the expected performance, thus increasing the probability that satisfactory transactions happen, and reinforcing in this way satisfaction and trust. In practice, the communication can be considered as an antecedent of trust only when the phenomenon is seen from a static viewpoint; in dynamic terms, however, it is required to hypothesize a circular and recurrent relationship between communication and trust (Anderson and Weitz 1989; Anderson and Narus 1990), that, nevertheless, at the beginning of the relationship, is based on the role of antecedent of the communication on trust. Finally, the same evolutive path can be hypothesized with reference to the relationship between reputation and trust. Reputation is certainly a determinant of trust, but it is equally certain that it is one of its main consequences, which become again determinants to make active new trust relationships. The problem of the circularity of causal links, in short, would seem to be capable of solution only by clarifying a priori the analytical perspective that is intended to be pursued: static or dynamic, relating to one dyadic relationship or to all the market relationships that firm develops. Although there is general agreement that trust is a process that develops over time, most of the studies designed at understanding the determinants of the phenomenon have not esplicity considered the temporal element (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Smith and Barclay 1997), or have evaluated time through a synthetical variable (stock) such as the length of the relationship, or past experience (Swan and Nolan 1985; Anderson and Weitz 1989; Ganesan 1994; Doney and Cannon 1997). This has certainly feeded the confusion between the antecedents and consequences of trust233. The problem of the development of trust over time puts two questions that inevitably overlap: on one hand, that of the stages of trust development; on the other hand, that of the role of trust in the different stages of relationship development, and thus the various “types”of trust (Andaleeb 1992; Guibert 1998). In both cases, the conceptualization and the empirical studies allow to assume that different elements can be important in the formation of trust at different stages of the relationship development: the strength and nature of determinants change over time234. This perspective would explain why some elements have been found important in some studies, but not in others. Not all relationships are at the same stage of development, and some may not have reached the level of maturity necessary for full trust (Andaleeb 1992; Costabile 1999). 233 Most of the studies on trust try to test the validity of causal models using transversal data (cross-sectional design); in order to examine the direction of causal links between variables, however, the use of longitudinal designs would be required. 234 In this regard, Andaleeb (1992) proposes a model of trust continuum, after took again by Busacca and Castaldo (1996); Costabile (1999) proposes the model of relational trust, in which trust has a fundamental role in the development of relationship.