Information Technology and Management 4, 303–318, 2003

 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Interpreting Dimensions of Consumer Trust

in E-Commerce
SANDY C. CHEN chenc@unlv.edu
University of Nevada, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

GURPREET S. DHILLON gdhillon@vcu.edu

IS Department, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Business, Richmond, VA 23284-4000, USA

Abstract. Consumer trust in an Internet vendor is an issue commanding ever more attention. Based on
an extensive review of literature, this paper proposes dimensions of trust in an Internet vendor. These
are competence, integrity and benevolence. Competence refers to a company’s ability to fulfill promises
made with the consumers. Integrity suggests that a company acts in a consistent, reliable, and honest
manner. Benevolence is the ability of a company to hold consumer interests ahead of its own self-interest
and indicates sincere concern for the welfare of the customers. In a further analysis various sources where
trust might reside are also identified. Drawing on the literature in marketing and general management, the
sources of trust are classified as characteristics of the consumer, the firm, the website and the interaction
between the consumer and the firm. Given the dimensions and sources of trust, a path model for developing
consumer trust in E-commerce is suggested. This research makes a contribution to the development of a
theoretical understanding of trust in E-commerce. Although the concepts presented in this paper can be
used to carry out further empirical research, they can also be used by practitioners to identify particular
trust characteristics for realizing the potential of business to consumer E-commerce venture.

Keywords: trust, competence, integrity, benevolence, E-commerce

1. Introduction
E-commerce is the sale of products and services over the Internet. Since the transactions
take place without personal contact, consumers are generally concerned of the legitimacy
of the vendor and authenticity of the product or service. Consequently, consumer trust
in the Internet vendor is an issue of major concern. Trust can be defined as the reliability
and dependability of the vendor offering products or services. Trust can be broken if the
vendor engages in illegitimate businesses or when there is a general disregard for privacy
and security. Since trust is essentially a value proposition that an individual might hold
about the vendor and the related transactions, it can be developed and established in a
relationship.
In the literature, Internet vendor trust has been identified as a construct that is
critical for the success of E-commerce [62]. In a recent survey nearly 71% of the US
web users report lack of trust in online vendors (as reported in CIO.com, June 25, 2002).
It is therefore important for Internet vendors to build and win consumer trust so as to
survive and realize financial success.
304 CHEN AND DHILLON

To achieve this goal it is important to understand as to what constitutes trust and

mechanisms for developing consumer trust in Internet vendors. In this paper we un-
dertake an extensive review of the existing literature to identify dimensions of the trust
construct, major sources of consumer trust formation, and propose causal relationships
between trust dimensions and major trust-building mechanisms. Finally, we present a
path model for instituting consumer trust in Internet vendors. The paper makes two
contributions to studies on trust. First, it establishes a conceptual basis for undertak-
ing empirical work on consumer trust in E-commerce. Second, it proposes theoretically
sound relationships between various attributes, which can help Internet vendors to con-
sider issues for forging trustworthy relationships.
The paper is organized into five sections. Following this brief introduction, sec-
tion 2 explores the nature of trust and identifies its various dimensions. The relationship
of consumer trust to overall trust is also established. Section 3 presents a literature re-
view to identify various sources of trust. A synthesized framework for consumer trust
formation is presented in section 4. Finally, conclusions are presented in section 5.

2. The nature of trust

The first step in interpreting dimensions of a construct is to understand the meaning of

the concept. This helps in exactly delineate what is included and what is excluded from
its domain. An examination of trust-related literature reveals that in spite of significant
interest in researching trust issues, there is no universally accepted scholarly definition
of trust. For example, in psychology, Rotter [44] defined that interpersonal trust is ex-
pectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written
statement of another individual or group can be relied upon. In management theory,
Sitkin and Roth [56] define trust as one’s belief and expectation about the likelihood of
having a desirable action performed by the trustee. Cummings and Bromiley [14], Ring
and van de Ven [42], and Sabel [48] defined trust as one’s assessment of others’ goodwill
and reliability. Larzerele and Huston [30] contended that trust is a behavioral intention,
which reflects the dependence on a partner. It is a strong belief in the fact that the other
can be relied upon, is straightforward, benevolent, and honest.
Although there is significant diversity in the definitions, Rousseau et al. [47] ex-
tracted common themes in the different conceptual definitions of trust to suggest that
trust is a “psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based
upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another under conditions of
risk and interdependence” (p. 395). There are several important issues in this definition
that are worthy of being emphasized. First, trust is a psychological state that researchers
in different disciplines interpret in terms of beliefs, confidence, positive expectations, or
perceived probabilities. Second, trust is not a behavior (e.g., cooperation), or a choice
(e.g., taking a risk), but an underlying psychological condition that can cause or result
from such actions. Third, trust has positive outcomes. Fourth, trust is developed under
specific conditions – risk and interdependence. Trust under conditions of risk suggests
that a person who trusts assesses the vulnerability and uncertainty of whether the other
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 305

party intends to and will act appropriately. Trust would not be needed if actions could be
undertaken with complete certainty and no risk, and the one who trusts is not in a vul-
nerable position. In case of trust under interdependence, interests of one party cannot be
achieved without reliance upon another. The variations in risk and interdependence over
the course of a relationship between parties can change both the level and potentially the
form that trust takes [47].
Although Rousseau et al.’s [47] conception of trust has been well received by many
authors (see Singh and Sirdeshmukh [55]), there are others who have argued that this de-
finition is too abstract to be useful for conceptual or empirical work [11] and called for
specifying the domain and connotative meaning of the trust construct in the context of a
certain discipline. This inherited nature in most definitions of trust has resulted in two
streams of insight: one group of scholars insist that trust construct be measured by one
single dimension, such as reliability (see Mohr and Spekman [38], Selnes [50], or mo-
tivation (see Anderson and Waitz [2], Anderson and Narus [3] and Crosby et al. [13]),
while the other group of scholars contend that the trust construct is multi-dimensional.
For instance, Ganesan and Hess [23] proposed two dimensions of trust: credibility, the
main partner’s intention and ability to keep promises; and benevolence, evidence of
genuine concern for the partner through sacrifices that exceed a purely egocentric profit
motive (p. 440). These authors also provide empirical support for the discriminant valid-
ity of these trust dimensions. Barber [6] proposed that trust expectations likely include
evaluations of (1) technically competent role performance (e.g, by the service provide),
and (2) carrying out obligations and responsibilities by placing others’ (e.g., consumers)
interest before their own. Other researchers proposing dimensions of trust include Mor-
gan and Hunt [39] who suggest trust to be composed of reliability and integrity and
Zaheer et al. [65] who consider trust being formed through reliability, honesty, and pre-
dictability.
Clearly trust is a multidimensional construct. And as suggested in the literature,
competence, benevolence, and integrity are the recurring themes in establishing trust di-
mensions. In the context of a business to consumer exchange, the notion of competence
includes a company’s ability to fulfill its promises communicated to consumers. Integrity
suggests that a company acts in a consistent, reliable, and honest manner when fulfill-
ing its promises. Benevolence is the probability a company holds consumers’ interests
ahead of its own self-interest and indicates sincere concern for the welfare of the cus-
tomers. Accordingly, we conceptualize three distinct dimensions of trust – competence,
integrity, and benevolence – that vary independently, but are interrelated and jointly con-
tribute to overall consumer trust. The literature that suggests these three dimensions of
trust is summarized in table 1.

2.1. Overall trust

Researchers agree that in a relationship, one party tends to have overall trust toward
the other. Overall trust refers to general trust [60], which is not related to a specific
behavior of the other party, or any component of trust [18,49]. However, the literature
306 CHEN AND DHILLON

Table 1
Summary of literature identifying trust dimensions.
Trust dimensions Relevant literature
Overall trust Swan et al. [60]; Driscoll [18]; Scott [49]; McAllister [35]; Lewichi
and Bunker [31]; Sheppard and Sherman [52]; Barney and Hansen [7]
Competence Barber [6]
Integrity Morgan and Hunt [39]; Zaheer et al. [65]; Selnes [50]
Benevolence Ganesan and Hess [23]; Barber [6]

also suggests that trust has a dynamic, rather than static nature [47]. Trust changes over
time: developing, building, and declining and hence has different levels under different
conditions – the perceived level of risk and interdependence between two parties. The
level of trust can change over time with the variations of perceived risk and interdepen-
dence. Thus, many mechanisms of trust building have been proposed corresponding to
this process.
Researchers have conceptualized overall trust into distinct levels. For instance,
McAllister [35] defined a cognition-based trust, which would involve a person’s use of
evidence and analysis to form attributes of the trust components, representing the ra-
tionale part of human judgment, and distinguished it from affect-based trust that stems
from affective bonds among individuals. It is easy to infer that cognition-based trust
represents a low level of trust, while affect-based trust represents a high level of trust.
Lewichi and Bunker [31] suggested a trust-building model, which consists of three se-
quential and linked levels: (1) calculus-based trust, which represents the lowest level
and the most fragile form of trust; (2) knowledge-based trust, which is formed over
time with increased knowledge about each other. This level of trust represents a rela-
tively strong bonding between two parties and is practical for an exchange relationship;
(3) identification-based trust, which is based on shared interests and values. This is the
strongest form of trust and least fragile to changing environments. This form of trust
is considered to be too ideal to be true for an exchange relationship. Sheppard and
Sherman [52] conceptualized trust as four distinct and ordered forms: shallow depen-
dence, shallow interdependence, deep dependence, and deep interdependence. Barney
and Hansen [7] identified three forms of trust: weak, semi-strong, and strong, and stated
that each form can create strategic advantages for a firm when applied appropriately.
In examining consumer trust in E-commerce, we adopted McAllister’s [35] view
to treat overall consumer trust at two levels: cognition-based trust (a low level of trust)
and affect-based trust (a high level of trust). We strive to identify attributes that greatly
contribute to both cognition-based and affect-based trust in the context of E-commerce.
Both cognition and affect based trust draw on attributes such as competence, integrity
and benevolence. Our proposition based on the nature of trust therefore is:

Proposition 1. Perceived competence, integrity and benevolence of an Internet vendor

significantly influences overall trust of the consumer.
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 307

3. Sources of consumer trust

In section 2 we have presented the dimensions of trust. Relevant literature sources were
identified and systematically presented. In this section we evaluate the various sources of
trust. Consumer trust for an Internet vendor can reside in the individual characteristics
of the consumer, the Internet vendor, the website and the interaction of the consumer
with the Internet vendor through the website.

3.1. Consumer

Disposition to trust. Besides the range of external stimuli from the vendor, it has been
argued in the literature that consumer trust is to a large extent personality based. Bowlby
[12] and Rotter [44–46] have suggested that a person’s concept of trust develops during
childhood in interactions between the individual and the care givers/parents. A person
exhibits a disposition to trust to the extent that s/he demonstrates a consistent tendency
to be willing to depend on others across a broad spectrum or situations and persons.
McKnight et al. [36] distinguish between two types of dispositions to trust, each of which
affects trusting intention to a certain degree. First, faith in humanity, which refers to
one’s belief that others typically mean well and are reliable. Second, trusting stance,
which refers to one’s belief that they will obtain better interpersonal outcomes by dealing
with people as though they mean well.

Attitude towards online shopping, subjective norm, and behavioral control. The the-
ory of planned behavior [20] and its extensions (see Shim et al. [54]) posit that both
attitude towards a behavior and subjective norm are immediate determinants of intention
to perform a behavior. Attitude towards a behavior is recognized as a person’s posi-
tive or negative evaluation of a relevant behavior and is composed of a person’s salient
beliefs regarding the perceived outcomes of performing a behavior. Subjective norm
is a function of normative beliefs, represents a person’s perception of whether signifi-
cant referents approve or disapprove a behavior. The theory of planned behavior further
proposes that intention to perform a behavior is the proximal cause of such a behavior.
Intentions represent motivational components of a behavior, that is, the degree of con-
scious effort that a person will exert in order to perform a behavior. Another variable
is perceived behavioral control, the perception of ease or difficulty in performing a be-
havior. The aspect of ease or difficulty specifically relates to whether or not a person
perceives that s/he possesses requisite resources and opportunities necessary to perform
the behavior in question. Empirical evidence indicates that the addition of perceived be-
havioral control to the traditional attitude-behavioral model has resulted in meaningful
improvements in the prediction of intentions [1]. In the context of E-commerce, accord-
ing to Shim et al. [54], a consumer’s attitude toward online shopping is mirrored by his or
her perceptions of shopping convenience, which can be measured by the extent to which
a consumer accepts the Internet as a new shopping medium and how useful it really is.
Subjective norms refer to a consumer’s perceptions of the extent to which significant
referents approve of Internet use for shopping. Perceived behavioral control is reflected
308 CHEN AND DHILLON

by the perception of ease-of-use of the Internet as a shopping means, perceived control

in interaction (e.g., the use of personal information), and perceived risk in E-commerce
(e.g., system security and privacy).
Past purchase behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen [20] did not include past behavior as a pre-
dictor in their theory of planned behavior, other attitude-behavior researchers however
assert that inclusion of past behavior in the model significantly improves the prediction
of behavior (see Benthler and Speckart [9,10], Sutten and Hallent [59], Shim et al. [54]).
This is based on the argument that behavior is influenced by learned predispositions to
respond that are not readily encompassed by the concepts of attitude and intention [9,54].
Shim and Drake [53] found that consumers with strong intentions to shop electronically
had previous experience with other non-store shopping formats as well as prior experi-
ence with the use of personal computers. Similarly, Liang and Huang [33] found that
consumers’ prior experience had a moderating effect in predicting their acceptance of
Internet shopping. Research related to the adoption of other technology-based shopping
formats have also indicated that previous non-store experience may help predict inten-
tion to adopt interactive electronic formats [19] and that shoppers who use electronic
shopping technologies have more experience with these or related technologies [54,63].
Thus, past non-store and online experiences may have a direct impact on a consumer’s
trust in an e-firm, because knowledge or experience is related to increased assessment
of the trustworthiness of an Internet vendor. This view is supported by Miyazaki and
Fernandez [37], who found that more experience with the Internet and the use of other
remote purchasing methods are related to lower levels of perceived risk toward online
shopping, which in turn results in higher online purchase rates. This leads to the inclu-
sion of three additional variables in this study about the characteristics of consumer –
time since the Internet has been used, frequency of shopping online, and experience of
shopping through other direct purchase methods such as catalogs.
Personal values, gender, age, and education. Another personal factor that can greatly
influence a consumer’s trust towards a seller, is a person’s values [29]. Typically, people
incorporate values into their value system and prioritize them in terms of their relative
importance as guiding principles [43]. A person’s value system, thus, guides behavior
and the interpretation of experience by furnishing criteria that a person can use to evalu-
ate and make sense of events and actions in the surrounding world. The particular value
system determines types of behaviors, events, situations, or people that are desirable or
undesirable. An individual whose value system emphasizes loyalty and honesty, for ex-
ample, will strive to achieve loyalty and honesty in his or her relationships with others.
Values contribute to the generalized experience of trust and can even create a propen-
sity to trust [34] that surpasses specific situations and relationships. These assertions are
consistent with the large body of literature on trust. For example, Barber [6] suggests
that trust serves to maintain and express the shared values that trust originates from and,
also, that shared values help create relationships characterized by trust. Another exam-
ple, consistent with the research of Rotter [46] comes from Good [25] who suggests that
people who are trustworthy (or endorse such values as honesty) tend to view others as
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 309

trustworthy (or as endorsing similar values underlying trust). Clearly existing theory and
research suggest that trust can be based on enduring and relatively stable characteristics
of individuals enshrouded in a person’s value system. For examples see the works of
Mayer et al. [34] on the notion of propensity to trust, Rotter’s [46] conceptualizations
of a general tendency to trust, and Stack’s [58] research on trust as a somewhat stable
disposition.
Other personal characteristics such as gender have been found to influence a per-
son’s purchase intention or behavior. Johnson-George and Swap [28] found that male
and female subjects look for different qualities in another person when assessing his
or her trustworthiness. For male subjects, the scale includes factors of reliability, emo-
tional trust, and general trust. For female subjects, similar, but not identical, reliability
and emotional trust factors emerge. With respect to our research we include gender is-
sues to examine whether requirements for trust are different between male and female
shoppers. Other demographic variables, especially age and education level, are regarded
as important factors that greatly influence consumer behavior. In our final model these
two variables are controlled.
Based on individual characteristics of a consumer, we make the following proposi-
tion:

Proposition 2. Individual characteristics significantly influence perception of compe-

tence, integrity and benevolence of an Internet vendor. Such individual characteristics
include faith in humanity, trusting stance, attitude towards shopping online, personal
values, gender, age and educational level.

3.2. Internet vendor

Vendor characteristics and trust sources. In channel management research, character-

istics such as firm size, number of years that a firm has been in business, reputation, and
brand recognition are considered important in influencing a customer’s trust towards a
firm (see Doney and Cannon [17]). Firm size, according to Doney and Cannon [17],
refers to the firm’s overall size (e.g., financial and personnel resources) and its market
share position. Large size and market share indicate that the firm has a large number of
customers and has followed through with commitments made to its customers. This is
because it would not have been possible for the firm to maintain its position in the indus-
try. On the other hand, a less trustworthy and more opportunistic firm would be unable
to build sales volume or large market share [27]. Therefore customers would rationally
(see Lewichi and Bunker [31]) determine that since larger firms would incur significant
costs through untrustworthy behavior than smaller firms, there is merit in trusting larger
firms. Number of years a firm remains in business also determines the level of trustwor-
thiness of a company. A less trustworthy company will not be able to be in business for
a long time, especially in a very uncertain environment.
Firm reputation is also an indicator of trust. In an exchange relationship, the pro-
fessional reputation of a firm serves as a hostage. If the firm begins to violate the con-
310 CHEN AND DHILLON

sumer’s trust, the consumer quickly lets it be known, throughout the network of friends,
colleagues, and associates, that the firm is disreputable [31]. Since developing a favor-
able reputation involves significant investment and represents a valuable asset [17,27],
firms are reluctant to jeopardize their reputation by acting opportunistically [61]. Em-
pirical evidence supports the link between a good reputation and customer trust. Gane-
san [22] found that a retailer’s favorable perception of a vendor’s reputation leads to
increased credibility, which is one dimension of the trust construct. Similarly, Anderson
and Weitz [2] found that a channel member’s trust in a manufacturer is positively re-
lated to the manufacturer’s reputation for fair dealings with channel members. A similar
but more powerful factor that leads to consumer trust is brand recognition, which some-
times is considered a consequence of trust. One of the major benefits of brand equity is
to reduce customer perceived uncertainty and risk in an exchange relationship.
Clearly firms could either be exclusively online (e.g., Amazon) or have both online
and brick and mortar presence (e.g., Wal-Mart). A firm that has both online and offline
presence has some advantages since the reputation and trust built for the brick and mortar
business can be transferred to the online store. It is therefore important to consider
the online or offline presence of a firm as important issues in building trust. Similarly
size of a firm is also an important consideration. However, while market share can
be measured for an e-firm, financial and personnel resources invested by such a firm
are quite invisible in an Internet environment. And hence it is difficult to differentiate
between large and small e-firms. Therefore, examining the overall size of an e-firm
becomes less meaningful. In summary, we examine four characteristics of an e-firm,
which are the sources of consumer trust. These are the number of years in business,
reputation, brand recognition, and offline presence. We therefore argue:

Proposition 3. Reputation of the Internet vendor, brand recognition, offline presence

and number of years it has been in business significantly influence perception of compe-
tence, integrity and benevolence of an Internet vendor.

3.3. Website

Website characteristics and trust sources. The presence of a website undoubtedly can
convey some sense of a firm’s trustworthiness to consumers. If the website is the only
means to interact with the consumers (i.e., a firm with an exclusive online presence),
it is important to examine its characteristics. In a traditional buyer–seller relationship,
a salesperson’s knowledge of the product, the ability to sell, besides personal charac-
teristics such as likeability, honesty, consistency, customer-orientation, familiarity with
the customer, and prior experience are considered important in realizing the sale and
building consumer trust (see Frazier et al. [21], Czepiel [15], Beatty et al. [8], Mur-
phy [40], Webster [64], Swan et al. [60]). In the case of an Internet vendor, the website
is perhaps the only way a firm communicates with its customers. Therefore, its ap-
pearance and structure can encourage or discourage a consumer’s purchase intentions.
In the marketing literature website features such as layout, appeal, graphics, readabil-
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 311

ity, and ease-of-use have been considered to affect consumers’ clicking frequency (see
Murphy [40]). In summary, these features demonstrate the likeability of a website.
Besides, characteristics such as functionality, usability, efficiency, reliability, and porta-
bility, are important as well (cf. software evaluation standard IEC/ISO 9216).

Institution-based trust sources. A website is indeed an important means for a firm to

communicate its service assurances with its consumers. These service assurances are
tangible cues used by a company to enable its consumers to infer a sense of certainty
and positive outcome of their participation in an exchange with the firm. In the liter-
ature this notion has been termed as institution-based trust. According to Zucker [66]
and Shapiro [51] institution-based trust means that one believes the necessary imper-
sonal structures are in place to enable one to act in anticipation of a successful future
endeavor. It is tied to formal mechanisms such as professionalism or third-party in-
surance, i.e., situational normality and structural assurances. Situational normality is
defined as the belief that success is likely because the situation is normal or customary,
or that everything seems to be in proper order [5,24,32,36]. For instance, a person enters
a luxury hotel and expects a setting conducive to both customer service and fiduciary re-
sponsibility that is reflected in the workers’ professional appearance, the prosperous and
secure physical setting, a friendly and a safe procedure. This individual then believes
that this situation is normal and feels comfortable enough to quickly form a trusting
intention toward the hotel. In the context of E-commerce, a “professional” look of a
website will provide consumers with a sense of normality.
Since it is rather difficult to determine if a given website is sufficiently profes-
sional, it may perhaps be better to focus on a range of structural assurances. Such
assurances present tangible cues deliberately used to build consumer trust in a firm’s
competence, integrity, and benevolence. Examples of such cues include return policies,
privacy and security policy, availability of mailing address and telephone numbers, ref-
erences and testimonials of existing consumers, credible information about the firm that
may be provided by certification (e.g., a diploma), licenses, or third-party assurances
such as TRUSTe for privacy assurance, WebTrust indicating that the firm’s compliance
with standards of internal business processes or order fulfillment, or Thawte assuring
that the firm has employed specific technologies to enable secure and reliable order and
payment handling and legal recourse indicating that the firm will make every effort to
fulfill its promises to consumers, or risk reaping sanctions through social disapproval or
legal action (see Sitkin and Roth [56], McKnight et al. [36]).
In light of the web characteristics, we therefore make the following proposition:

Proposition 4. Website characteristics significantly influence perception of compe-

tence, integrity and benevolence of an Internet vendor. Such website characteristics
include likeability, functionality, usability, efficiency, reliability, portability, integrity,
privacy and security.
312 CHEN AND DHILLON

3.4. Interaction

Trust sources. The Social Exchange Theory states that a buyer’s expectations of a seller’s
future behavior are determined by an evaluation of the seller’s past behavior, in conjunc-
tion with cues regarding the intentions, capabilities, and values of the seller. Positive
expectations are the foundation of trust in an exchange relationship. As suggested by
Rousseau et al. [47], trust building is a dynamic process. While characteristics of a party
and trust infrastructure provide sources for cognitive trust, repeated interactions between
two parties create a potential environment for affective trust formation. In an exchange
relationship, a consumer’s knowledge about the capabilities, benevolence, and integrity
of a firm increases. If the outcome is consistently positive, the consumer trust toward
the firm will increase. As stated by Angeles [4], expectation of receiving positive value
from participation is the core driver for a consumer to engage in having a relationship
with a firm.
There has been widespread interest in identifying mechanisms of building trust in
interactions. Shapiro et al. [51] and Lewichi and Bunker [31] proposed knowledge-
based trust, which occurs when one has enough first-hand information about others
to understand them and to accurately predict their likely behavior, and is developed
over time and based on familiarity and repeated transaction experience. Zucker [66]
offered process-based trust defining that trust is tied to a record of past operations and
exchanges. These usually are limited to those whose exchange histories are known
and respected. Doney and Cannon [17] suggested prediction and capability process
as a trust-building block in which trust emerges with the assessment of credibility and
ability to fulfill obligations through repeated interactions, past behavior, courtship, and
promises.
In service marketing, quality and satisfaction are widely recognized as major fac-
tors used to evaluate post-purchase outcomes. The five dimensions of service quality
(i.e., tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) developed by Para-
suraman et al. [41] offer a comprehensive means to evaluate the service performance,
which consists of a significant part of an e-firm’s function. Usually, satisfaction is con-
sidered as an outcome of service quality (see Gronin and Taylor [26]). However, in the
e-commerce setting, satisfaction includes both service quality and the final outcome of a
shopping experience, including a consumer’s satisfaction with the product that has been
purchased.
In summary, we examine four major factors in experience-based trust. These are –
service quality, consumer satisfaction, length of relationship, and courtship. Courtship
mainly refers to marketing activities implemented by an e-firm to entice more exchanges
with a consumer. We therefore propose as follows:

Proposition 5. Service quality, customer satisfaction, length of relationship, and court-

ship significantly influence perception of competence, integrity and benevolence of an
Internet vendor.
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 313

Table 2
Summary of sources of trust.
Source of trust Relevant literature
Consumer characteristics
Disposition to trust Bowlby [12]; Rotter [44–46]; McKnight et al. [36]
Attitude toward online shop- Fishbein and Ajzen [20]; Shim et al. [54]
ping, subjective norm, and be-
havioral control
Past purchase behavior Benthler and Speckart [9,10]; Sutten and Hallent [59]; Shim et al. [54];
Shim and Drake [53]; Liang and Huang [33]; Eastlick [19]; Weber and
Roehl [63]; Miyazaki and Fernandez [37]
Personal values, gender, age, Jones and George [29]; Mayer et al. [34]; Barber [6], Good [25];
and education Johnson-George and Swap [28]; Stack [58]; Rotter [46]

Website infrastructure
Likeability Frazier et al. [21]; Czepiel [15]; Beatty et al. [8]; Webster Jr [64]; Swan
et al. [60]; Murphy [40]
Functionality, usability, effi- Software evaluation standard IEC/ISO 9216
ciency, reliability, and porta-
bility
Trusting infrastructure Zucker [66]; Shapiro et al. [51]; Garfinkel [24]; Baier [5]; Lewis and
Weigert [32]; McKnight et al. [36]; Sitkin [57]

Internet Vendor
Number of years in business, Doney and Cannon [17]; Hill [27]; Lewichi and Bunker [31];
reputation, brand recognition, Dasgupta [16]; Telser [61]; Ganesan [22]; Anderson and Waitz [2]
and offline presence
Interactions
Service quality Parasuraman et al. [41]
Customer satisfaction Gronin and Taylor [26]
Length of relationship Shapiro et al. [51]; Lewichi [31]; Zucker [66]; Doney and Cannon [17]
Courtship Doney and Cannon [17]

In this section we have discussed various sources of trust. A number of proposi-

tions, worthy of being empirically tested, are also presented. A summary of the various
concepts is presented in table 2.

4. Synthesis of findings from the literature

In this section we present a synthesis of key findings from the literature on trust as it
applies to E-commerce. The first part of this section reflects on key constructs identified
314 CHEN AND DHILLON

Figure 1. Path model of the determinants of consumer trust in E-commerce.

in the literature and depicts the constructs in a path model. The second part of this
section identifies limitations and future research directions.

4.1. Summary of E-commerce trust constructs

As suggested in the literature overall trust of a consumer in an Internet vendor is de-

termined along three dimensions. These are competence, integrity and benevolence of
the firm. Detailed description of the constructs has been presented in previous sections.
It is worth noting however that an idiosyncratic combination of competence, integrity
and benevolence results in an intention to purchase or not purchase online. If we argue
that trust in an Internet vendor is a key driver to realize a sale, as has been suggested
by Torkzadeh and Dhillon [62], then it is of paramount importance to focus attention on
abilities necessary to deliver a product or a service, benevolence and the general integrity
of the business.
It has been argued in the literature, and presented in detail in the previous sections,
that trust resides in a range of individual consumer characteristics, website and firm fea-
ture and the interactions between a firm and the consumer. Therefore focusing attention
on each of the characteristics is surely going to enhance the competence, benevolence
and integrity of the firm. The relationships between the particular characteristics and
overall trust are presented in a path model (see figure 1).
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 315

4.2. Limitations and future research directions

Research presented in this paper is theoretical. A vast amount of literature dealing with
issues of consumer trust was reviewed and analyzed. Obviously there may have been
some pieces of research that we might have overlooked. We however believe that our
review of the literature has captured most of the issues related to consumer trust. We
say this with confidence since we scanned most of the articles appearing in mainstream
journals in the marketing, management, MIS and psychology fields. It is however pos-
sible that some pieces of research may have been overlooked. This presents us with
opportunities for future research.
Since it may never be possible to be completely exhaustive, it is worthwhile to
triangulate the literature review findings presented in this paper by interviewing people
with experience in purchasing online. Such interviews would identify values that indi-
viduals might have with respect to consumer trust. The next logical step, following the
literature review, is to develop a questionnaire and empirically test the propositions. Con-
sequently it is possible to develop measures for ensuring consumer trust in E-commerce.

5. Conclusion
This paper has identified three dimension of consumer trust – competence, integrity
and benevolence. It has been argued that overall consumer trust for an Internet vendor
can be build by focusing on each of these dimensions. The paper has also identified
various sources of consumer trust. Such sources were divided into four categories – the
personal characteristics of the consumer, features of the firm and the website, and the
interactions that consumers engage in with the firm and the website. It is contended that
by carefully addressing trust issues in these four categories and understanding how the
various characteristics impact firm competence, integrity and benevolence, it is possible
to build consumer trust. In a final synthesis a path model for developing consumer trust
is presented.
The concepts presented in this paper will surely benefit both academics and practi-
tioners. For the academics, the paper sketches out a theoretical and a conceptual map of
the literature on consumer trust as it relates to E-commerce. Opportunities exist to em-
pirically test the propositions presented in the paper and develop measure of consumer
trust in E-commerce. For the practitioners, the trust dimensions and sources of trust,
organized in a path model, serve as an evaluative framework to assess current emphasis
and identify opportunities for improvement.

References
[1] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50
(1991) 179–211.
[2] E. Anderson and B. Waitz, Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads, Mar-
keting Science 8 (Fall 1989) 310–323.
[3] J.C. Anderson and J.A. Narus, A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnership,
Journal of Marketing 54 (January 1990) 44–53.
316 CHEN AND DHILLON

[4] P.A. Angeles, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. (Harper Collins, New York,
1992).
[5] A. Baier, Trust and antitrust, Ethics 96 (1986) 231–260.
[6] B. Barber, The Logic and Limits of Trust (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1983).
[7] J.B. Barney and M.H. Hansen, Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage, Strategic Man-
agement Journal 15 (1994) 175–190.
[8] S.E. Beatty, M. Mayer, J. Coleman, K.E. Reynolds and J. Lee, Customer-sales associate retail rela-
tionships, Journal of Retailing 72(3) (1996) 223–247.
[9] P.M. Benthler and G. Speckart, Models of attitude-behavior relations, Psychological Review 86 (1979)
452–464.
[10] P.M. Benthler and G. Speckart, Attitudes “cause” behaviors: A structural equation analysis, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (1981) 226–238.
[11] G. Bigley and J. Pearce, Straining for shared meanings in organization science: Problems of trust and
distrust, Academy of Management Review 23(3) (1998) 405–421.
[12] J. Bowlby, Attachment and loss, in: Separation: Anxiety and Anger (Hogarth Press, London,
1973).
[13] L.A. Crosby, K.R. Evans and D. Cowles, Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal
influence perspective, Journal of Marketing 54(3) (1990) 77–97.
[14] L.L. Cummings and P. Bromiley, The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and val-
idation, in: Trust in Organizations, eds. K.M. R. and T.R. Tyler (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996)
pp. 302–330.
[15] J.A. Czepiel, Service encounters and service relationships: Implications for research, Journal of Busi-
ness Research 20(1) (1990)13–21.
[16] P. Dasgupta, Trust as a commodity, in: In Trust: Marking and Breaking Cooperative Relations,
ed. D. Dambetta (Basil Blackwell, Inc., New York, 1988).
[17] P.M. Doney and J.P. Cannon, An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships,
Journal of Marketing 61 (April 1997) 35–51.
[18] J.W. Driscoll, The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion, Human Relations 13
(1978) 123–140.
[19] M.A. Eastlick, Consumer Intention to Adopt Interactive Teleshopping (Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA, 1996).
[20] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975).
[21] G.L. Frazier, R. Spekman and C.R. O’Neal, Just-in-time exchange relationships in industrial markets,
Journal of Marketing 52 (October 1988) 52–67.
[22] S. Ganesan, Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships, Journal of Marketing
58 (April 1994) 1–19.
[23] S. Ganesan and R. Hess, Dimensions and levels of trust: Implications for commitment in customer
relationships, Marketing Letters 8(4) (1997) 439–448.
[24] H. Garfinkel, A conception of and experiments with trust as a condition of stable concerted actions,
in: Motivation and Social Interaction, ed. O.J. Harvey (Ronald Press, New York, 1963) pp. 187–238.
[25] D. Good, Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust, in: Trust, ed. D.G. Gambetta (Basil Blackwell,
New York, 1988) pp. 131–185.
[26] J. Gronin, Jr. and S.A. Taylor, Measuring service quality: A reeximination and extension, Journal of
Marketing 56 (July 1992) 55–68.
[27] C.W.L. Hill, Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for transaction cost
theory, Academy of Management Review 15(3) (1990) 500–513.
[28] C. Johnson-George and W.C. Swap, Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and
validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
43(6) (1982) 1306–1317.
INTERPRETING DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER TRUST IN E-COMMERCE 317

[29] G.R. Jones and J.M. George, The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and
teamwork, Academy of Management Review 23(3) (1998) 531–546.
[30] R.E. Larzerele and T.L. Huston, The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in
close relationships, Journal of Marriage and Family 42 (1980) 595–604.
[31] R.J. Lewichi and B.B. Bunker, Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline, in: Con-
flict Cooperation and Justice Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch, eds. J.B.B. Bunker and
J.Z. Rubin (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1995) pp. 5–173.
[32] J.D. Lewis and A.J. Weigert, Trust as a social reality, Social Forces 63 (1985) 967–985.
[33] T.P. Liang and J.S. Huang, An empirical study on consumer acceptance of products in electronic
markets: A transaction cost model, Decision Support Systems 24 (1998) 29–43.
[34] R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman, An integration model of organizational trust, Academy
of Management Review 20(3) (1995) 709–734.
[35] D. McAllister, Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in orga-
nization, Academy of Management Review 38(1) (1995) 24–59.
[36] D.H. McKnight, L.I. Cummings and N.L. Chervany, Initial trust formation in new organizational
relationships, Academy of Management Review 23(3) (1998) 473–490.
[37] A.D. Miyazaki and A. Fernandez, Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online
shopping, The Journal of Consumer Affairs 35(1) (2001) 27–44.
[38] J.I. Mohr and R.E. Spekman, Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, commu-
nication behavior and conflict resolution technique, Strategic Management Journal 57 (January 1994)
135–152.
[39] R.M. Morgan and S.D. Hunt, The commitment-theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing
58 (July 1994) 20–38.
[40] J. Murphy, Surfers and searchers, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (April 1999)
84–95.
[41] A. Parasuraman, V. Zeithaml and L. Berry, SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-
sumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing 64(1) (1988) 12–40.
[42] P.S. Ring and A. van de Ven, Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations, Strategic
Management Journal 13 (1992) 483–498.
[43] M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (Free Press, New York, 1973).
[44] J.B. Rotter, A new scale for measurement of personal trust, Journal of Personality 33 (1967) 651–665.
[45] J.B. Rotter, Generalized expectations for interpersonal trust, American Psychologist 26 (1971)
443–452.
[46] J.B. Rotter, Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility, American Psychologist 35 (1980) 1–7.
[47] D.M. Rousseau, S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt and C. Camerer, Not so different after all: A cross-discipline
view of trust, Academy of Management Review 23(3) (1998) 393–404.
[48] C.F. Sabel, Studies trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy, Human Relations
46(9) (1993) 1133–1170.
[49] C.L. Scott, III, Interpersonal trust: A comparison of attitudinal and situational factors, Human Rela-
tions 33 (1980) 805–812.
[50] F. Selnes, Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer–seller relationship, Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 32 (1998) 305–322.
[51] D. Shapiro, B.H. Sheppard and L. Cheraskin, Business on a handshake, Negotiation Journal 8(4)
(1992) 365–377.
[52] B.H. Sheppard and D.M. Sherman, The grammars of trust: A model and general implications, Acad-
emy of Management Review 23(3) (1998) 422–437.
[53] S. Shim and M.F. Drake, Consumer intention to utilize electronic shopping, Journal of Direct Market-
ing 4 (Summer 1990) 22–23.
[54] S. Shim, M.A. Eastlick, S.L. Lotz and P. Warrington, An online prepurchase intentions model: The
role of intention to search, Journal of Retailing 77 (2001) 397–416.
318 CHEN AND DHILLON

[55] J. Singh and D. Sirdeshmukh, Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty
judgments, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1) (2000) 150–167.
[56] S. Sitkin and N. Roth, Examining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “Remedies” for trust/distrust,
Organization Science 4 (August 1993) 367–392.
[57] S.B. Sitkin, On the positive effect of legalization on trust, in: Research in Negotiation in Organiza-
tions, eds. R.J. Bies et al. (JAI/Wiley, Greenwich, CT, 1995) pp. 185–217.
[58] L. Stack, Trust, in: Dimensions of Personality, eds. J.H. London and J.E. Exner (Wiley, New York,
1978) pp. 561–599.
[59] S.R. Sutten and R. Hallent, Understanding seat-belt intentions and behavior: A decision-making ap-
proach, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19 (1989) 1310–1325.
[60] J.E. Swan, I.F. Trawick, Jr., D.R. Rink and J.J. Roberts, Measuring dimensions of purchaser trust of
industrial salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management VIII (May 1988) 1–9.
[61] L.G. Telser, A theory of self-enforcing agreements, Journal of Business 53(1) (1980) 27–44.
[62] R. Torkzadeh and G. Dhillon, Measuring factors that influence sucess of internet commerce, Informa-
tion Systems Research 13(2) (2002) 187–204.
[63] K. Weber and W.S. Roehl, Profiling people searching for and purchasing travel products on the World
Wide Web, Journal of Travel Research 37 (February 1999) 291–298.
[64] F.E. Webster, Jr., Interpersonal communication and salesman effectiveness, Journal of Marketing 32
(July 1968) 7–13.
[65] A. Zaheer et al., Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of inter-organizational and interpersonal
trust on performance, Organization Science 9(2) (1998) 141–159.
[66] L.G. Zucker, Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920, in: Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, eds. B.M. Staw and L.L. Cumings (JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, 1986) pp. 53–111.