Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality

Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality

Sheila Simsarian Webber • Stephanie C. Payne •

Aaron B. Taylor

Published online: 15 June 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the

extent to which cognitive and affective trust mediate the

service provider personality–service quality relationship,

controlling for customer personality.

Design/Methodology/Approach Hypotheses were tested

using a matched sample of 249 customer-service provider

dyads.

Results Service provider service orientation incrementally

predicted customer cognitive trust in the service provider

above and beyond customer agreeableness, which related

significantly to affective and cognitive trust. Analyses fur-

ther revealed that cognitive trust mediated the service pro-

vider service orientation–service quality relationship.

Implications Hiring service-oriented front-line employ-

ees may facilitate customer cognitive trust which in turn

relates to service quality. In addition, training front-line

employees to identify agreeable customers may facilitate

the quick development of trusting relationships.

Originality/Value This is the first study to simultaneously

examine the impact of both the customer and the service

provider personalities on customer trust and service quality

in long-term relationships. Results demonstrated the role of

cognitive trust as a mediator of the relationship between

service orientation and service quality.

Keywords Service provider � Service orientation �Customer agreeableness � Affective trust � Cognitive trust �Service quality

Current global economic conditions require that organiza-

tions work to differentiate their service relationships and

encounters with customers. As a result, service organiza-

tions are devoting more attention to front-line service

employees who represent the organization to the customer

(Subramony et al. 2004). Over the past 10 years, significant

research in the area of emotional labor (Pugh 2001; Pugh

et al. 2011; Tsai and Huang 2001), service management

and marketing (Ferguson et al. 2005; Webber 2011) as well

as service climate (Schneider et al. 2009) has demonstrated

the increasingly important role of the front-line employee

across a variety of service engagements. The primary

relationship that unfolds between a customer and the ser-

vice provider has important implications for the customer’s

evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the service

(Schneider et al. 1998) and in turn, customer satisfaction

and loyalty (Webber and Klimoski 2004). Customers who

experience good quality service are more likely to return

and remain customers of the organization.

Both researchers and practitioners assert that service

organizations need to build customer trust to retain current

customers and obtain new business (Garbarino and Johnson

1999; Schneider and White 2004; Webber and Klimoski

2004). In the service sector, customer trust in the service

provider organization has been shown to be an important

mechanism through which critical customer outcomes are

achieved (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and

S. S. Webber (&)

Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, 8 Ashburnham

Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

S. C. Payne � A. B. Taylor

Psychology Department, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU,

College Station, TX 77843, USA


A. B. Taylor


123

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

DOI 10.1007/s10869-011-9235-4

Johnson 1999). Without a trusting relationship with the

service provider, the customer is less likely to be satisfied

with the quality of the service and more likely to change

service providers (Webber and Klimoski 2004).

Recognizing the multidimensionality of trust, we pro-

pose that customer cognitive (competency-based) trust and

affective (emotion-based) trust in the service provider are

explanatory mechanisms for the relationship between the

service provider’s personality and service quality. We

conduct a conservative test of this relationship, controlling

for the customer’s personality.

There are four key issues that have yet to be addressed

in research studies examining the relationship between

customer and service provider personalities and service

effectiveness. First, despite some theorizing about the

importance of trust in the service relationships (e.g., Bove

and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Morgan

and Hunt 1994) no empirical research has been conducted

investigating the explanatory mechanisms for the rela-

tionships between service provider personality and service

effectiveness (cf. Liao and Chuang 2004). We contribute to

the service management literature by examining both

customer cognitive and affective trust in the service pro-

vider as explanatory mechanisms for why service provider

traits impact customer perceptions of service quality.

Second, most of the research on service relationships has

focused on one-time encounters (i.e., an interaction at a

check-out counter; e.g., Pugh 2001; Tan et al. 2004), short-

term engagements, or transactions (see Dwyer et al. (1987)

for a discussion of the transactional/relational continuum;

Gutek et al. 1999; Rogelberg et al. 1999). Our research

focuses on longer term engagements between a service

provider and his/her customer, specifically repeat custom-

ers at a hair salon. Our sample consists of matched pairs of

hairstylists and one of their customers. Often these

engagements extend over multiple years; thus the bond

between the service provider and customer is crucial to the

long-term stability of this relationship.

Third, our study responds to calls for more research

using a matched sample design (Suskind et al. 2003),

which involve gathering information from both the service

provider and his/her direct customer. Data from these

designs are difficult to obtain and add considerable value to

understanding service relationships as they explicitly relate

an individual service provider’s characteristics with his/her

customer’s reactions rather than linking aggregated

employee and customer data.

Fourth, prior research in this area has typically examined

either customer personality or service provider personality

(e.g., Burns and Bowling 2010; Liao and Chuang 2004;

Rogelberg et al. 1999; Tan et al. 2004). For example,

research by Tan and colleagues (2004) explored the idea that

customers shape their own service experience through their

dispositional tendencies which activate certain emotions by

the service provider. However, this research overlooks the

importance of the service provider’s personality and its

impact on the customer’s emotions. One notable exception is

emotional labor research which has focused primarily on

one-time service encounters between an employee and

customer to determine the impact of the employee’s emo-

tions on immediate customer behavior. The results of this

research demonstrate that positive employee emotions have

implications for positive customer reactions (Pugh 2001;

Tsai and Huang 2001). Using a matched sample design,

Groth et al. (2009) extended the emotional labor research

revealing that deep acting (in contrast to surface acting) had

a significant positive impact on service quality. Few other

studies in the emotional labor area empirically examine both

the customer and the service provider using a matched

sample design (Groth et al. 2009). The present study

examines both customer and service provider personalities,

specifically the incremental validity of the service provider’s

personality above and beyond the customer’s personality on

customer cognitive and affective trust and service quality.

Service Providers and Trust

Service researchers claim that customer contact employees

occupy a crucial role in the organization (Bettencourt and

Brown 1997; Bowen and Hallowell 2002; Bowen and

Schneider 1985; Gutek et al. 1999; Payne and Webber 2006;

Schneider et al. 1998). In the service industry, front-line

personnel (Crosby et al. 1990; Liao and Chuang 2004) or

‘‘customer contact’’ workers/employees (Bowen and

Hallowell 2002; Chase and Tansik 1983) represent the

organization to the customer (Bowen and Schneider 1985;

Liao and Subramony 2008). Research suggests that these

employees shape customers’ perceptions of the interaction

(Spiro and Weitz 1990), and they have a significant impact

on the customer’s evaluation of the services provided

(Bowen and Schneider 1985; Schneider et al. 1998; Tan et al.

2004).

Research evidence demonstrates that the service pro-

viders who produce high-quality services achieve greater

customer satisfaction, higher volumes of purchases, and

more return visits by previous customers (Borucki and

Burke 1999; Liao and Chuang 2004). However, the

mediating mechanisms through which personality charac-

teristics impact service outcomes have yet to be fully

examined. Researchers have proposed that trust is an

important mediating variable to consider in service rela-

tionships (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007).

Trust is an essential ingredient to any interpersonal

relationship including relationships between service pro-

viders and customers (Berry 1995; Moorman et al. 1993;

194 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

123

Morgan and Hunt 1994). A number of researchers have

proposed that interpersonal trust is a multidimensional

construct consisting of cognitive or competency-based trust

and affective or emotion-based trust (Johnson and Grayson

2005; Jones and George 1998; McAllister 1995; Williams

2001). Correspondingly, we measure both in this study.

Cognitive trust is based on knowledge about and posi-

tive expectations regarding another individual (Jones and

George 1998). Cognitive trust is grounded in an individ-

ual’s beliefs about the other persons’ reliability and

dependability as well as competence (McAllister 1995). In

service relationships, customers seek out and come to

expect consistent service from their service providers

(Webber and Klimoski 2004). Cognitive trust is even more

important when the customer perceives some risk associ-

ated with the service provided (including a loss of time or

an inconvenience; Bove and Johnson 2000) and when they

perceive the outcome is irreversible (Czepiel et al. 1985).

Affective trust is based on positive affect and mutual

identification (Jones and George 1998). Affective trust is

grounded in interpersonal care and concern for the other

individual or an emotional bond. In service relationships,

affective trust is important as it serves as the foundation for

a strong interpersonal relationship. Affective trust has been

conceptualized as a deep level of trust that requires an

emotional investment and is stable over time (McAllister

1995; Webber 2008; Williams 2001). Scholars focusing on

emotion- or affective-based trust have demonstrated that

affective-based trust positively relates to customer loyalty

(Webber and Klimoski 2004).

Empirical research supports the differentiation and

importance of these two dimensions of trust (McAllister

1995). However, this distinction has not been examined

extensively in the service relationship literature; instead

there has been more of a focus on cognitive trust (e.g.,

Morgan and Hunt 1994). Correspondingly, we examine

both cognitive and affective components of trust.

Customer Personality

Trust researchers have established that some people are

predisposed to trust others more readily and easily (Mayer

et al. 1995; Rotter 1967; Schoorman et al. 2007). For

example, Mayer et al. (1995) proposed a theoretical model

of trust in which characteristics of the trustor impact the

trust he/she has for another party. They propose that indi-

vidual personality characteristics are important antecedents

of trust development and advocated controlling for them

when testing for new predictors of trust. The personality

characteristic agreeableness facilitates trusting relationships

as agreeable people have a willingness and need to

‘‘get along’’ (cf. Hogan and Holland 2003) and promote

harmonious relationships. Highly agreeable individuals are

courteous, flexible, trustworthy, good-natured, cooperative,

forgiving, softhearted, and tolerant (Graziano and Eisen-

berg 1997), and they have an expectation that others will

behave similarly (Costa and McCrae 1992). Agreeableness

partially determines the extent to which people seek out and

maintain interpersonal relationships (Graziano and Eisen-

berg 1997), as well as trust others (Mooradian et al. 2006).

Research in the service environment has demonstrated that

agreeable people work to maintain positive relationships

(Tan et al. 2004). Correspondingly, we expect highly

agreeable customers to report stronger levels of cognitive

and affective trust in their service providers.

Hypothesis 1 Customer agreeableness will be positively

related to customer (a) cognitive and (b) affective trust.

Service Provider Personality

In addition to the customer’s personality, characteristics of

the trustee are also likely to play an important role in the

customer’s trust in the service provider (Mayer et al. 1995)

and perceptions of service quality. Researchers examining

service employees have demonstrated the important role of

personality on service effectiveness (Ahearne et al. 2005;

Bono and Vey 2005; Conte and Gintoft 2005; Diefendorff

et al. 2005; Judge et al. 2009; Salvaggio et al. 2007; Tan

et al. 2004). For example, research in the emotional labor

area shows that extraverted service employees are more

likely to demonstrate naturally felt emotions positively

impacting job satisfaction (Bono and Vey 2005; Die-

fendorff et al. 2005; Judge et al. 2009). In addition, service

employee’s extraversion and adaptability are positively

related to customer service satisfaction (Ahearne et al.

2005; Conte and Gintoft 2005).

In this study, we focus on the service provider’s service

orientation. The service management/marketing literature

has conceptualized service orientation (or ‘‘customer

interpersonal interaction’’) as both a personal disposition

(Bove and Johnson 2000; Brown et al. 2002) and an

employee’s behavior toward customers (Hennig-Thurau

2004; Saxe and Weitz 1982). Researchers adopting a dis-

positional approach to service orientation argue that spe-

cific individuals are predisposed to be service-oriented

which in turn influences service behaviors. Consistent with

other organizational researchers and the measure we use in

our study, we adopt the dispositional perspective where

service orientation has been defined as ‘‘the disposition to

be helpful, thoughtful, considerate, and cooperative’’

(Hogan et al. 1984, p. 167) and a ‘‘predisposition to provide

superior service through responsiveness, courtesy, and

genuine desire to satisfy customer needs’’ (Bettencourt

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 195

123

et al. 2001, p. 31). In relation to the Big 5, service orien-

tation has been empirically shown to be a combination of

agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability

(Ones et al. 2005; Ones and Viswesvaran 2001) and

demonstrates a significant positive relationship with cus-

tomer service ratings.

Service providers with a strong service orientation are

concerned about fostering strong interpersonal relation-

ships with their clients, regardless of their client’s per-

sonality or interpersonal characteristics. Empirical research

has shown that service orientation is positively associated

with aspects of job performance that are crucial for main-

taining good relations with customers (Hogan et al. 1984).

Mayer and colleagues (Mayer et al. 1995; Schoorman et al.

2007) have shown that people are trusted when they are

perceived to have ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ser-

vice providers with a strong service orientation are likely to

demonstrate actions consistent with these qualities and

therefore be perceived as being trustworthy.

Service providers with a strong service orientation are

likely to make efforts to cultivate affective trust. For

example, a service provider might identify things that he/

she has in common with the customer fostering feelings of

similarity and positive affect for the service provider. The

service provider can also demonstrate care and concern for

their customer by listening to their needs and probing for

their input. It is important for customers to know that they

are understood and their service provider is responsive to

their needs. These behaviors facilitate affective trust in the

service provider.

Following the theoretical model of trust development

proposed by Mayer et al. (1995) advocating that

researchers control for the trustor’s personality character-

istics when predicting interpersonal trust, we expect service

provider service orientation to relate positively to customer

cognitive and affective trust in the service provider above

and beyond customer agreeableness.

Hypothesis 2 Service provider service orientation will be

positively related to customer (a) cognitive and (b) affec-

tive trust above and beyond customer agreeableness.

Trust As an Explanatory Mechanism

Trust is an important mediating mechanism that has

implications for individual and organizational effectiveness

(Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Mayer et al. 1995; McAllister

1995; Schoorman et al. 2007). In their seminal contribution

to trust research, Mayer et al. (1995) theoretically proposed

trust as an important mediating mechanism through which

perceived trustworthiness factors lead to higher levels of

trust which impact risk taking behaviors and in turn

important outcomes. In a service context, service providers

who are more service-oriented likely engage in more ser-

vice-oriented behaviors which elicit greater trust from their

customers. This trust allows service providers to demon-

strate more risky or less prescribed behaviors (e.g., pro-

posing a new hair style, squeezing a last minute client in

between two other appointments) which result in better

service for the customer. Mayer et al.’s model continues to

dominate the trust literature. Recently, Dirks and Ferrin

(2002) proposed trust as mediator between leader actions

and job performance, as well as organizational citizenship

behavior.

Following the model of trust as a mediator between

individual characteristics and outcomes, Morgan and Hunt

(1994) posited trust as a key characteristic in successful

relational exchanges. They further speculated that trust

functioned as a mediating variable in a model of relation-

ship marketing. Building on Morgan and Hunt (1994),

Garbarino and Johnson (1999) also found support for

interorganizational trust as a mediator of relationships

between customer attitudes and intentions in a relational

customer model using a sample of theater company sub-

scribers. Continuing this line of research, Bove and Mitz-

ifiris (2007) found support for trust as a mediator of the

relationships between customer personality traits (emo-

tional stability) and customer loyalty to the store with a

sample of fast food customers. We extend these cross-

sectional, single-source studies to service providers,

examining cognitive and affective trust as reported by their

individual customers as mediators of the service orienta-

tion–service quality relationship (see Fig. 1). Specifically,

we theorize that trust explains why service orientation

impacts customer perceptions of service quality. Customers

that trust their service employee are more likely to take

risks in their relationship including agreeing with the ser-

vice employee’s recommendations and actively soliciting

input from the service employee. These risk taking

behaviors positively impact service quality perceptions.

Hypothesis 3 (a) Cognitive and (b) affective trust will

mediate the relationship between service provider service

orientation and customer perceptions of service quality,

controlling for customer agreeableness.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Five hundred and thirty-five undergraduate psychology

students were recruited to participate in this study for 2 h

of research credit. They were told the purpose of the study

was to examine the predictors of customer satisfaction, that

196 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

123

they would complete a survey, and be asked to give a brief

survey to their hairstylist. The students (who are customers

in this study) were given a stamped envelope addressed to

the researcher that contained a one-page survey for their

hairstylist to complete. The students were encouraged to

give the survey to ‘‘their’’ hairstylist even if this required

them to wait until their next trip to their permanent resi-

dence or for them to mail the survey directly to their stylist.

Hairstylist surveys and their corresponding envelopes were

coded with random identification numbers so they could be

matched with the customer surveys upon return.

Three hundred twenty-nine hairstylists received the

survey from their respective customer, completed it on

their own time (approximately 10 min), and returned it to

us, for a conservative response rate of 61%. Although 535

hairstylists could have completed the survey, it is highly

unlikely that all customers distributed a survey to their

hairstylist. In fact, 176 customers reported that they did not

have someone they considered ‘‘my hairstylist/barber’’ and

therefore were less likely to give a survey to a hairstylist/

barber.

Hairstylists were informed that the purpose of the study

was to examine the predictors of customer satisfaction. The

hairstylists were encouraged to enclose a business card so

their name could be entered into a raffle for a $50 cash

prize at the end of the study, and the majority of them did.

The average length of time between receipts of the cus-

tomer and service provider surveys was 29 days.

To be included in the final sample, both the customer

and the hairstylist had to report matching information for

the stylist’s name and the shop where he/she was

employed. The final matched sample consisted of 249

hairstylists and one of their customers. The majority of

hairstylists were female (86.7%) and 36 years of age or

older (54.3%). On average, the employees had approxi-

mately 16 years of experience and half of those years were

acquired at their current shop. The customer portion of the

matched sample consisted of primarily 18 year old

(67.1%), Caucasian (85.1%) females (76.3%). On average,

the customers reported having a service relationship with

their hairstylist for five and one-half years.

Measures

All measures were responded to on 5-point agreement scale

(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), unless other-

wise indicated. A complete list of the items used is inclu-

ded in Appendix. Agreeableness, cognitive and affective

trust, and service quality were rated by the customer, and

service orientation was rated by the hairstylist.

Customer Agreeableness

Customer agreeableness was assessed using items from

Saucier’s (1994) Mini-Markers scale. Participants rated

how accurately seven adjectives described them on a

5-point accuracy scale.

Service Orientation

The service provider’s service orientation was assessed

with Bettencourt et al.’s (2001) five item service orienta-

tion scale.

Cognitive Trust

Customer cognitive trust in the hairstylist was measured

with four items from McAllister (1995).

Affective Trust

Customer affective trust in the hairstylist was measured

with five items from McAllister (1995).

Service Quality

Customer perceptions of service quality were measured

using two items developed and validated by Schneider

et al. (1998). These items asked customers to evaluate the

overall quality of the service provided (1) by the hairstylist

and (2) at the salon/barber shop, on a 5-point scale

(1 = poor, 5 = excellent).

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model.

Note: Standardized path

coefficients. The residual

between affective and cognitive

trust correlated .536. * p \ .05

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 197

123

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and reli-

abilities for each of the scales examined in the study, as

well as the correlations among them.

Given the superiority of structural equation modeling

(SEM) over regression for testing mediation (Iacobucci

et al. 2007; James and Brett 1984), we tested our theoret-

ical model with SEM using MPlus (Muthen and Muthen

1998–2010), explicitly testing the indirect relationship

between the independent variable and the dependent vari-

able through the mediator. In order to allow for the

inclusion of cases with missing values (\1% of data were

missing), all models were estimated using full information

maximum likelihood. Following Anderson and Gerbing’s

(1988) two-step approach, we first conducted a confirma-

tory factor analysis to ensure each of the survey items

loaded significantly on the scales with which they were

associated. Then we tested our hypothesized structural

model as depicted in Fig. 1. We used several goodness-of-

fit indices to evaluate the fit of our model including com-

parative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI),

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and

standardized root mean residual (SRMR).

Chi square tests and fit indices for all models are shown

in Table 2. To be sure of the distinctiveness of the five

constructs used in the model, we compared the fit of a

5-factor model in which all items loaded only on their

associated constructs to the fit of models that combined two

or more of the factors. Given the strong correlation

between cognitive trust and service quality, one of these

was a 4-factor model in which cognitive trust and service

quality were combined. We also tested a 4-factor model in

which cognitive trust and affective trust were combined, a

3-factor model in which both components of trust were

combined with service quality, a 2-factor model in which

the customer-reported variables (agreeableness, affective

trust, cognitive trust, and service quality) were combined, a

2-factor model that combined the mediators with the out-

come, and a 1-factor model. The 5-factor model necessarily

had the best fit of all the models (as the other models were

nested within it), and the differences in fit between this

model and most others were large. As the 4-factor model

that combined cognitive trust and service quality fit only

marginally worse than the 5-factor model did, we estimated

1- and 2-factor models using only items associated with

these two constructs. The comparison of these models

allowed for an examination of overlap between the two

constructs while setting aside the fit of the remaining three

constructs. This analysis showed clear evidence that the

constructs were distinct. Although the 1-factor model fit

well, the 2-factor model fit noticeably better (see Table 2).

Next, we tested two structural models: (1) a partially

mediated model in which both direct and indirect effects of

service orientation on service quality were calculated, and

(2) a fully mediated model in which the direct path

between service orientation and service quality was set to

zero. As shown in Table 2, the fit for the fully mediated

model and the partially mediated model fit the data equally

well (v2(1) = 0.002, p [ .05). A potentially competing

model that may be proposed is a direct effects only model,

in which the four other variables have only direct effects on

service quality. However, as both this model and the par-

tially mediated model have saturated structural models,

they are equivalent from the perspective of fit and cannot

be distinguished on these grounds. In spite of this, the

tested mediated models are more plausible accounts of the

data in that they acknowledge the likely causal association

between service orientation and cognitive and affective

trust rather than simply modeling this association as a

correlation, as the direct effects model does.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that customer agreeableness

would be positively related to customer cognitive and

affective trust. As revealed in Fig. 1, agreeableness related

significantly to both cognitive trust (b = .344, p \ .05) and

affective trust (b = .205, p \ .05). Thus, Hypotheses 1a

and 1b were supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that service provider service

orientation would be positively related to customer cogni-

tive and affective trust in the service provider above and

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Cognitive trust 4.38 0.57 (.67)

2. Affective trust 3.74 0.82 .44** (.82)

3. Customer agreeableness 4.28 0.54 .30** .16* (.77)

4. Service orientation 4.50 0.50 .14* .10 .09 (.69)

5. Service quality 4.54 0.63 .66** .45** .25** .15* (.87)

Note: N = 249. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported along the diagonal. Correlations are between scale scores calculated as the mean of

item scores, rather than between the scales modeled as latent variables

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01

198 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

123

beyond the impact of customer agreeableness. Consistent

with expectation, the hairstylist’s service orientation was

positively and significantly related to customer cognitive

trust after controlling for customer agreeableness

(b = .192, p \ .05). Service orientation was not signifi-

cantly predictive of customer affective trust, however

(b = .147, p [ .05). Thus, hairstylists with strong service

orientations obtained greater levels of customer cognitive

trust regardless of how agreeable the customer is in the first

place. These results support Hypothesis 2a but not 2b.

The final set of analyses examined the mediating role of

cognitive and affective trust as explanatory mechanisms for

the hairstylist personality–service quality relationship. The

standardized estimate of the indirect effect of service ori-

entation on service quality through cognitive trust was

significant (.168, p \ .05), supporting cognitive trust as a

mediator. These results provide full support for Hypothesis

3a. Contrary to Hypothesis 3b, the indirect effect of service

orientation on service quality through affective trust was

not significant (-.001, p [ .05), primarily because affec-

tive trust did relate significantly to service quality. Thus,

Hypothesis 3b was not supported.

Discussion

Service relationships and encounters are critical in the

increasingly challenging global work environment. Corre-

spondingly, how front-line service employees obtain

trusting and successful service relationships remains an

important area of research investigation (Schneider et al.

2005). Previous research in the area of service relationships

has demonstrated that customer personality is important to

consider (Tan et al. 2004). Researchers have also demon-

strated that service provider personality plays an important

role (Bettencourt et al. 2001). Surprisingly, limited

research has simultaneously examined the impact of both

the customer and the service provider personalities on

customer trust and service quality. Further, no researchers

have empirically tested trust as an explanatory mechanism

for relationships between service provider personality–

service effectiveness relationships using a matched sample

design. This study begins to address this gap in the research

literature by demonstrating the impact of both customer

and service provider personalities on trust and service

quality. In addition, this research reveals the important

mediating role of cognitive trust in service provider–cus-

tomer relationships.

Service Provider and Customer Personality

Our research demonstrated that the service provider’s ser-

vice orientation incrementally contributed to the amount of

cognitive trust customers have in the service provider and

their ratings of service quality, above and beyond their own

agreeableness. Consistent with the research by Mayer and

colleagues (Mayer et al. 1995; Schoorman et al. 2007)

proposing that some people are predisposed to trust others;

our results demonstrate that agreeable customers are more

likely to have competency-based trust in their service

providers. These findings demonstrate that both the service

provider and the customer’s personality are important to

consider when determining how trust is developed in a

service relationship.

Table 2 Structural equation modeling results

Model v2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Measurement models: all scales

5-Factor model 349.61 220 \.01 .929 .919 .049 .060

4-Factor model (cognitive trust ? service quality) 380.20 224 \.01 .915 .904 .053 .062

4-Factor model (affective trust ? cognitive trust) 549.46 224 \.01 .823 .800 .077 .073

3-Factor model (affective trust ? cognitive trust ? service quality) 615.17 227 \.01 .789 .764 .083 .076

2-Factor model (customer variables, service provider variables) 903.22 229 \.01 .633 .594 .109 .104

2-Factor model (predictors, mediators ? outcomes) 815.64 229 \.01 .681 .647 .102 .102

1-Factor model 1086.26 230 \.01 .534 .487 .123 .119

Measurement models: cognitive trust and service quality only

2-Factor model 18.30 8 .02 .984 .970 .072 .027

1-Factor model 43.69 9 \.01 .947 .911 .125 .040

Structural models

Partially mediated model 349.61 220 \.01 .929 .919 .049 .060

Fully mediated (direct path set to zero) 349.61 221 \.01 .930 .920 .048 .060

Note: N = 249. df = df for v2, p = significance of v2

CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR Standardized Root Mean

Square Residual

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 199

123

Further, previous research on service provider per-

sonality and service effectiveness has primarily focused

on direct relationships without regard for the customer’s

personality or explanatory mechanisms (e.g., Liao and

Chuang 2004). Our results revealed that service provider

personality contributed indirectly to perceived service

quality in part because customers reported having higher

levels of cognitive trust in their service providers. Based

on Mayer et al.’s (1995) theoretical model of trust, we

speculate that trust leads the service provider to engage

in more risky or less prescribed behaviors which results

in more effective service. Additional research is needed

to specifically identify these behaviors and confirm these

speculations.

Trust As a Mediator of the Service Provider

Personality–Service Effectiveness Relationship

Relationship marketing researchers have proposed that

trust in the service organization (rather than the specific

provider) is an important mediating variable and demon-

strated support for its mediating role with single-source

data (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and Johnson

1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). We extend this research by

examining the importance of both cognitive and affective

trust in the service provider. Our results showed that cog-

nitive (but not affective) trust plays a critical role in

explaining why service provider personalities impact cus-

tomer perceptions of service quality.

Trust researchers have typically focused on inter-firm

relationships (Saparito et al. 2004; Yli-renko et al. 2001),

interpersonal relationships (Cook and Wall 1980; McAll-

ister 1995), or teams (Dirks 1999; Webber 2008). We

propose that cognitive and affective trust are important

components of dyadic service engagements and extend the

examination of this multidimensional construct to the ser-

vice context. Future research is needed to replicate our

findings and determine the boundaries of these relation-

ships. For example, when is affective trust important in

service relationships? Perhaps this component of trust is

more important in service encounters than longer term

service engagements. As the boundaries are determined,

the role of cognitive and affective trust in service envi-

ronments will be more fully revealed and have implications

for theoretical models of service provider relationships and

their influence on service quality and customer outcomes.

Managerial Implications

We offer managerial implications of the results of our

study particularly in light of the competitive nature of

service organizations in today’s economy. One important

element of the economic conditions is the need for service

organizations to differentiate themselves from the compe-

tition. In addition, it has been largely recognized that it

costs five to eight times more to gain a new customer than

it does to retain a current customer. Therefore, existing

customers are critical to the success of the organization and

represent an important avenue for recruiting/identifying

new customers (Schneider et al. 1998).

Building and sustaining effective customer relationships

is important. One approach to this would be to hire and

promote front-line employees who are service-oriented.

Service provider service orientation is associated with

higher levels of competency-based trust in the service

provider and higher ratings of service quality by the cus-

tomer. Therefore, hiring employees that are predisposed to

provide effective service will facilitate the success of the

service organization.

Cognitive trust is a critical component of an interper-

sonal service relationship. Trust can be difficult to obtain

and sustain. Securing customer trust appears to involve

both customer agreeableness as well as the service pro-

vider’s service orientation. Building high-quality service

relationships can differentiate a service organization from

their competition. In our study, cognitive trust was asso-

ciated with higher levels of service quality which has been

empirically shown to be an important antecedent of cus-

tomer loyalty (Schneider et al. 1998).

Getting to know one’s customer is an important skill for

any service provider. Often service providers work to

identify those customers who are more willing to develop

long-term engagements. Knowledge of the customer’s

personality may be one way to identify those customers

who are more willing to trust a service provider. This

research shows that agreeable customers are more likely to

trust than customers who are not agreeable. Training front-

line employees to identify agreeable customers may facil-

itate the quick development of trusting relationships. On

the other hand, customers who are low on agreeableness

may require extra attention from front-line employees to

foster a trusting relationship.

Limitations

We employed a field research study in which we gathered

data from two sources. Despite these strengths, there are a

few limitations that we should acknowledge. First, our

design does not permit causal inferences; thus, we cannot

be confident about the causal direction of the relationships

we found. Longitudinal research perhaps tracking a service

engagement from inception would provide greater insight

about cause and effect. Second, we examined only one

theoretically relevant personality trait for each individual in

the dyad. Although service orientation is a relatively broad

construct, there are likely other personality traits that

200 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

123

contribute to the service relationship and service effec-

tiveness (e.g., emotional stability). Third, we examined

one type of service relationship provider, hairstylists.

Additional research is needed to determine if our findings

generalize to other service relationships (e.g., doctors,

mechanics, physical trainers) and service encounters that

take place in libraries, banks, and restaurants as well as

service relationships with primarily male service

providers.

Second, due to the nature of the survey questions,

respondents may have inflated their responses to the

questions due to social desirability. This may have impli-

cations for the restricted range of responses for some of the

variables and a non-normal distribution of scores. Future

research is needed to determine the impact of social

desirability in a research study examining service provider

engagements. Finally, contrary to our theoretical model,

customers completed their evaluations before the hairsty-

lists. However, hairstylists responded to questions regard-

ing service organization which is considered a stable

personality characteristic reducing the impact of timing on

the research results.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that both customers and

service providers play an important role in the success of

the service relationship. Customer agreeableness is an

important predictor of customer trust and perceived service

quality. In addition, service provider service orientation

plays an important and unique role in securing trust and

achieving service quality. Finally, cognitive trust serves as

an important mediating mechanisms explaining why cus-

tomer and service provider personalities impact service

quality. Future research should include both customer and

service provider characteristics and behaviors in models of

effective service relationships and incorporate trust of the

service provider as an explanatory mediating mechanism

for these relationships.

Appendix: Survey Items

Customer Agreeableness (Saucier 1994)

Please use the following list of common human traits to

describe yourself as accurately as possible. Describe

yourself as you see yourself at the present time, not as you

wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you are

generally or typically, as compared with other persons you

know of the same sex and of roughly the same age.

(1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate)

1. Cold

2. Cooperative

3. Harsh

4. Kind

5. Rude

6. Sympathetic

7. Warm

Service Orientation (Bettencourt et al. 2001)

1. I enjoy helping others.

2. The best job I can imagine would involve serving

others in solving their problems.

3. I can get along with most anyone.

4. I pride myself in providing courteous service.

5. It is natural for me to be considerate of others’ needs.

Cognitive Trust (McAllister 1995)

1. This hairstylist approaches his/her job with profes-

sionalism and dedication.

2. Given this hairstylist’s track record, I see no reason to

doubt his/her competence and preparation for the job.

3. If people knew more about this hairstylist and his/her

background, they would be more concerned and

monitor his/her performance more closely (R).

4. I can rely on this hairstylist to reliably cut (and style)

my hair.

Affective Trust (McAllister 1995)

1. I can talk freely to this hairstylist about difficulties I

am having with school, work or family.

2. If I shared my problems with this hairstylist, I know

he/she would respond constructively and caringly.

3. We would feel a sense of loss if one of us moved to a

different hair salon.

4. I would have to say that we have both made

considerable investments in our relationship.

5. I consider this hairstylist one of my friends.

Service Quality (Schneider et al. 1998)

1. The overall quality of the service provided at the salon/

barber shop.

2. The overall quality of the service provided by my

hairstylist.

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 201

123

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to

empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the

influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer

satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 945–955.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing

interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 23, 236–245.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees:

Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction, and

prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73, 39–61.

Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A

comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of

service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 29–41.

Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2005). Toward understanding emotional

management at work: A quantitative review of emotional labor

research. In C. E. Hartel, W. J. Zerbe, & N. M. Ashkanasy

(Eds.), Emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 213–233).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Borucki, C. C., & Burke, M. J. (1999). An examination of service-

related antecedents to retail store performance. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20(6), 943–962.

Bove, L. L., & Johnson, L. W. (2000). A customer-service worker

relationship model. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 11(5), 491–511.

Bove, L., & Mitzifiris, B. (2007). Personality traits and the process of

store loyalty in a transactional prone context. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 21, 507–519.

Bowen, D. E., & Hallowell, R. (2002). Suppose we took service

seriously? An introduction to the special issue. Academy ofManagement Executive, 16, 69–72.

Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1985). Boundary-spanning-role

employees and the service encounter: Some guidelines for

management and research. In J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon, &

C. Surpreant (Eds.), The service encounter (pp. 127–147).

Lexington, MA: Heath.

Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002).

The customer orientation of service workers: personality trait

influences on self and supervisor performance ratings. Journal ofMarketing Research, 39, 110–119.

Burns, G. N., & Bowling, N. A. (2010). Dispositional approach to

customer satisfaction and behavior. Journal of Business andPsychology, 25, 99–107.

Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1983). The customer contact model for

organization design. Management Science, 29, 1037–1050.

Conte, J. M., & Gintoft, J. N. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five

personality dimensions, and sales performance. Human Perfor-mance, 18, 427–444.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust,

organizational commitment, and personal need nonfulfillment.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO–FFI)Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship

quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspec-

tive. Journal of Marketing, 54, 38–81.

Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Suprenant, C. F., & Gutman, E. G.

(1985). Service encounters: An overview. In J. A. Czepiel, M.

R. Soloman, & C. F. Suprenant (Eds.), The service encounter:Managing employee/customer interaction in service businesses(pp. 3–15). Toronto: Lexington Books.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The

dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339–357.

Dirks, K. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.

Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic

findings and implications for research and practice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

Dwyer, F., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller

relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27.

Ferguson, R., Paulin, M., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Contractual

governance, relational governance, and the performance of

interfirm service exchanges: The influence of boundary-spanner

closeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2),

217–234.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of

satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A

dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer

reactions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting

strategies and customer detection strategies. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 52, 958–974.

Gutek, B. A., Bhappu, A. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Cherry, B. (1999).

Distinguishing between service relationships and encounters.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 218–233.

Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004). Customer orientation of service employ-

ees: Its impact on customer satisfaction, commitment and

retention. International Journal of Service Industry Manage-ment, 16, 460–478.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. M. (1984). How to measure service

orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 167–173.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality

and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.


Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A mediation on

meditation: Evidence that structural equations models perform

better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17,

139–153.

James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests

for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.

Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in

service delivery. Journal of Business Research, 58, 500–507.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of

trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 531–546.

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor

more difficult for some than for others? A multilevel, experi-

ence-sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62, 57–88.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors

influencing employee service performance and customer out-

comes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.

Liao, H., & Subramony, M. (2008). Employee customer orientation in

manufacturing organizations: Joint influences of customer prox-

imity and the senior leadership team. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93, 317–328.

202 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203

123

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative

model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,20, 709–734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as

foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts?

Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learn-ing, 37, 523–540.

Moorman, C. R., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors

affecting trust in market relationships. Journal of Marketing,57(1), 81–101.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory

of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other

criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in

personnel selection. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 9, 31–39.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at

work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. HumanPerformance, 18, 389–404.

Payne, S. C., & Webber, S. S. (2006). Effects of service provider

attitudes and employment status on citizenship behaviors and

customers’ attitudes and loyalty behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 365–378.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the

service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

1018–1027.

Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able

to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between

emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96, 377–390.

Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Creamer, V. (1999).

Customer service behavior: The interaction of service predispo-

sition and job characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychol-ogy, 13, 421–435.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal

trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.

Salvaggio, A. N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L. H., Mayer, D. M., Ramesh,

A., & Lyon, J. S. (2007). Manager personality, manager service

quality orientation, and service climate: A test of a model.


Saparito, P. A., Chen, C. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (2004). The role of

relational trust in bank-small firm relationships. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 400–410.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s

unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment,63, 506–516.

Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. (1982). The SOCO scale: A measure of the

customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of MarketingResearch, 19, 343–351.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly,

K. (2005). Understanding organization-customer links in service

settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1017–1032.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Lee, W. C., & Young, S. A. (2009).

Organizational service climate drivers of the American Cus-

tomer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and financial and market

performance. Journal of Service Research, 12, 3–14.

Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2004). Service quality: Researchperspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service

climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of

causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative

model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academyof Management Review, 32, 344–354.

Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization,

measurement and nomological validity. Journal of MarketingResearch, 27, 61–69.

Subramony, M., Beehr, T. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2004). Employee

and customer perceptions of service quality in an Indian firm.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 311–327.

Suskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003).

Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer

service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server

exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 179–187.

Tan, H. H., Foo, M. D., & Kwek, M. H. (2004). The effects of

customer personality traits on the display of positive emotions.

Academy of Management Journal, 47, 287–296.

Tsai, W. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee

affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 1001–1008.

Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in

teams: A longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39(6),

746–769.

Webber, S. S. (2011). Dual organizational identification impacting

client satisfaction and word of mouth loyalty. Journal ofBusiness Research, 64(2), 119–125.

Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Client–project manager

engagements, trust, and loyalty. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 85, 997–1013.

Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an

affective context for trust development. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 26, 377–396.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. (2001). Social capital,

knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young

technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22,

587–613.

J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 203

123

Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality

Documents

Transcript of Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality