Journal of Services Marketing

The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions

James J. Zboja, Clay M. Voorhees,
Article information:
To cite this document:
James J. Zboja, Clay M. Voorhees, (2006) "The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions", Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 Issue: 6, pp.381-390, https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610691275
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610691275
Downloaded on: 10 July 2017, At: 11:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11250 times since 2006*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2008),"Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand trust and brand affect", Journal of Product
&amp; Brand Management, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 154-162 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810875070">https://
doi.org/10.1108/10610420810875070</a>
(2009),"Determinants of customer repurchase intention in online shopping", Online Information Review, Vol. 33 Iss 4 pp.
761-784 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985710">https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985710</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:492215 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on
retailer repurchase intentions
James J. Zboja
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA, and
Clay M. Voorhees
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate spill-over effects from customer perceptions of trust in and satisfaction with a brand to
customer evaluations of a retailer and, ultimately, repurchase intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model is developed and tested using structural equation modeling. Specifically, recent procedures
for assessing direct and mediated effects are adoped.
Findings – The findings demonstrate that customer trust in and satisfaction with a retailer mediate the effects of brand trust and satisfaction on
customer repurchase intentions.
Research limitations/implications – This research provides a preliminary examination of the relationship between brands, retailers, and consumers.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

The results suggest that halo effects exist between customer perceptions of brands and retailers. Future research could attempt to discern how this
transference from brand to retailer occurs and replicate these findings in other industries or product types.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that managers must realize that perceptions of brands are transferred to the retailers that carry these
products. However, in order for customers to return, a retailer must satisfy them and earn their trust, since the effects of brands are indirect.
Originality/value – This paper extends findings of transference in retail service settings by demonstrating that customer evaluations of brands can
spill over and influence customer perceptions of a retailer.

Keywords Retail trade, Trust, Customer satisfaction, Brands

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers can be found at
the end of this article.
Introduction
The sign in the window reads: “We proudly carry Bose audio
products for your listening pleasure.” It is nothing new. For
years, retailers have often made it a point to align themselves
with the high quality brands they sell. What is to be gained
from this strategy? Do brands and manufacturer names really
have a significant impact on the attitudes and behaviors of
consumers? Some have lamented that the importance of
brands is declining in a retail environment that is becoming
increasingly dominated by powerful superstores (e.g. Farris
and Ailawadi, 1992). However, numerous organizations
continue to leverage the value of their highly respected and
popular brand names. For instance, firms such as Campbell’s
and Coca-Cola are seen to be as American as baseball and
apple pie as a result of their successful branding strategies.
While large retailers may gain power in the channel
relationship due to their volume buying capability,
manufacturers’ brand names still remain an ace in the hole.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Journal of Services Marketing
20/5 (2006) 381– 390
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/08876040610691275]
Practitioners must understand the extent to which
manufacturers’ brands affect consumer evaluations of a
retailer in order to succeed in an increasingly competitive
retail environment.
While the role of branding for physical goods has received
considerable attention by both managers and researchers, the
extent that brands can affect service firms is less understood.
Recent conceptual work (Berry, 2000) and empirical
investigations (Krishnan and Hartline, 2001) highlight the
critical importance of investigating the role of branding for
service firms. However, much of this research is conceptual in
nature and focuses on establishing the need for a greater
understanding of the interplay between branding and service
firms. Throughout many of these preliminary
conceptualizations, few researchers have considered the
effects that the brands sold by a retailer could have on
customer evaluations of a firm. In order to better understand
how the perceptions of a brand can spill-over onto evaluations
of retail service firms, researchers need to begin extending
findings from other research streams. For example, previous
brand research suggests that ingredient branding can affect
customers’ overall evaluations of a physical good (Desai and
Keller, 2002). By extending this framework to a retail setting,
we can answer the question: is it possible that consumer
evaluations of retail service firms also be dependent on the
brands that they sell?
In an effort to shed new insight into the effects of
manufacturers’ brands on consumer perceptions of the
retailer, this study examines the role of consumer trust in
and satisfaction with the brand and their relationship to

381
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
retailer trust and satisfaction, and ultimately retailer
repurchase intentions. While there have been studies on the
transference of consumers’ positive attitudes from salespeople
onto retail stores and manufacturers (e.g. Beatty et al., 1996;
Goff et al., 1997), there has yet to be an empirical
examination of a similar potential transference from
manufacturer to retailer. This halo or spill-over effect has
both implications for retailers and manufacturers. Certain
brands may invoke such levels of trust and satisfaction in the
consumer, that there may be a spill-over effect for the retailer.
This research effort seeks to begin an empirical examination
of the complex three-way relationship of brands, retailers, and
consumers discussed by Webster (2000).
An integrated model of the proposed relationships
(Figure 1) was developed with the goal of answering two
questions:
(1) Do trust in and satisfaction with a brand have a positive
effect on the retailing firm in the form of repurchase
intentions?
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
(2) Is this relationship direct, or mediated by trust in and
satisfaction with the retailer?
It is the contention of the authors that brand trust and
satisfaction impact retailer repurchase intentions via their
impact on retailer trust and satisfaction. As such, this study
seeks to provide preliminary support for the existence of a
halo effect between brands and retailers.
A survey of retail consumers in the computer (n ¼ 262) and
electronics (n ¼ 174) product categories resulted in two
samples in which to test the hypothesized model. The two
different samples are used both to increase generalizability
and to cross validate the results of the analysis. Structural
equation modeling is conducted to test the model, along with
a procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test for
mediation in the model. After a review of the pertinent
literature and a statement of the hypotheses to be tested, the
paper proceeds with a discussion of the methods, results,
implications and limitations of the current study (see
Appendix).
Background and hypotheses
Trust and satisfaction
While there have been numerous conceptualizations of trust
in the marketing literature, one of the more popular is that
offered by Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23): trust exists “when
Figure 1 Conceptual model of the relationship between consumer
perceptions of brands and retailers
382
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability
and integrity”. Similarly, Moorman et al. (1993, p. 82) define
trust as “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom
one has confidence”. While the two conceptualizations are
very similar, Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) is adopted for the
present study, along with their measures. Lau and Lee (1999)
theorize that the brand serves as a proxy for the
manufacturing organization where contact with consumers
is concerned. That is, since consumers purchasing products
through a reseller do not have personal contact with a
representative of the manufacturer, they may develop trust in
the brand itself. For the present study, given the nature of the
product categories used in the survey (computers and
electronics), trust in the manufacturer and brand trust can
be used interchangeably. From herein, however, the
discussion will continue to focus on the brand.
Oliver (1997, p. 13) defines satisfaction as “a judgment that
a product or service feature, or the product or service itself,
provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-
related fulfillment, including levels of under- or
overfulfillment”. The importance of satisfaction in creating
desirable consumer outcomes for manufacturers and retailers
alike is well documented in the literature. Most appropriate to
the present discussion is the relationship between satisfaction
and trust. In their meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing
channels, Geyskens et al. (1999) found satisfaction to be an
antecedent to trust. Similar results have been found in retail
settings (Bloemer and Oderkerken-Schröeder, 2002), in the
context of brand trust (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Alemán, 2001), as well as proposed in services by Singh and
Sirdeshmukh (2000). The expectation is that the satisfaction-
trust relationship found in previous studies will hold for both
brands and retailers in the present study. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Satisfaction with the brand has a positive, direct
influence on trust in the brand.
H2. Satisfaction with the retailing firm has a positive, direct
influence on trust in the retailing firm.
Relationship of brand and retailing variables
The primary question being empirically set forth in this paper
is whether trust in and satisfaction with a brand can have
positive effects on the retailing firm in the form of trust,
satisfaction, and ultimately repurchase intentions. Singh
(1991) discusses the possibility that consumers may make
separate satisfaction judgments on separate aspects of their
shopping experience. For example, in the case of the present
study, a consumer may have distinct, yet related, evaluations
of the brand (e.g. Sony), the retail store (e.g. Circuit City),
and the salesperson that helped him/her select the right
product to purchase. Along the same lines, customers also
have been said to form relationships with not only retail
salespeople, but also the retail stores and the brands carried
therein (Dodds et al., 1991). Studies have found that positive
feelings toward retail salespeople are “transferred” into similar
feelings toward the retailer and/or manufacturer (Beatty et al.,
1996; Goff et al., 1997). More specifically, Macintosh and
Lockshin (1997) demonstrate that salesperson loyalty is an
antecedent to store loyalty. By extension of this very principle,
ingredient branding has been used to “enhance the equity of
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
the host brand by sending a strong signal to consumers that
the host product offers the combined benefits of two quality
brands in one” (Desai and Keller, 2002). Retailers can and
have leveraged the brands they carry in much the same
manner, perhaps benefiting from spill-over effects at work
among consumers.
Abelson et al. (1968), suggest that halo effect may simply be
a reflection of an individual’s tendency to maintain cognitive
consistency. This study examines halo/spill-over effects that
can allow retailers to exploit the popular brands they carry to
their advantage. Boulding (1956) relates that human behavior
is directed more by the images perceived than by objective
reality. Perception is, indeed, often reality in the minds of
consumers. If retailers can create a connection (in the minds
of consumers) with the popular brands they carry, they can
likely benefit from these powerful brands as well. Based on
these findings, the following hypotheses propose that trust in
and satisfaction with the brand can have a similar transference
to the retailer:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
H3. Satisfaction with the brand has a positive, direct
influence on satisfaction with the retailing firm.
H4. Trust in the brand has a positive, direct influence on
trust in the retailing firm.
Repurchase intentions
Repurchase intentions, along with loyalty, willingness to pay a
price premium, word-of-mouth, and complaining represent
the five behavioral intentions described by Zeithaml et al.
(1996). The loyalty and repurchase intentions aspects of the
taxonomy are most similar in nature. Oliver (1997), for
example, operationalizes action loyalty as repeat usage.
Furthermore, Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán
(2001) and Macintosh and Lockshin (1997) use repurchase
intentions as an element of loyalty in brand and store contexts
respectively.
There is some debate in the literature regarding
satisfaction’s affect on repurchase intentions and loyalty.
Many have found a direct link (e.g. Bearden and Teel, 1983;
Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Oliver et al., 1997; Selnes, 1998),
while others suggest that trust is the dominant antecedent of
repurchase intentions (e.g. Doney and Cannon, 1997). The
debate has clearly not yet been settled as Ranaweera and
Prabhu (2003) found both trust and satisfaction to have
strong positive effects on customer retention. In addition,
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) found satisfaction to be key
for occasional customers, while trust was more important for
consistent customers. Finally, Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003)
suggest that satisfaction affects loyalty both directly, as well as
through trust. For the present study, this viewpoint is adopted
for repurchase intentions. The first part of the partially
mediated link has already been proposed with H1 and H2
linking satisfaction to trust. Therefore, the following
hypotheses propose both the direct link of satisfaction and
repurchase intentions, as well as the completion of the
partially mediated link through trust:
H5. Satisfaction with the retailing firm has a positive, direct
influence on repurchase intentions with the retailing
firm.
H6. Trust in the retailing firm has a positive, direct
influence on repurchase intentions with the retailing
firm.
383
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
Mediating role of retailer satisfaction and trust
The second primary question that this paper investigates
addresses the nature of the relationship between trust in and
satisfaction with the brand and repurchase intentions with the
retailer. Retailers can reap a number of benefits from carrying
strong brands, including image enhancement for retailer with
consumer, relationship of trust and credibility with consumer,
and pre-established demand (Webster, 2000). The first two
benefits are affective in nature and coincide quite well with a
potential transfer of brand satisfaction and trust to the
retailer. On the other hand, pre-established demand is more
behavioral in nature, implying that increased store traffic/
business can result. However, the contention of this paper is
that this demand is created for the specific purchase at hand,
and does not necessarily extend to repurchase situations. That
is, the pre-established demand may get the consumer in the
store, but it may not be enough to keep them coming back.
These findings and contentions of the present research lead to
the following proposed mediation:
H7. The effects of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer
repurchase intentions are mediated by trust in and
satisfaction with the retailer.
Method
The samples
A survey was used to collect the data for this study.
Respondents were interviewed at multiple locations in the
region to collect information regarding their experiences in
purchasing one of two categories of products: computers
(n ¼ 262) and electronics (n ¼ 174). Specifically, consumers
were asked to evaluate their most recent purchase experience
in either category. The demographic profiles of the computers
and electronics samples are provided in Table I.
The two separate product categories were used in the study
to cross validate the results of the other. Both computers and
electronics were chosen for the study due to the relative
inseparability of the manufacturer and brand names. That is,
for example, most would likely refer to their computer as a
Compaq or their television as a Sony, rather than the specific
model number or name. In this situation, satisfaction with
and trust in the brand also serve as proxies for satisfaction
with and trust in the manufacturer. On the other hand, in the
case of many large consumer goods manufacturers with
numerous product lines, shoppers often may not even know
who the manufacturer of the brand they purchase actually is
(e.g. Kraft or Proctor & Gamble). Furthermore, the two
product categories are also appropriate for their
distinctiveness from the retail outlets that sell their
products, allowing for evaluations on both the brand and
retailer levels. In the case of some products, such as
automobiles or services in particular, the distinction is
considerably less clear.
The measures
The salient constructs in the study were all measured via
reliable, established scales or subsets of scales previously used
in the marketing literature. The scales used were all multi-
item and responses were recorded via a seven-point Likert-
type format with endpoints of strongly disagree (1) and
strongly agree (7). Satisfaction was measured via a subset of
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction Journal of Services Marketing
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390

Table I Demographics of samples Analysis and results

Computer Electronics Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the
n 5 262 n 5 174 parameters for testing the proposed model. Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) suggest a two-step approach of structural
Age Mean ¼ 34:70 Mean ¼ 34:86 equation modeling whereby a measurement model is first
Std:Dev: ¼ 13:97 Std:Dev: ¼ 13:68 examined to confirm convergent and discriminant validity,
Gender followed by the simultaneous estimation of the measurement
Male (%) 51.1 50.5 and structural models. This approach has been adopted for
Female (%) 48.9 49.5 the present study in both samples (computer and electronics)
as a means of further validation and generalization of results.
Ethnic status All analyses used item-level covariance matrices as inputs and
Caucasian (%) 79.3 79.6 maximum likelihood estimation of parameters. Further, to
African-American (%) 10.5 4.8 test mediation effects in the proposed model, an approach
Hispanic (%) 5.5 0 7.0 recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was conducted.
The analysis results of each sample follow.
Asian-American (%) 3.6 5.4
Native American (%) 0.7 1.1 Computer sample results
Other (%) 0.4 2.2 The measurement model was tested via confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), with each item constrained to load only on its
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

Education
intended construct. The results of the measurement model
Less than high school (%) 1.5 2.2
were favorable in that all items loaded significantly on their
High school graduate (%) 4.7 13.0 appropriate factor. Likewise, the model provided a good fit to
Some college (%) 46.2 39.5 the data based on an examination of the fit indices: x2
College graduate (%) 34.2 32.4 (df ¼ 289, n ¼ 262Þ ¼ 963:75, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:98,
Some postgraduate work (%) 3.3 1.1 TLI ¼ 0:97, SRMR ¼ 0:055. The reported fit indices were
Graduate degree (%) 10.2 11.9 based on the suggestion of Hu and Bentler (1999) to use a
dual index reporting strategy, reporting SRMR and CFI (if
Income/year n , 250) or SRMR and TLI (if n . 250). Since the two
Less than $20,000 (%) 28.7 23.9 present samples fall on both sides of the 250 sample size cut-
$20,000 to $39,999 (%) 22.6 17.8 off, all three indices are reported in each sample for the sake
$40,000 to $59,999 (%) 13.6 17.2 of consistency. The cut-off points for good fit suggested by
$60,000 to $79,999 (%) 11.3 15.6 Hu and Bentler (1999) are around 0.95 (or higher) for CFI
$80,000 to $99,999 (%) 08.3 9.4 and TLI, and around 0.08 (or lower) for SRMR. Table II
More than $100,000 (%) 15.5 16.1
contains scale statistics for the computer sample, such as
means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables.
Procedures recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981)
were undertaken to confirm validity of the scales used in the
Oliver’s (1997) consumption satisfaction scale. The scale study. Convergent validity was established through the
items were adjusted to apply to both satisfaction with the calculation of the average variance extracted by each
brand and retailer. Included in the subset are five of the twelve construct, relative to error. The salient constructs met the
items, one of which is the satisfaction anchor “I am satisfied established criteria, all having average variance extracted over
with my decision to buy . . . ” denoted by Oliver (1997) as the 50 per cent, thus meeting the requirements of convergent
only item absolutely not to be removed. In the present study, validity. Discriminant validity was established via a
the brand and retailer adjusted scales exhibited strong comparison of average variance extracted for each construct
construct reliability, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 across the with its shared variance with all other constructs in the study.
two samples. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the average
Trust was measured via a six-item scale with items adapted variance extracted must be greater than shared variance
for both brand and retailer from scales developed by Morgan with other constructs for discriminant validity to be
and Hunt (1994) and Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002). The four established. These criteria were also met by the current study.
items used by Sirdeshmukh et al. were all adopted, along with The hypothesized structural equation model (see Figure 1)
two additional items added from Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) was then estimated to evaluate path estimates and overall
scale. The resulting scale exhibited construct reliabilities of model fit. The hypothesized model reflected good model fit:
0.85 and 0.90. x2 (df ¼ 293, n ¼ 262Þ ¼ 993:35, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:98;
Repurchase intentions were measured via an adaptation of TLI ¼ 0:97; SRMR ¼ 0:068. As with the measurement
Zeithaml et al.’s (1996) scale of behavioral intentions. Their model, all fit indices are well within their established cut-off
scale measured separate categories of behavioral intentions points for exhibition of good fit. The relationships
(e.g. word-of-mouth, repurchase intentions, loyalty, and hypothesized in H1 through H6 were all confirmed to be
willingness to pay a price premium). The three items for positive and significant as predicted (see Table III for specific
repurchase intentions were adopted for the present study, path coefficients and variances explained).
exhibiting construct reliability across the samples of 0.84 and H7 proposed that the effects of trust in and satisfaction with
0.85. a brand are mediated through satisfaction with and trust in

384
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction Journal of Services Marketing
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390

Table II Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables

Construct MC SDC ME SDE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Satisfaction with the brand 5.98 1.29 6.05 1.16 0.57* 0.67* 0.48* 0.48*
2. Trust in the brand 5.42 1.02 5.59 1.06 0.60* 0.51* 0.50* 0.32*
3. Satisfaction with the retailer 5.61 1.30 5.63 1.24 0.52* 0.40* 0.65* 0.70*
4. Trust in the retailer 5.34 1.16 5.24 1.09 0.39* 0.53* 0.78* 0.53*
5. Retailer repurchase intentions 5.04 1.17 4.76 1.16 0.45* 0.37* 0.78* 0.67*
Notes: * p , 0:01
Intercorrelations (two-tail) for the computer sample (n ¼ 262) are presented in the lower half of the matrix and intercorrelations for the electronics sample
(n ¼ 174) are presented in the upper half of the matrix

Table III Structural model results

Computer sample (n 5 262) Electronics sample (n 5 174)
Hypothesized paths Path coefficients R2 Path coefficients R2
SatisfactionBrand ! TrustBrand 0.63 * 0.40 0.64 * 0.41
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

SatisfactionRetailer ! TrustRetailer 0.70 * 0.69 0.54 * 0.45

SatisfactionBrand ! SatisfactionRetailer 0.51 * 0.26 0.66 * 0.44
TrustBrand ! TrustRetailer 0.27 * 0.23 *
SatisfactionRetailer ! Repurchase Intent Retailer 0.55 * 0.65 0.56 * 0.53
TrustRetailer ! Repurchase Intent Retailer 0.30 * 0.23 *
Structural model results
Computer sample: x2 (df ¼ 293, n ¼ 262Þ ¼ 993:35, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:98; TLI ¼ 0:97; SRMR ¼ 0:068
Electronics sample: x2 (df ¼ 293, n ¼ 174Þ ¼ 807:37, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:97; TLI ¼ 0:97; SRMR ¼ 0:077
* p , 0:01
SatisfactionBrand ¼ Satisfaction with the brand; TrustBrand ¼ Trust in the brand; SatisfactionRetailer ¼ Satisfaction with the retailer; TrustRetailer ¼ Trust in the
retailer

the retailer. To test for this mediation effect, the three-step
procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was
used. The first step, in this case, required a significance test of
the relationship between the independent variable (brand
satisfaction/trust) and the mediator (retailer satisfaction/
trust). In both cases (satisfaction and trust), the relationship
was positive and significant (p , 0:05). The second step
entails a test of the relationship between the independent
variable (brand satisfaction/trust) and the dependent variable
(retailer repurchase intentions). This standard was also met as
both cases were again positive and significant (p , 0:05). In
the third step, the dependent variable is regressed on both the
independent variable and the mediator. To establish
mediation, the third step must find the mediator to be
significantly related to the dependent variable, and find that
the effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable is less than it was in the second step. Further, if the
relationship between the independent variable and the
dependent variable becomes insignificant in step three, full
mediation is supported. In this case, the first criterion was
met for both satisfaction and trust (retailer satisfaction/trust
were still significantly related to retailer repurchase intentions)
and in both cases, the effect of the brand variable became
insignificant in step three, suggesting full mediation. These
results provide support for H7.
Electronics sample results
The following analysis of a second sample (electronics) was
included both to validate the results found with the computer
sample, as well as increase generalizability of the findings
reported herein. Similarly, the measurement model was
tested via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with equally
favorable results. The model provided a good fit to the data
based on an examination of the fit indices: x2 (df ¼ 289,
n ¼ 174Þ ¼ 799:65, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:97, TLI ¼ 0:97,
SRMR ¼ 0:070. Again, the fit statistics are all within the
cut-off points for good fit suggested by Hu and Bentler
(1999). Table II contains scale statistics for the computer
sample, such as means, standard deviations, and correlations
for the variables in the model.
The constructs of the study again met the established
criteria for convergent validity, all having average variance
extracted (relative to error) over 50 per cent. Discriminant
validity was also established, as the average variance extracted
for each construct being greater than that construct’s shared
variance with the other constructs in the study.
The hypothesized structural equation model reflected good
model fit with this sample as well: x2 (df ¼ 293,
n ¼ 174Þ ¼ 807:37, p , 0:05; CFI ¼ 0:97; TLI ¼ 0:97;
SRMR ¼ 0:077. Once again, all fit indices were well within
their established cut-off points for exhibition of good fit. The
relationships hypothesized in H1 through H6 were all
confirmed to be positive and significant as predicted (see
Table III for specific path coefficients and R2 values).
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step mediation procedure
was again used to test H7. The established criteria for each of
the three steps were again met. Specifically, in the third step,

385
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
the effect of the brand variable became insignificant in step
three, suggesting full mediation. Therefore, the findings of
both samples in this study suggest that the effects of
satisfaction with and trust in the brand on retailer
repurchase intentions are mediated through satisfaction with
and trust in the retailer (thereby supporting H7). Following is
a discussion of the study’s findings, limitations of the study,
and research and managerial implications.
Discussion
The objective of this paper is to empirically examine the
relationship among brands, retailers, and consumers. The
study is particularly concerned with consumer trust in and
satisfaction with the brand and their relationship to retailer
trust and satisfaction, and ultimately retailer repurchase
intentions. Although it has been examined for salespeople and
retail stores (e.g. Beatty et al., 1996), the potential spill-over
effect of brand trust and satisfaction to retailers has yet to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
empirically tested. Through the testing of the proposed
model, the study seeks to confirm some previously established
relationships, and answer the following questions:
(1) Does trust in and satisfaction with a brand have a
positive effect on the retailing firm in the form of
repurchase intentions?
(2) What is the nature of this relationship? (i.e. is it direct, or
mediated by trust in and satisfaction with the retailer?)
The results of the study indicate that there is indeed a spill-
over from brand trust and satisfaction to the retailer in the
form of trust and satisfaction, providing support for a
potential halo effect between brands and retailers. The
primary contribution of this research paper, however, is the
investigation of the nature of the relationship between brand
trust and satisfaction and retailer repurchase intentions. The
data suggests that while brand trust and satisfaction do have
an impact on retailer repurchase intentions, that impact is
mediated through retailer trust and satisfaction. That is,
unless the feelings of trust and satisfaction the consumer has
for the brand are successfully projected onto the retailer, there
may not ultimately be an impact on the retailer’s repeat
business. This suggests that while a retailer can garner more
consumer traffic by aligning itself with popular name brands,
it is the consumer’s direct assessment of the retailer that
influences whether or not customers return. These results
serve as a starting point for the empirical investigation of
Webster’s (2000) proposed three-way relationship among
brands, consumers, and resellers. Through working together,
both manufacturers and retailers alike can benefit from
powerful brands and manufacturer names.
Managerial implications
The results of the structural model and mediation tests have
strong implications for both retail service firms and physical
good manufacturers. Specifically, the results provide new
insight for developing individual strategies for retailers and
manufacturers and for forming cooperative strategies with
benefits for both brand and service managers. For service
managers, the results suggest that when developing strategies
they must consider that consumer evaluations of their firm are
dependent on customer evaluations of the brands they carry,
386
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
and that customer satisfaction evaluations can be affected by
the products a firm sells, in addition to the service they offer.
Retailers must be aware that consumer evaluations of the
brands they carry can influence customer perceptions of their
stores. This suggests that retailers may simply be able to
increase customer satisfaction evaluations through carrying
strong brands. While these results do offer great opportunities
for retailers, such as potential increases in customer
satisfaction, potential pitfalls do exist. For example, if
customers have a negative predisposition toward the brands
sold by a reseller, then their satisfaction or trust in the retailer
could be damaged even if they receive excellent service and
are satisfied with their interactions with the store’s employees.
Thus, retail managers must not only be aware of which brands
they carry, but also of customers’ opinions of these brands.
In an effort to address these concerns, retailers may want to
consider developing strong private brands, which could help
ensure both consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Some retailers
such as Sears, with their Craftsman brand tools, have enjoyed
great success following this strategy. By developing private
brand products that consumers trust, retailers increase the
chances that consumers will develop trust with their firm and
will remain loyal. Furthermore, when a firm carries a strong
private brand, the positive effects of the brand may be able to
offset potential instances of poor service. Thus, developing
strong private brands may also serve as a way to buffer the
effects of service failures.
In addition, many retail firms use customer satisfaction
ratings to evaluate and assess the performance of their
employees. The results of this study demonstrate that
customer satisfaction ratings are affected by customer
perceptions of brands, which means that managers must
control for these effects in order to accurately measure
customer satisfaction with the service experience. This is
especially important for large retailers that offer a variety of
products in a number of categories, because the variations of
the brands they carry could have differing effects on customer
satisfaction ratings from department to department. In order
to assess customer satisfaction with the actual service they
received, independent of their perceptions of the brand that
they purchased, managers need to control for the strong
effects that brands have on customer satisfaction with retail
firms.
The results also provide significant implications for physical
good manufacturers that may help these managers regain
some leverage in the supply chain. With the emergence of
super retailers such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy, the power in
the supply chain has recently shifted toward the retailer.
However, the results of this study indicate that, due to the
strong effects that brands can have on consumer evaluations
of a retailer, many brand managers may be able regain some
of their influence in the supply chain. In particular,
manufacturers of very strong specialty brands like Sony,
may be able to use the strength of their brand name as a
bargaining chip when negotiating contracts with retail firms,
since our results clearly show that a retailer can experience
increased customer satisfaction levels simply by selling goods
produced by a respected manufacturer.
In addition to individual strategies, the results also suggest
that retailers and manufacturers may wish to consider
developing some cooperative partnerships to maximize the
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
performance of both firms. For example, since brand names
are clearly linked to retailer satisfaction levels and repeat
purchase intentions, it is in the best interest of retailers to
bolster customer perceptions of the brands that they carry.
Along the same lines, manufacturers benefit as consumer
intentions toward a retailer increase, because it ensures a
market of consumers to purchase their products. For these
reasons, retailers and brand managers should consider
developing integrative advertising campaigns where the
retailers attempt to promote the image of both their store
and the brands they carry. As mentioned in the opening
vignette, advertisements such as “We proudly carry Bose
audio products for your listening pleasure” could help bolster
customer perceptions toward both the brand and the retailer,
resulting in increased repurchase intentions for both firms.
Research implications and limitations
The findings reported here are just a small piece of the puzzle
that is the complex relationship among brands, retailers, and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
consumers. Future research efforts should attempt to develop
further insight into these relationships. Webster (2000)
suggests that brands should be key elements of channel
relationship models, with emphasis on cooperation, so
manufacturer and retailer can mutually benefit from and
fully exploit strong brands. Based on Webster’s (2000)
framework and the preliminary results of this study,
researchers can investigate which methods work best at
encouraging spill-over effects to help retailers benefit from the
brands in their stores. These effects may be attained simply
through cooperative advertising or point-of-purchase displays,
but more research is needed in this area.
In addition, investigations of other products could also be
used to validate the findings of this study. Similarly, Wirtz and
Bateson (1995) suggest that spill-over effects may be more
prominent in services than in goods due to their credence
attributes. However, differences in spill-over effects across
credence, experience, and search based services are still
unexplored. There is obviously a plethora of potential
extensions available here that can augment our
understanding of these fascinating consumer phenomena,
and future research efforts in this area can help managers and
academics gain a better understanding of the complex
relationship between brands, retailers, and consumers.
Moreover, the effects of branding for pure service firms (i.e.
hair salons, financial services, entertainment, and auto repair)
could be explored. While our study focused on specialty retail
firms, it is possible that branding cues could affect customer
evaluations of other service firms. For example, are customer
evaluations of an auto service center enhanced when its
mechanics are automotive service excellence (ASE) certified?
In addition, future research could attempt to replicate these
findings in more general retail settings, where consumers are
more likely to undergo routine decision making. When
consumers engage in routine decision making, they tend to be
shopping for products of low cost and importance, and
subsequently consider less information when making
consumption decisions. For these routine purchases, it is
possible that the effect of a brand on customer evaluations of
a retailer may be reduced. Future efforts could examine the
effects found in this study for other products such as
convenience goods.
387
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
As with most research, there are limitations to the present
study. Most obviously, the analysis is restricted to specialty
retailers and the proposed model is not exhaustive in nature.
In the current study, the effects of brands for computer and
electronic purchases were evaluated, both of which are
characterized as specialty products that tend to involve
extensive decision making. While the external validity of the
results is improved by replicating the results in two separate
industries, it is possible that the findings may not be
generalizable for purchases that do not involve specialty
products. Specifically, the price of the product and the type of
consumption decision could significantly affect the strength of
the relationships found in this study. Future research could
focus on replicating these results for convenience products;
however, due to the very nature of the routine decision
making associated with convenience goods, it is likely that the
effects of the brands on evaluations of a retailer would be
reduced.
Moreover, the research could be enhanced by expanding
the current model. The role of the retail salesperson could be
investigated to add further depth to the model. While the
spill-over effect has been shown between salesperson and
retail and here between brand and retail, is there a potential
spill-over between salesperson and brand? Likewise, the study
is limited by the research design. The limitations of self-report
questionnaires are well documented. An experimental design
would offer a more controlled environment that would offer a
higher degree of internal validity. This would be a fruitful
direction to further expand this stream of research. However,
the authors enlisted all available controls in an effort to
maintain the integrity of the data collected and the study.
Ultimately the findings demonstrate that customers develop
retailer satisfaction assessments on more than just their in-
store interactions. Consumer perceptions of brands can
dominate customer satisfaction evaluations, however, they do
not have a direct influence on retailer repurchase intentions.
This suggests that while managers must be aware that
consumer perceptions of brands do have strong effects, they
should understand that the influence of brands on repurchase
intentions is indirect. Thus, in order to earn repeat visits from
consumers, managers must consider the effects of brands, but
still focus on satisfying the customer and earning their trust.
References
Abelson, R.P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M.,
Rosenberg, M.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (Eds) (1968),
Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, Rand
McNally, Chicago, IL.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants
of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 21-8.
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
Beatty, S.E., Mayer, M.L., Coleman, J.E., Reynolds, K.E.
and Lee, J. (1996), “Customer-sales associate retail
relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, pp. 223-47.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-37.
Bloemeer, J. and Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2002), “Store
satisfaction and store loyalty explained by customer- and
store-related factors”, Journal of Customer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 68-80.
Boulding, K.E. (1956), The Image, The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service
quality: a reexamination and extension”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J.L. (2001),
“Brand trust in the context of customer loyalty”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 1238-58.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemán, J.L. and Yagüe-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
Guillén, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a
brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Desai, K.K. and Keller, K.K. (2002), “The effects of
ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991),
“The effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 28, pp. 307-19.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of
the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationship”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51.
Farris, P.W. and Ailawadi, K. (1992), “Retail power: monster
or mouse?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, pp. 351-69.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Geyskens, I.J-B., Steenkamp, E.M. and Kumar, N. (1999),
“A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel
relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36,
pp. 223-38.
Goff, B.G., Boles, J.S., Bellenger, D.N. and Stojack, C.
(1997), “The influence of salesperson selling behaviors on
customer satisfaction with products”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 73, pp. 171-84.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Judd, C.M., Drake, R.A., Dowing, J.W. and Krosnick, J.A.
(1991), “Some dynamic properties of attitude structures:
context-induced response facilitation and polarization”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 193-202.
Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001), “Brand equity:
is it more important in services?”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 15 Nos 4/5, pp. 328-31.
388
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H. (1999), “Consumers’ trust in a
brand and the link to brand loyalty”, Journal of Market-
Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 341-70.
Macintosh, G. and Lockshin, L.S. (1997), “Retail
relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level perspective”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 5,
pp. 487-97.
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993),
“Factors affecting trust in market research relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 81-101.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer
delight: foundations, findings and managerial insight”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-36.
Ranaweera, C. and Prabhu, J. (2003), “The influence of
satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on customer
retention in a continuous purchasing setting”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 374-95.
Selnes, F. (1998), “Antecedents and consequences of trust
and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 305-22.
Singh, J. (1991), “Understanding the structure of consumers’
satisfaction evaluations of service delivery”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19, pp. 223-44.
Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), “Agency and trust
mechanisms in customer satisfaction and loyalty
judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 150-67.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 15-37.
Webster, F.E. (2000), “Understanding the relationships
among brands, consumers, and resellers”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-23.
Wirtz, J. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1995), “An experimental
investigation of halo effects in satisfaction measures of
service attributes”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 84-102.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),
“The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Further reading
Desai, K.K., Keller, K.K. and Yagüe-Guillén, M.J. (2003),
“Development and validation of a brand trust scale”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 35-53.
Moore, W.L. and James, W.L. (1978), “A study of the amount
of halo in the perceptions of automobiles”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 481-4.
Murphy, K.R., Jako, R.A. and Anhalt, R.L. (1993), “Nature
and consequences of halo error: a critical analysis”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 218-25.
Thorndike, E.L. (1920), “A consistent error in psychological
ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 25-9.
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction Journal of Services Marketing
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390

Wu, B.T.W. and Petroshius, S.M. (1987), “The halo effect in .

store image measurement”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 44-51.
I think that I did the right thing when I visited this reseller.
.
I am not happy that I visited this reseller.
.
I truly enjoyed my visit to this reseller.

Repeat purchase intentions

I will:
Appendix. Survey snstrument .
Buy this manufacturer’s products again.
General instructions to respondents .
Do business with this manufacturer in the future.
In order to complete the survey, please reflect on a recent .
Do more business with this manufacturer in the coming
experience (i.e. within the last six months) when you purchased years.
one of the following products (audio/visual equipment or
computer or related accessories) from a reseller (i.e. Best Buy, Corresponding author
CompUSA). Based on this experience, we ask that you answer
questions regarding your opinion of the product manufacturer James J. Zboja can be contacted at: jjz02@fsu.edu
and the reseller. For example, you could evaluate an experience
where you bought a Sony big screen television from Best Buy. Executive summary
When responding to the questions, Sony would be the
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
manufacturer and Best Buy would be the reseller.
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

Qualitative information
in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of
The name of the manufacturer that I am evaluating is (i.e.
the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
Sony/Panasonic; Compaq/Toshiba): “The name of the reseller
material present.
that I am evaluating is (i.e. Best Buy/Rex; CompUSA).”

Scale items Great store, shame about the brands they stock. If that is a
All items were measured using seven-point Likert-Type Scales customer’s opinion when they go out shopping, someone is in
that were anchored at 1 by “Strongly disagree” and at 7 by trouble. For, even if the store is excellent in every other way,
and has friendly, knowledgeable and helpful staff, a
“Strongly agree.” Some items were reverse coded are denoted
customer’s negative attitude towards the brands it sells will
below (R).
have a harmful, knock-on effect on the store itself.
Trust in the brand But is the opposite true? Can a retail outlet, carrying a
The manufacturer of this product: range of well-known brands which people trust, gain by
.
Can be trusted at all times. attracting customers who come for the brand rather than the
.
Cannot be depended on to do what is right (R). store and how does this impact on repurchase intentions? And
.
Has high integrity. how does it all work?
.
Is not competent (R). Do trust in and satisfaction with a brand have a positive
.
Is very dependable. effect on the retailing firm in the form of repurchase
.
Is unresponsive (R). intentions? And is this relationship direct, or mediated by
trust in and satisfaction with the retailer?
Satisfaction with the brand James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees’s contention,
.
I am satisfied with my decision to purchase this supported by a study of electronics and computer retailer
manufacturer’s product. consumers, is that brand trust and satisfaction impact retailer
.
My choice to buy this manufacturer’s product was a wise purchase intentions via their impact on retailer trust and
one. satisfaction. A conclusion which they concede is just a small
.
I think that I did the right thing when I bought this piece of the puzzle that is the complex relationship among
manufacturer’s product. brands, retailers and consumers.
. I am not happy that I bought this manufacturer’s product. They say:
.
I truly enjoyed my purchase of this manufacturer’s While brand trust and satisfaction do have an impact on retailer purchase
intentions, that impact is mediated through retailer trust and satisfaction.
product. That is, unless the feelings of trust and satisfaction the consumer has for the
brand are successfully projected onto the retailer, there may not ultimately
Trust in the retailer be an impact on the retailer’s repeat business. This suggests that, while the
retailer can garner more consumer traffic by aligning itself with popular
The reseller: name brands, it is the consumer’s direct assessment of the retailer that
. Can be trusted at all times. influences whether or not customers return.
.
Cannot be depended on to do what is right (R).
.
Has high integrity. Strong implications for both retail service firms and physical
.
Is not competent (R). goods manufacturers provide new insight for developing
.
Is very dependable. individual strategies for retailers and manufacturers and for
. Is unresponsive (R). forming co-operative strategies with benefits for both brand
and service managers.
Satisfaction with the retailer For service managers they suggest that, when developing
.
I am satisfied with my decision to visit this reseller. strategies, they must consider that consumer evaluations of
.
My choice to visit this reseller was a wise one. their firm are dependent on customer evaluations of the

389
 The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
James J. Zboja and Clay M. Voorhees
brands they carry, and that customer satisfaction evaluations
can be affected by the products a firm sells, in addition to the
service they offer.
Retailers must be aware that consumer evaluations of the
brands they carry can influence customer perceptions of their
stores. This suggests that retailers may simply be able to
increase customer satisfaction evaluations through carrying
strong brands. While these results do offer great opportunities
for retailers, such as potential increases in customer
satisfaction, potential pitfalls do exist. For example, if
customers have a negative predisposition towards the brands
sold by a retailer, then their satisfaction or trust in the retailer
could be damaged even if they receive excellent service and
are satisfied with their interactions with the store’s employees.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
390
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2006 · 381 –390
Thus, retail managers must not only be aware of which brands
they carry, but also of customers’ opinions of these brands.
In an effort to address such concerns, Zboja and Voorhees
suggest:
Retailers may want to consider developing strong private brands which could
help ensure both consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Some retailers such as
Sears, with their Craftsman brand tools, have enjoyed great success following
this strategy. By developing private brand products that consumers trust,
retailers increase the chances that consumers will develop trust with their
firm and will remain loyal. Furthermore, when a firm carries a strong.private
brand, the positive effects of the brand may be able to offset potential
instances of poor service. Thus, developing strong private brands may also
serve as a way to buffer the effects of service failures.
(A précis of the article “The impact of brand trust and satisfaction
on retailer repurchase intentions”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. HuangChao-Chin, Chao-Chin Huang. 2017. The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and
trust. Management Decision 55:5, 915-934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Norazah Mohd Suki. 2017. Green products usage: structural relationships on customer satisfaction and loyalty. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24:1, 88-95. [CrossRef]
3. Natalia Rubio, Nieves Villaseñor, María Jesús Yagüe. 2017. Creation of consumer loyalty and trust in the retailer through store
brands: The moderating effect of choice of store brand name. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34, 358-368. [CrossRef]
4. Enrique Bigné, Eva-María Caplliure, María-José Miquel. 2016. eWOM on Travel Agency Selection: Specialized versus Private
Label. Psychology & Marketing 33:12, 1046-1053. [CrossRef]
5. Sertan Kabadayi. 2016. Customers’ dissatisfaction with banking channels and their intention to leave banks: The moderating
effect of trust and trusting beliefs. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 21:3, 194-208. [CrossRef]
6. Hyunju Shin, Riza Casidy, Alyssa Yoon, So-Hyang Yoon. 2016. Brand trust and avoidance following brand crisis: A quasi-
experiment on the effect of franchisor statements. Journal of Brand Management 23:5, 1-23. [CrossRef]
7. Neha Srivastava, Satya Bhushan Dash, Amit Mookerjee. 2016. Determinants of brand trust in high inherent risk products.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34:3, 394-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Hung-Che Wu, Tao Li, Meng-Yu Li. 2016. A Study of Behavioral Intentions, Patient Satisfaction, Perceived Value, Patient Trust
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

and Experiential Quality for Medical Tourists. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 17:2, 114-150. [CrossRef]
9. Elten Briggs, Zhiyong Yang, Tracy R. Harmon-Kizer, Todd J. Arnold. 2016. How Do Differing Community Engagement
Strategies Affect Consumer Responses to a Retailer?. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 24:1, 109-127. [CrossRef]
10. Enrique Bigné, Eva-María Caplliure, María-José Miquel. Store Brands in Tourist Services 139-148. [CrossRef]
11. Susanne Beck, Peter Kenning. 2015. The influence of retailers’ family firm image on new product acceptance. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43:12, 1126-1143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Haywantee Ramkissoon, Felix T. Mavondo. 2015. The satisfaction–place attachment relationship: Potential mediators and
moderators. Journal of Business Research 68:12, 2593-2602. [CrossRef]
13. Arvid O. I. Hoffmann, Dana Ketteler. 2015. How experiences with trading a company’s stock influence customer attitudes and
purchasing behavior. International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:7, 963-992. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Angela Anagnostou, Paul T.M. Ingenbleek, Hans C.M. van Trijp. 2015. Sustainability labelling as a challenge to legitimacy:
spillover effects of organic Fairtrade coffee on consumer perceptions of mainstream products and retailers. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 32:6, 422-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. M. S. Balaji, Subhash Jha, Marla B. Royne. 2015. Customer e-complaining behaviours using social media. The Service Industries
Journal 35:11-12, 633-654. [CrossRef]
16. Veronika Tarnovskaya. 2015. Corporate brand as a contract with stakeholders – theology or pragmatism?. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 33:6, 865-886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Neha Srivastava, Satya Bhushan Dash, Amit Mookerjee. 2015. Antecedents and moderators of brand trust in the context of baby
care toiletries. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32:5, 328-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Norazah Mohd Suki. 2015. Customer environmental satisfaction and loyalty in the consumption of green products. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 22:4, 292-301. [CrossRef]
19. Xiangbin Yan, Jing Wang, Michael Chau. 2015. Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews.
Information Systems Frontiers 17:3, 645-657. [CrossRef]
20. Vaishali Singh. 2015. Consumer Trust in Retail: Development of a Multiple Item Scale. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management 3:10. . [CrossRef]
21. Hongxia Zhang, Jin Sun, Fang Liu, John G. Knight. 2014. Be rational or be emotional: advertising appeals, service types and
consumer responses. European Journal of Marketing 48:11/12, 2105-2126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Steffen Herm. 2014. Negative spillover effects in brand cooperation. Journal of Business Economics 84:8, 1087-1109. [CrossRef]
23. Jiyun Kang, Gwendolyn Hustvedt. 2014. The Contribution of Perceived Labor Transparency and Perceived Corporate Giving to
Brand Equity in the Footwear Industry. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 32:4, 296-311. [CrossRef]
24. Parves Sultan, Ho Yin Wong. 2014. An integrated-process model of service quality, institutional brand and behavioural intentions.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 24:5, 487-521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 25. Maria José Miquel-Romero, Eva María Caplliure-Giner, Consolación Adame-Sánchez. 2014. Relationship marketing
management: Its importance in private label extension. Journal of Business Research 67:5, 667-672. [CrossRef]
26. Hong-Youl Ha, Swinder Janda. 2014. Brand personality and its outcomes in the Chinese automobile industry. Asia Pacific Business
Review 20:2, 216-230. [CrossRef]
27. Edward Shih-Tse Wang, Bi-Kun Tsai. 2014. Consumer response to retail performance of organic food retailers. British Food
Journal 116:2, 212-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Ding Hooi Ting, Weng Marc Lim. 2013. Making International Business Travelers Come Back: A Two-Country Comparison
on Satisfaction Functional Form, Trust, and Firm Size. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 131125085946000.
[CrossRef]
29. Jeen-Su Lim, Abdulrahman Al-Aali, John H. Heinrichs, Kee-Sook Lim. 2013. Testing alternative models of individuals’ social
media involvement and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 29:6, 2816-2828. [CrossRef]
30. Ahmad Azmi M. Ariffin, Ehsaneh Nejad Nameghi, Noor Izyana Zakaria. 2013. The effect of hospitableness and servicescape
on guest satisfaction in the hotel industry. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l'Administration 30:2, 127-137. [CrossRef]
31. Jin Baek Kim. 2013. Understanding the Repurchase Abandonment Process of Consumers in the Online Environment: Integrating
Dissatisfaction and Distrust. Journal of Internet Commerce 12:2, 154-194. [CrossRef]
32. Sun-Hwan Hwang, Sangwoo In. 2013. Similar services, different perceptions: The gaps of satisfaction based on the level of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

recreation specialization. International Journal of Contents 9:1, 71-80. [CrossRef]

33. Victoria Magrath, Helen McCormick. 2013. Branding design elements of mobile fashion retail apps. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 17:1, 98-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Parves Sultan, Ho Yin Wong. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of service quality in a higher education context. Quality
Assurance in Education 21:1, 70-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Nha Nguyen, André Leclerc, Gaston LeBlanc. 2013. The Mediating Role of Customer Trust on Customer Loyalty. Journal of
Service Science and Management 06:01, 96-109. [CrossRef]
36. Shih Yung Chou, Angelina I. T. Kiser, Erlinda L. Rodriguez. 2012. An expectation confirmation perspective of medical tourism.
Journal of Service Science Research 4:2, 299-318. [CrossRef]
37. Parves Sultan, Ho Yin Wong. 2012. Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics 24:5, 755-784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Md. Anisul Islam, Mohammad Khadem, Ahmed Sayem. 2012. Service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty analysis
in Bangladesh apparel fashion retail: an empirical study. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 5:3,
213-224. [CrossRef]
39. Alexander Staus, Tilman Becker. 2012. Attributes of overall satisfaction of agricultural machinery dealers using a three‐factor
model. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:8, 635-643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Shiu-Wan Hung, Min-Jhih Cheng, Pei-Che Chen. 2012. Reexamining the Factors for Trust in Cultivating Online Customer
Repurchase Intentions: The Moderating Effect of Perceived Waiting. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 28:10,
666-677. [CrossRef]
41. Torben Hansen. 2012. Understanding Trust in Financial Services. Journal of Service Research 15:3, 280-295. [CrossRef]
42. Houn‐Gee Chen, Julie Yu‐Chih Liu, Tsong Shin Sheu, Ming‐Hsien Yang. 2012. The impact of financial services quality and
fairness on customer satisfaction. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 22:4, 399-421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Gurjeet Kaur, R.D. Sharma, Neha Mahajan. 2012. Exploring customer switching intentions through relationship marketing
paradigm. International Journal of Bank Marketing 30:4, 280-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Torben Hansen. 2012. The Moderating Influence of Broad-Scope Trust on Customer-Seller Relationships. Psychology &
Marketing 29:5, 350-364. [CrossRef]
45. Yi-Wei Chang, Michael Jay Polonsky. 2012. The influence of multiple types of service convenience on behavioral intentions:
The mediating role of consumer satisfaction in a Taiwanese leisure setting. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:1,
107-118. [CrossRef]
46. Thomas L. Baker, Tracy Meyer. 2012. Moderating effect of discriminatory attributions on repatronage intentions. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 19:2, 211-217. [CrossRef]
47. Alexandra Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, Rob Lawson. 2012. Subjective Wellbeing and its Influence on Consumer Sentiment Towards
Marketing: A New Zealand Example. Journal of Happiness Studies 13:1, 149-166. [CrossRef]
 48. Bong-Won Park, Kun Chang Lee. 2011. Exploring the value of purchasing online game items. Computers in Human Behavior
27:6, 2178-2185. [CrossRef]
49. Eduardo Torres-Moraga, Cristobal Barra. 2011. El rol de la usabilidad percibida sobre la confianza en las subastas online. Revista
de Administração de Empresas 51:5, 485-497. [CrossRef]
50. Yu‐Hui Fang, Chao‐Min Chiu, Eric T.G. Wang. 2011. Understanding customers' satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Internet
Research 21:4, 479-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Young “Sally” Kim. 2011. Application of the Cognitive Dissonance Theory to the Service Industry. Services Marketing Quarterly
32:2, 96-112. [CrossRef]
52. Chun-Chun Lin, Hsueh-Ying Wu, Yong-Fu Chang. 2011. The critical factors impact on online customer satisfaction. Procedia
Computer Science 3, 276-281. [CrossRef]
53. Bong-Won Park, Jae-Hyeon Ahn. 2010. Previous Satisfaction and Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication as Antecedents to
Purchase Intention in Transmedia Storytelling. International Journal of Contents 6:4, 90-100. [CrossRef]
54. Vanessa A. Quintal, Aleksandra Polczynski. 2010. Factors influencing tourists' revisit intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics 22:4, 554-578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Chao‐Min Chiu, Chen‐Chi Chang, Hsiang‐Lan Cheng, Yu‐Hui Fang. 2009. Determinants of customer repurchase intention in
online shopping. Online Information Review 33:4, 761-784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Kim Hongyoun Hahn, Jihyun Kim. 2009. The effect of offline brand trust and perceived internet confidence on online shopping
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 11:46 10 July 2017 (PT)

intention in the integrated multi‐channel context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 37:2, 126-141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Seung-Whan Park, Chul-Jae Choi. 2008. Relationships between Brand Satisfaction and Store Loyalty in Retail Service Firm:
The Causal Role among Store Satisfaction, Brand Trust and Store Trust. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 8:11,
286-295. [CrossRef]
58. Marianne Horppu, Olli Kuivalainen, Anssi Tarkiainen, Hanna‐Kaisa Ellonen. 2008. Online satisfaction, trust and loyalty, and
the impact of the offline parent brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management 17:6, 403-413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Jacob Eskildsen, Kai Kristensen. 2008. Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as predictors of future business potential. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 19:7-8, 843-853. [CrossRef]
60. Nurul Hidayah Ahmad Zamzuri, Norshidah Mohamed, Ramlah Hussein. Antecedents of customer satisfaction in repurchase
intention in the electronic commerce environment 1-5. [CrossRef]
61. Sherriff T K Luk, Leslie SC Yip. 2008. The moderator effect of monetary sales promotion on the relationship between brand
trust and purchase behaviour. Journal of Brand Management 15:6, 452-464. [CrossRef]