A Global Examination of Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Abstract

This study investigates the antecedents and outcomes of cognitive trust during the expansion phase in buyer–supplier relationships. It takes a global approach and examines cultural nuances between developed nation and emerging market firms by including participants from the United States, China, and Brazil. The results demonstrate the importance of trust in building social capital and the central role which trust plays in shaping business relationships in all studied cultural contexts. There are similarities and differences across countries. Results support relationship marketing theory by demonstrating the importance of conflict resolution, communication frequency, and social bond in building buyer–supplier relationships in the United States, which in turn increase cooperation between partners. Results also indicate that in China, social bond plays a much greater role in building trust, which in turn increases cooperation only to the extent that it serves as a mechanism to secure committed relationships. In Brazil, results show that conflict resolution is the most important factor in building trust. It also mediates the relationship between communication frequency and trust, as well as drives cooperation positively. Overall, trust is found to influence exchange of confidential communication and increases commitment between partners in all three countries.

Full text

A GLOBAL EXAMINATION OF
COGNITIVE TRUST IN BUSINESS-TO-
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
Sandra S. Graça and James M. Barry
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the antecedents and outcomes of cognitive trust during
the expansion phase in buyersupplier relationships. It takes a global approach
and examines cultural nuances between developed nation and emerging market
firms by including participants from the United States, China, and Brazil. The
results demonstrate the importance of trust in building social capital and the
central role which trust plays in shaping business relationships in all studied
cultural contexts. There are similarities and differences across countries.
Results support relationship marketing theory by demonstrating the importance
of conflict resolution, communication frequency, and social bond in building
buyersupplier relationships in the United States, which in turn increase coop-
eration between partners. Results also indicate that in China, social bond plays
a much greater role in building trust, which in turn increases cooperation only
to the extent that it serves as a mechanism to secure committed relationships.
In Brazil, results show that conflict resolution is the most important factor in
building trust. It also mediates the relationship between communication
frequency and trust, as well as drives cooperation positively. Overall, trust
is found to influence exchange of confidential communication and increases
commitment between partners in all three countries.
Keywords: Cognitive trust; commitment; relationship marketing;
communication; cooperation; conflict resolution and social bond
New Insights on Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships: A Multi-Perspective Approach
Advances in Business Marketing & Purchasing, Volume 26, 736
Copyright r2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1069-0964/doi:10.1108/S1069-096420190000026005
7

INTRODUCTION
Considerable research is devoted to the subjectoftrustinrelationship mar-
keting. Since the mid-1980s, an extensive body of literature has revealed its
antecedents and pervasive influence on selling, brand relationships, and mul-
tinational partnership performance. But despite the vast research stream
devoted to trust, the multifaceted influence in global buyersupplier settings
has led to a renewed interest in the subject. In particular, scholars are
increasingly focusing their research efforts on the trust-building process
concomitant with the advancement of relationships. This has led to more
robust examinations of trust as it progresses from the early exploration
to the expansion and maintenance phases of a relationship (Akrout &
Diallo, 2017;Dowell, Morrison, & Heffernan, 2015). Relationship market-
ing researchers recognize that this multistage development of trust requires
closer scrutiny of its calculative, cognitive, and affective dimensions
(Claro & Claro, 2008;Davies & Prince, 2005;Johnson & Grayson, 2005).
Consequently, a resurgence of research has emerged in search of generalized
frameworks for capturing the intricacies of this evolving trust-building
process.
Complicating this framework development are the contextual subtleties
relatedtoabuyer’spublic or generalized trust dispositions. Specifically, trust
research in emerging market literature (Graça, Barry, & Doney, 2017;
Lee, Tang, Yip, & Sharma, 2017) and cross-cultural marketing (Barry &
Doney, 2011;Bjørnskov, 2007;Borit, Vanhée, & Olsen, 2014;Chua, 2012;
Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998;Lai, Singh, Alshwer, & Shaffer, 2014;
Roy, Balaji, Soutar, Lassar, & Roy, 2018) suggests that the considerations
made by buyers in assessing supplier trustworthiness are largely influenced
by the generalized trust dispositions inherent in their cultural or institutional
surroundings. Consequently, the qualification of a globally relevant frame-
work for examining the trust-building process should consider the moderat-
ing influences of national culture. Of particular relevance to suppliers is the
manner in which cultural dissimilarities with their buyers can thwart their
efforts to advance overseas relationships. Should suppliers underestimate the
buyer’s criteria for trustworthy validations, for example, opportunities may
be missed in the expansion phase of a relationship lifecycle.
The research findings in this study confirm that the trust expectations
held by buyers vary widely across national cultures. Such proclivities likely
influence the buyer safeguards used to mitigate the risk of supplier exploita-
tion. This, in turn, will likely temper the importance placed by buyers on
various trust antecedents. In particular, our study confirms that the socializ-
ing aspects of certain national cultures have much to do with a buyer’s
scrutiny of relational bonds in assessing supplier trustworthiness. Moreover,
a buyer’s culturally conditioned tolerance for ambiguity will likely shape
its sensitivity to a supplier’sconflict management style as an indicator of
trustworthiness.
8 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

MODELING COGNITIVE TRUST BUILDING FOR
CULTURAL CONTEXTS IN THE EXPANSION STAGE
The intent of this chapter is to globally validate the antecedents and outcomes
of trust apposite for relationship expansion. Attention to this growth stage
permits a more parsimonious examination of the relevant trust variables while
shedding light on where the cultural adaptation challenges are most evident.
Given that the populations of some nations are more trusting than others,
cultire-induced clashes often arise in overseas partnerships. Researchers of
institutional theory suggest that relationships between a developed nation and
emerging market firms (e.g., Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are especially
susceptible to such conflicts (Li, 2009;Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008). As described
further, these nations differ widely along dimensions referred to by Hofstede
(1983) as collectivism and uncertainty avoidance (UA).
Crucial to the expansion stage of the relationship lifecycle is the role of cogni-
tive trust. According to Akrout and Diallo (2017, p. 161), cognitive assessments
define trust during the expansion stage. Buyers at this stage are likely depending
on “accurate information exchanges that discourage opportunism and the need
for monitoring […].”With greater communication, cognitive trust ultimately is
determined by communication, sympathy, and conflict resolution. The authors
tested and confirmed the direct relationship between each of these constructs
and cognitive trust in a single country (France) study. The authors further exam-
ined aspects of behavioral trust manifested in confidential communication.
Using similar constructs, our study examined these construct relationships
across disparate cultures in search of cultural moderation. Consistent with
the cross-cultural and relationship marketing literature, the study extended the
examination of cognitive trust outcomes to cooperation and affective
commitment.
Conceptualizing Cognitive Trust
“Cognitive trust”is a customer’s confidence or willingness to rely on a service
provider’s competence and reliability (Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman,
1993). This knowledge-driven aspect of trust arises from the accumulated infor-
mation “that allows one to make predictions, with some level of confidence,
regarding the likelihood that partners will live up to their obligations”
(Johnson & Grayson, 2005, p. 501). Dowell et al. (2015) point out that this par-
ticular aspect of trust emerges from predictions of a supplier’s competence,
integrity, and goodwill intentions (i.e., benevolence). In the case of competency,
the prediction is that the supplier will show evidence of their expertise and abil-
ity to perform tasks to a certain standard of competency. The prediction for
integrity is that the supplier will live up to its promises and contractual obliga-
tions. Finally, the prediction stemming from the supplier’s benevolence is that
the supplier will voluntarily look after the buyer’s interests and is willing to
achieve mutual goals.
9Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Cognitive Trust Outcomes
Confidential Communication
Of interest in the expansion stage of relationships is the role that cognitive trust
plays in eliciting committed and cooperative partnerships where both parties act
upon their trust. The latter, often referred to as behavioral trust,isdefined by
Johnson and Grayson (2005) as the resulting actions that flow from a state of
cognitive trust. In effect, “cognitive trust as a willingness to assume trust and
behavioral trust as the actual assuming of trust”(Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995, p. 724).
Confidential communication is one aspect of behavioral trust suggested as an
outcome of cognitive trust. According to Currall and Judge (1995, p. 153), part-
ners “manifest trust by disclosing important yet potentially self-damaging infor-
mation.”Akrout and Diallo (2017) suggest that the disclosure of confidential
communication is evidence of behavioral trust as it demonstrates a partner’s
willingness to be vulnerable and risk a betrayal of confidence. In cross-border
marketing partnerships, Aulakh, Kotabe, and Sahay (1996) found a positive
relationship between trust and the exchange of information that is not part of
the contract. Similarly, Ashnai, Henneberg, Naudé, and Francescucci (2016),
demonstrated that the trust developed between partners indeed influences their
willingness to openly share information that is often proprietary. Finally, Mital,
Israel, and Agarwal (2010) demonstrated that information exchange influences
trust, which in turn, influences the disclosure of private information.
Although the degree to which cognitive trust influences confidential commu-
nication may vary across cultures, the relationship is expected to be universal.
Some research suggests that varying aspects of trustworthiness (competence,
integrity, or benevolence) are considered before disclosing sensitive information.
In their study of US and Japanese marketing alliances, for example, Voss,
Johnson, Cullen, Sakano, and Takenouchi (2006) found that benevolence was a
more important determinant of information exchange for Japanese firms relative
to US firms since relationships in collectivist cultures are typified by high good-
will. However, credibility (i.e., integrity and competence) was a more important
determinant of information exchange for US firms as rational considerations
take precedence over goodwill evidence in the individualist cultures. The follow-
ing is therefore proposed:
H1. Cognitive trust universally influences confidential communication in
buyersupplier relationships.
Cooperation
Another well-researched consequence of cognitive trust examined in buyersupplier
relationship studies is the cooperation that exists when parties work together to
achieve mutual goals. Anderson and Narus (1990) define cooperation as “similar or
complementary coordinated actions taken by firms in interdependent relationships
to achieve mutual outcomes with expected reciprocation over time”(p. 45). Its cru-
cial role in the mature stages of relationship development is explained in Wilson’s
(1995) five-stage framework. In effect, cooperation can be perceived as a working
10 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

partnership in progress;Terawatanavong and Quazi (2006) described it as where
partners proactively make efforts to achieve mutual benefits (Anderson & Narus,
1990;Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
The influence that cognitive trust has on cooperation has been demonstrated
in both single country and cross-cultural settings. According to Sharma, Young,
and Wilkinson (2015, p. 47),“when parties to a relationship have confidence in
each other’s abilities and motivation and thus trust each other, they can work
together (i.e. they cooperate).”Studies confirming a positive relationship
between trust and cooperation appear in Table 1.
The degree to which culture impacts the influence of cognitive trust on coop-
eration remains in debate. In their conceptual examination of national culture
and Business-to-Business (B-to-B) relationships, for example, Terawatanavong
and Quazi (2006) posit that the positive relationship between trust and coopera-
tion will be stronger in a highly collectivist culture than in a highly individualist
culture. Hewett and Bearden (2001) confirmed this relationship in their examina-
tion of foreign subsidiaries. But Chen, Chen, and Meindl (1998) suggest that
cognition trust will be more related to cooperation in individualist cultures than
in collectivist cultures. The authors argue that cognition trust alone is insuffi-
cient for collectivist cooperation as role expectations extend beyond task perfor-
mance to partners also having a caring motivation. Instead the authors propose
that affective trust will be more positively related to cooperation in a collectivist
culture than in an individualist culture. Consistent with their suggestion that
trust engenders cooperation irrespective of the societies to which they belong,
the following is proposed:
H2. Cognitive trust universally influences cooperation in buyersupplier
relationships.
Affective Commitment
Perhaps the most examined consequence of cognitive trust is affective commit-
ment. Like trust, affective commitment is a central tenet in building successful
long-term relationships. Morgan and Hunt (1994) define commitment as “an
exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so impor-
tant as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it”(p. 23). Distinct from cal-
culative, normative, or continuance commitment, Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer,
and Kumar (1996) add that affective commitment “expresses the extent to which
partners like to maintain their relationship with specific partners”(p. 303).
The influence that cognitive trust has on affective commitment is well docu-
mented and presented in Table 2. Of the known cross-cultural studies done on
the relationship between trust and affective commitment (Ha et al., 2004;Styles,
Patterson, & Ahmed, 2008), no research finding suggests that trust is more posi-
tively related to affective commitment in a collectivist culture than in an individ-
ualist culture. The following is therefore proposed:
H3. Cognitive trust universally influences affective commitment in
buyersupplier relationships.
11Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Cognitive Trust Antecedents
Conflict Resolution
Studies in B-to-B relationships suggest that cognitive trust is largely determined
by a partner’s history of successful conflict management. Often captured as
Table 1. Literature Review Findings of Trust and Cooperation Relationships.
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
CLTV* INDV*
Anderson and
Narus (1990)
US Distributors and
manufacturers
Cooperation →← Trust (cooperation
leads to trust, which, in turn, leads to a
more willingness to cooperate in the
future)
Ha, Karande,
and
Singhapakdi
(2004)
Korea US Importers and
exporters
Cooperation →Trust (no relational
differences between individualist and
collectivist cultures)
Hewett and
Bearden
(2001)
Multiple
Foreign
Settings
US Foreign subsidiaries
and headquarters’
marketing
Trust →Cooperation (trust has more
of an effect on cooperation in highly
collectivist cultures than in highly
individualist cultures)
Mavondo and
Rodrigo
(2001)
China Australia ChinaAustralia
business partners
Trust →Cooperation
Morgan and
Hunt (1994)
US Automobile tire
retailers and
suppliers
Trust →Cooperation
Palmetier
et al. (2006)
Multisample meta-analysis Trust →Cooperation
Rodríguez,
Peréz, and
Gutiérrez
(2007)
Spain MarketingRD
relationships
Trust →Cooperation
Sharma et al.
(2015)
India Industrial buyers
and suppliers
Trust →Cooperation
Siguaw,
Simpson, and
Baker (1998)
US Dyadic
distributorsupplier
relationships
Trust →Cooperative norms
Smith and
Barclay (1999)
Canada Dyadic selling
partner working
relationships
Mutual Trust →Cooperation (findings
confirmed on both sides of the selling
partner dyad)
Vieira,
Monteiro, and
Veiga (2011)
Brazil Suppliers of a
tourism firm
Trust →Cooperation
Wu, Weng,
and Huang
(2012)
Taiwan High-tech executives
and main exchange
partners
Trust →Cooperation
Notes: *collectivist (CLTV) and individualist (INDV).
12 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

Table 2. Literature Review Findings of Trust and Commitment Relationships.
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
CLTV* INDV*
Andaleeb
(1996)
US Dyadic
manufacturerdistributor
Trust →Affective
commitment
Ashnai et al.
(2016)
UK Multi-industry
buyersupplier
Trust →Affective
commitment (positive for
inter-organizational and
interpersonal trust)
Aurier,
Philippe, and
Séré de
Lanauze (2012)
France Consumer brand
relationships in fast-
moving goods
Trust →Affective
commitment
Garbarino and
Johnson (1999)
US Customers of repertory
theater company
Trust →Affective
commitment
Geyskens et al.
(1996)
US and the
Netherlands
Automobile dealers and
suppliers
Trust →Affective
commitment
Gilliland and
Bello (2002)
US Manufacturerdistributor
relationships
Trust →Loyalty (Affective þ
Normative) commitment
Ha et al.
(2004)
Korea US Importers and exporters Trust →Affective
commitment
Kim & Frazier US Industrial
distributorsupplier
relationships
Trust (Integrity) →Affective
commitment
Morgan and
Hunt (1994)
US Automobile tire retailers
and suppliers
Trust →Affective
commitment
Moorman,
Zaltman and
Deshpandé
(1992)
US Dyadic market research
providers and users
Trust →Affective
commitment
Mukherjee and
Nath (2007)
UK Online retailing Trust →Affective
commitment
Ndubisi (2011) India
and
China
Outsourced service
provider and client firm
relationships
Cognitive trust →
Commitment
Siguaw,
Simpson and
Baker (1998)
US Dyadic
distributorsupplier
relationships
Trust →Commitment
(indirectly through
cooperative norms)
Styles et al.
(2008)
Thailand Australia Dyadic WestEast
exporterimporter
partnerships
Goodwill trust →Affective
commitment
Ulaga and
Eggert (2006)
US Manufacturersupplier
relationships
Goodwill trust →Affective
commitment
Wetzels, de
Ruyter, and
van Birgelen
(1998)
Netherlands Office equipment
manufacturers and
suppliers
Trust (in benevolence and
honesty) →Affective
commitment
13Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

conflict resolution or functional conflict, this evidence of a supplier’s ability and
willingness to resolve issues provides assurances to buyers that future misunder-
standings or contentious disagreements can be avoided. The more the supplier is
perceived as dealing constructively with potential conflicts, the more trust should
develop as buyers predict the supplier will faithfully pursue mutually
acceptable solutions (Ndubisi, 2011). This rationale has led many researchers, as
appearing in Table 3, to examine and empirically validate the relationship
between conflict resolution and trust in multi-country settings.
But the strength of this relationship has been shown to vary across cultures
(Ndubisi, 2011). In particular, the extent to which buyers of one culture feel
threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations will likely temper the relative
importance of conflict resolution on cognitive trust. The relevance of this UA
stems from a buyer’s prediction comfort. For example, Johnson and Grayson
(2005) point out that cognitive trust derives from the knowledge that allows a
buyer to predict whether the supplier will live up to their obligations. It therefore
stands to reason that buyers from nations with low tolerances for ambiguity
(i.e., high UA) will be more sensitive to unresolved issues until evidence shows
otherwise. As explained further, buyers from cultures associated with low UA
cultures may be less sensitized to the potential of conflicts to tarnish trust.
Buyers from many of the low UA cultures (e.g., China) espouse the more har-
monious forms of conflict management. A study of Japanese-American joint ven-
tures by Sullivan, Peterson, Kameda, and Shimada (1981) concluded that Japanese
managers from Japan (very high in UA) “believe in building future trust by resolv-
ing disputes as they come up through conferral rather than through binding arbitra-
tion”(p. 812). The more legalistic and potentially contentious conflict management
style of Americans (moderate UA), however, can lead to coercive tactics. This, in
turn, can spoil the relationship. These and other authors concluded that Americans
are not as unsettled over conflict issues in comparison to their high UA counter-
parts since they “can minimize uncertainty and opportunistic behavior through due
diligence and contractual safeguards”(Johnson & Grayson, 2005, p. 501).
This higher emphasis on conflict resolution on trust assessments among
nations of high UA (i.e., Japan and Taiwan) is somewhat borne out in Wu
et al.’s (2012) replication of Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) trust-commitment study.
Using the same scale items and hypotheses assumed in the latter’s study of US
firms (moderate UA), Wu et al. (2012) measured the influence of cognitive trust
Table 2. (Continued)
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
CLTV* INDV*
Wong et al.,
(2008)
Hong
Kong
Insurance service clients Trust →Affective
commitment
Wu et al.
(2012)
Taiwan High-tech executives and
main exchange partners
Trust →Affective
commitment
Notes: *collectivist (CLTV) and individualist (INDV).
14 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

on functional conflict across firms in Taiwan (high UA) and the United States.
The significantly higher regression coefficient in Taiwan vs US settings would
suggest that the relationship between conflict resolution and trust is in fact
greater among buyers of high UA cultures.
At the other extreme, a number of researchers suggest that nations of low UA
likely dismiss the role of conflict resolution as a critical consideration for assessing
the trust of their supplier counterparts. The more compromising management style,
especially embedded in Chinese cultures, should relieve buyer discomforts from fac-
ing future contentious issues. Rooted in the tenets of guanxi,Ndubisi (2011) com-
pared their low UA Chinese sample to a more moderate UA Indian sample and
concluded that the compromising style of conflict handling is more influential on
trust among the Chinese service providers than it is with their Indian counterparts.
The author attributes this to a more harmonizing Chinese nature that lends itself
to more enduring friendships. Coupled with the desire in Chinese cultures to save
face and preserve the relationships, an argument could be made that buyers from
China are more optimistic about future relational harmony with their suppliers. In
effect, the very high tolerance for ambiguity associated with these nations suggests
Table 3. Literature Review Findings of Conflict Resolutions and Trust
Relationships.
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
High
UA*
Moderate
UA*
Low
UA*
Akrout and
Diallo (2017)
France Buyersupplier
relationships
Conflict resolution →
Cognitive trust
Chung,
Sternquist,
and Chen
(2006)
Japan Department store
managers and
suppliers
Cognitive trust →Functional
conflict
Currall and
Judge (1995)
US Superintendentunion
relationships
History of failed management
→() Cognitive trust
Massey and
Dawes
(2007)
Australia Marketingsales
relationships
Cognitive trust →Functional
conflict
Naoui and
Zaiem (2010)
Tunisia Pharmacistsales rep
relationships
Conflict resolution →
Cognitive trust
Ndubisi
(2011)
India China HR outsourced service
providerclient firm
relationships
Conflict handling (integrating,
accommodating,
compromising) →Cognitive
trust
Sullivan
et al. (1981)
Japan US Japanese-American
joint ventures in Japan
Conflict resolution →Mutual
trust
Wu et al.
(2012)
Taiwan High-tech executives
and main exchange
partners
Cognitive trust →Functional
conflict
Note: *uncertainty avoidance.
15Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

that low UA buyers have greater confidence that conflicts will work themselves
out. This leads us to the following hypotheses:
H4. Conflict resolution universally influences cognitive trust in buyer
supplier relationships.
H5. The influence of conflict resolution on cognitive trust is positively
moderated by the UA associated with the buyer’s national culture.
Communication Frequency
Given that cognitive trust derives from the accumulated knowledge required from
buyers to assess the competence and integrity of suppliers, the frequency with
which the necessary knowledge is shared should contribute to this trust assess-
ment. Frequent communication not only helps suppliers understand these
information requirements for competency assessments, it is also likely to be recip-
rocated. According to Massey and Kyriazis (2007), this resulting bidirectional
communication flow is what allows suppliers to demonstrate their work-related
competence. Shown in Table 4 are the research findings of studies confirming the
direct and indirect influences of communication frequency on cognitive trust.
Although no studies to date suggest any cultural moderation of this relation-
ship within the dimensions Hofstede (1983) examines, a conceptual argument
Table 4. Literature Review Findings of Communication Frequency and Trust.
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
HC* LC*
Becerra and
Gupta (2003)
Multinational Dyadic cross-division
manager relationships
Communication frequency
moderates trust antecedents →
Cognitive trust
Doney and
Cannon (1997)
US Industrial
manufacturersupplier
relationships
Contact frequency →Cognitive trust
Gudykunst
and Nishida
(1986)
Japan US Student interpersonal
relationships
Communication frequency →
Attributional confidence (moderated
by communication context)
Jena, Guin,
and Dash
(2011)
India Steel buyersupplier
relationships
Communication frequency →
Cognitive trust
Massey and
Kyriazis (2007)
Australia Research and
development (RD)
managermarketing
relationships
Communication frequency →
Bidirectional communication →
Cognitive trust
Rodríguez,
Peréz, and
Gutiérrez
(2007)
Spain MarketingRD
relationships
Communication (Frequency þ
Quality) →Cooperation →
Cognitive trust
Notes: *high context (HC) associated with collectivism and low context (LC) associated with
individualism.
16 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

could be made that the strength of this relationship may be tempered by the con-
text of communication embedded in national cultures. Specifically, the high con-
text (HC) cultures associated with collectivist societies require less verbal
communication. Instead, messaging and assessment are often communicated
more implicitly (i.e., less is said). A cross-cultural study of communication fre-
quency and attributional confidence, a construct similar to cognitive trust,
indeed supports this conclusion (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986). The authors
found that communication frequency was more highly correlated with attribu-
tional confidence in the low context (LC) US sample than in the HC Japanese
sample. This leads us to the following hypotheses:
H6. Communication frequency universally influences cognitive trust in
buyersupplier relationships.
H7. The influence of communication frequency on cognitive trust is positively
moderated by the collectivism associated with the buyer’s national culture.
Social Bond
A number of cross-cultural studies of trust building have demonstrated the
importance of suppliers being friendly, nice, and pleasant. Often captured under
constructs known as likeability, sympathy, congeniality, or social bond (see
comparisons in Table 5), this expectation resonates more in cultures known for
Table 5. Construct Comparisons for Sympathy, Likeability, and Social Bond.
Construct Source of Scales Sample Items
Likeability Doney and
Cannon (1996);
Andaleeb and
Anwar (1996)
The salesperson is friendly
The salesperson is pleasant
The salesperson is always nice to us
The salesperson is someone we like to have around
The salesperson has a sense of humor
Sympathy Swan et al. (1988);
Akrout and Diallo
(2017)
The seller is friendly
[R] The seller is not particularly pleasant
We were pleased to know this seller
Congeniality Moorman et al.
(1993)
Disagreeable-agreeable (great deal, none)
Friendly-unfriendly (great deal, none)
Good disposition-bad disposition (great deal, none)
Social bond
(social
interaction)
Han (1992);
Rodríguez and
Wilson (2002),
Mavondo and
Rodrigo (2001)
A strong friendship has developed with this supplier
over the years
We enjoy each other’s company
Our relationship with this supplier often involves
social time together
We are able to talk openly as friends
We are both interested in each other’s personal life
We both feel like we share a common bond
17Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

interpersonal interaction. Of the four related constructs, social bond has argu-
ably received the greatest attention in the cross-cultural literature. Often
described as social interaction or relational bonds, social bond contains elements
of friendship and closeness (Williams, Han, & Qualls, 1998) captured under like-
ability or sympathy. But richer than these constructs, social bond also implies
“investments of time and energy that produce positive inter-personal relationships
between actors (Perry, Cavaye, & Coote, 2002)”in (Ramström, 2008, p. 504).
The direct positive impact that social bond has on cognitive trust is well
documented (see Table 6). In their meta-analysis, Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier
(2014, p. 82) conclude that “in cultures with higher individualism, relationships
based on long-term social bonding become more difficult to form, and the bene-
ficial effects of relationships on outcomes are weaker.”Moreover, cross-cultural
alliance research suggests that the relationship between social bond and cogni-
tive trust strengthens when buyers are from nations associated with high collec-
tivism. Rodríguez and Wilson (2002), for example, concluded in their evaluation
of USMexican alliances that managers from Mexico (high collectivism) per-
ceive social bonding as more important than structural bonding in building trust
in USMexican alliances, whereas US managers perceive structural bonding as
more important than social bonding in building trust in USMexican alliances.
This supports the findings of Williams et al. (1998) who demonstrated that “the
effect of social bonding on commitment [a well-documented outcome of trust] in
Table 6. Literature Review Findings of Social Bond and Trust Relationships.
Source Cultural Context Partnership Context Demonstrated Influence
CLTV* INDV*
Doney, Barry,
and Abratt
(2007)
42-nation sample from
high CLTV to high
INDV.
Aircraft component
repair by buyer and
service provider
Social bond →Cognitive trust
ˇ
Cater (2008) Slovenia Marketing research and
client firms
Social bond →Cognitive trust
Leonidou et al.
(2017)
Greece Exporterimporter
relationships
Social bond →Cognitive trust
Mavondo and
Rodrigo (2001)
China Australia ChinaAustralia
business partners
Social bond →Cognitive trust
Ponder,
Holloway, and
Hansen (2016)
US Attorneyclient and
real estateclient
relationships
Cognitive trust →Social bond
Rodríguez and
Wilson (2002)
Mexico US USMexican strategic
alliances
Social bond →Cognitive trust
(stronger for nations of high
collectivism)
Williams et al.
(1998)
China,
Jamaica and
Costa Rica
US and
Germany
Social bond →Commitment
(stronger for nations of high
collectivism)
Notes: *collectivist (CLTV) and individualist (INDV).
18 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

collectivist countries was bigger than the effect of social bonding in individualist
countries”(p. 141).
This deference for social bond is also supported by Ramström (2008) when
comparing Chinese business partners with their individualist Nordic counter-
parts. The author attributes the greater Chinese affinity for social bond to a phi-
losophy that relationships create future transactions. Consequently, greater
attention is placed on interpersonal aspects of relationships. To the contrary, the
more performance-driven relationships in the West and Northern Europe sug-
gest a mentality that transactions and performance create future relationships.In
this case, greater attention is likely placed on the inter-organizational or struc-
tural aspects of a relationship (i.e., performing to contract specifications). This
leads us to the following statements.
H8. Social bond universally influences cognitive trust in buyersupplier
relationships.
H9. The influence of social bond on cognitive trust is moderated positively
by the collectivism associated with the buyer’s national culture.
RESEARCH METHOD
Sample and Data Collection
The three countries selected in this study have distinct scores on Hofstede’s
(2001) UA and individualism dimensions (see Table 7).
To study distinctions between the three country samples, we conducted
country-level comparisons based on aggregated scores (Cannon, Doney,
Mullen, & Petersen, 2010;Doney et al., 2007;Graça, Barry, & Doney, 2016).
Data were collected via a self-administered survey of 169 American, 100
Chinese, and 110 Brazilian business managers and buyers belonging to the
Brazilian-American Chambers of Commerce in Miami, Orlando, New York, and
Atlanta, the Associação Comercial da Bahia (Commercial Association of Bahia)
in Brazil, and the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. The survey was
accompanied by a cover letter stating that the Chambers endorsed the study.
Respondents were similar in job responsibility, group membership, and business
objectives and represent equivalent culti-units between countries. Also, drawing
the sample from the same geographic area in each country increases the likeli-
hood of attaining cultural similarity within groups. (Craig & Douglas, 2005,
Table 7. Hofstede’s Country Scores.
Hofstede’s Dimension China United States Brazil
Uncertainty avoidance scores 30 (Low) 46 (Medium) 76 (High)
Individualism scores 20 (Low) 91 (High) 38 (Medium)
Source:https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/brazil,china,the-usa/
19Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

2006). To ensure that participants selected business partners in the expansion
stage of a relationship, survey instructions directed participants to choose a sup-
plier that was neither their largest nor a sole provider of a product or service, or
one they had been doing business with for two or more years. Table 8 is a sum-
mary of the distribution of the samples across buyer characteristics and key
firmographics.
In the United States, data were collected primarily via the online version of
the survey with a response rate of 13.2 percent. Given the B-to-B context of this
study, this response rate is considered standard. However in China and Brazil,
the online response rate was extremely low. Upon consultation with Chamber
officials, we decided to also deliver the paper version of the survey in person to
address local preference in these two countries to conduct business face-to-face
(Malhotra, Agarwal, & Petersen, 1996). The response rate from the paper collec-
tion based on a random sample was close to 100 percent in both countries. To
test for potential nonresponse bias, we compared the means between early versus
late respondents for each group independently (Armstrong & Overton, 1977).
No statistically significant differences were found for any of the key variables in
this study; therefore, nonresponse bias was ruled out as a concern.
Measurement
We developed the conceptual model for this study based on the theoretical frame-
work of trust in buyersupplier relationships under the expansion stage of rela-
tionship development (Akrout, 2015); the key mediating variable (KMV) model
of relationship marketing (Hunt & Morgan, 1994); and the model of communica-
tion flows, socialization, trust, and strategic cooperation (Graça et al., 2017).
Survey items were originally selected from seminal studies in the field of relation-
ship marketing, buyersupplier relationship, and channel communication
Table 8. Sample Distribution.
Length of Relationship 1 5 Years (%) 6 10 Years (%) 11 or More Years (%)
US sample (n¼169) 39.05 37.87 23.08
Chinese sample (n¼100) 68.00 32.00 
Brazilian sample (n¼110) 47.27 31.82 20.91
Responsible for Purchase Buyer (%) Non-buyer (%)
US sample (n¼169) 82.80 17.20
Chinese sample (n¼100) 79.00 21.00
Brazilian sample (n¼110) 80.00 20.00
Organization’s Main Offering Product (%) Service (%) Both (%)
US sample (n¼169) 40.80 66.90 24.85
Chinese sample (n¼100) 62.00 51.00 13.00
Brazilian sample (n¼110) 61.80 55.50 17.27
20 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

(Barry & Doney, 2011;Doney & Cannon, 1997;Mohr, Fisher, & Nevin, 1996;
Mohr & Nevin, 1990;Morgan & Hunt, 1994;Reynolds & Beatty, 1999) and
compared for equivalence with survey items from Akrout and Diallo (2017).
Conflict resolution is represented by three items that measure the supplier’s
ability to avoid potential conflicts, openly discuss solutions to problems once
they arise, and solve manifest conflicts before they become problems (Ndubisi,
2007). Communication frequency contains three items measuring both the
actual amount of contact and interaction the buyer has with the supplier, as
well as how much buyers welcome frequent contact with the supplier (Mohr &
Nevin, 1990). The social bond scale contains four items adapted from
Reynolds and Beatty (1999) measuring friendship aspects of the buyersup-
plier relationship. In particular, social bond measures how much the buyer
values and enjoys the supplier’s time, company, and personal relationship.
Cognitive trust measures the buyer’s personal expectations toward and beliefs
about the supplier. It is the overall assessment, based on cumulative knowl-
edge, that the buyer makes regarding the likelihood of a supplier to follow
through with obligations and promises (Akrout, 2015). Cognitive trust is multi-
dimensional, incorporating elements of benevolence, honesty, and competence
(Akrout & Diallo, 2017). Benevolence is represented with three items that mea-
sure the buyer’s assessment of the supplier’s goodwill, welfare consideration,
and genuine intentions to keep the buyer’s best interest in mind. The honesty
dimension contains four items assessing the buyer’s perception regarding the
supplier’s ability to keep promises and provide credible information and over-
all trustworthiness. Competence is represented with four items measuring the
supplier’s ability to meet the buyer’s expectations, help accomplish goals, and
perform in a manner that produces desired results. Confidential communication
entails the sharing of proprietary information between buyer and supplier. The
scale contains three items which also measure buyer’s level of information-
sharing with the supplier and the degree of importance a buyer places on the
supplier’s level of information-sharing with the buyer. Cooperation is measured
with two items from Anderson and Narus (1990) and refers to “coordinated
actions”(Anderson & Narus, 1990, p. 45) between buyer and supplier to
achieve mutual goals. Affective commitment contains three items that measure
the degree to which a buyer’s loyalty and sense of allegiance is to the supplier,
as well as the degree to which the buyer considers the supplier to be “part of
the family.”
All measures were anchored using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. The effect of the length of the relationship
(one to five years, between five and 10 years, and greater than 10 years) between
buyer and supplier on performance satisfaction was included as a control vari-
able. The survey items, original authors, and composite reliability (CR) for each
scale are included in Appendix 1. In addition, a summary of the samples’statis-
tics (means and standard deviations) is presented in Appendix 2 and the correla-
tion matrices for all three samples are included in Appendix 3.
21Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Reliability and Validity
The original English version of the survey underwent translation and back-
translation by professional translators into Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese.
To ensure content validity and consistency of construct meaning among both
samples, we sought the advice of bilingual experts on the meaning of each item
in both the original and the translated survey versions (Malhotra et al., 1996).
In addition, a pilot test was administered to marketing practitioners and
researchers from each culture. No concerns were raised in regard to the meaning
of survey items.
We followed the two-step approach to developing the measures, assessing
validity and reliability of the measurement and structural models suggested by
Anderson & Gerbing, 1988 and Churchill, 1979. We assessed the internal consis-
tency and validity of the scales within each culture by analyzing the CR and
average variance extracted (AVE) for each scale. The measures demonstrate
adequate properties as the reliability and CR for each scale in all three cultures
exceed the recommended 0.70 threshold, and AVE is equal to or exceeds the
threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Lacker, 1981;Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010). Table 9 summarizes the reliability and validity tests for the final scales in
the study.
To further assess convergent validity, a confirmatory factor analysis was con-
ducted and the overall fit of the measurement model is in an acceptable range
(χ2
(379)
¼1131.416, p<0.01; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼0.84; incremental fit
index (IFI) ¼0.85; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) ¼0.81; root mean square error of
approximation ¼0.106) (Hair et al., 2010). The correlation matrix for all three
samples, shown in Appendix 3, demonstrates evidence of discriminant validity
as the correlations between the same variables are larger than the correlations
between distinct variables (Churchill, 1979).
The factor loadings of items onto each construct are significant and appropri-
ate for all three samples (Hair et al., 2010) and the measurement models demon-
strate an adequate level of universal structure to allow for cross-cultural
comparisons of the structural model (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff,
2011).
Table 9. Reliability and Validity Tests for Measures.
US China Brazil
Variable CR AVE CR AVE CR AVE
Conflict resolution 0.89 0.73 0.89 0.77 0.77 0.56
Communication frequency 0.94 0.84 0.94 0.73 0.88 0.89
Social bond 0.92 0.75 0.80 0.56 0.80 0.56
Cognitive trust 0.96 0.70 0.95 0.63 0.92 0.51
Confidential communication 0.84 0.63 0.76 0.54 0.75 0.52
Cooperation 0.91 0.83 0.70 0.56 0.86 0.80
Affective commitment 0.89 0.74 0.85 0.65 0.87 0.70
22 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

Data Analysis
We analyzed the data using structural equation modeling to test the relation-
ships between all constructs in the conceptual model in Fig. 1. The model was
estimated simultaneously for each cultural pair (the United States and China,
the United States and Brazil, and China and Brazil) via a multigroup analysis of
structural invariance using Amos 18. The path coefficients for each cultural
group were analyzed separately to allow for statistical comparisons to be made.
Significant differences in the path coefficients were analyzed with pairwise
parameter comparisons to examine the moderating effect of national culture
on the hypothesized relationships. We tested the invariance in the parameter
coefficients for each relationship by analyzing the critical ratios for differences
between parameters matrix to assess the z-scores for the differences of each
parameter between groups (Byrne, 2004). The mediating effects of each
exchange climate variable were examined utilizing a combination of Baron
and Kenny’s (1986) regression method and bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes,
2008).
FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Most relationships are positive and significant in our model with the exception
of the relationships between communication frequency and cognitive trust in the
Brazilian sample and cognitive trust and cooperation in China. In addition, the
paths between conflict resolution and cognitive trust differ at a statistically sig-
nificant level for all three samples. There are also statistically significant differ-
ences between the paths of social bond and cognitive trust and cognitive trust
and cooperation for the samples from the United States and China and Brazil
and China. The overall result of the model is presented in Fig. 2, and a summary
of the results is listed in Appendix 4.
Cognitive
Trust
Expansion
Phase
Conflict
Resoltion
Confidential
Communication
Cooperation
Affective
Commitment
Communication
Frequency
Social
Bond
- Benevolence
- Honesty
- Competence
UAI
IND
}
Fig. 1. Proposed Model of Cognitive Trust in Expansion Phase. Notes: Tested in
three cultural contexts: low, medium, and high uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and
individualism (IND).
23Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

The discussion continues by analyzing the results for each country sample
individually to shed light on managerial and strategic implications for buyers
and managers under each country context.
United States’Results
As one would expect for a country with a medium UA score, conflict resolution
plays a significant role in shaping cognitive trust in the United States. However, as
the country with the highest score in individualism, the United States’buyers place
lower emphasis on social bond as a determinant of cognitive trust. Communication
frequency falls in the middle and contributes to building trust as well. Cognitive
trust has significant, large impact on increasing confidential communication, coop-
eration, and affective commitment in the United States (see Table 10).
The explanatory power of the United States’model is excellent. Together,
conflict resolution, communication frequency, and social bond explain 77 per-
cent of cognitive trust, which combined with the three antecedents explains 31
percent of confidential communication, 58 percent of cooperation, and 53 per-
cent of affective commitment.
United States’Discussion and Managerial Implications
Relationship marketing is considered a strategic tool to build long-term relation-
ships between business partners. Our study supports the importance of cognitive
trust (as a key relationship marketing (RM) variable) in fostering committed
partnerships in the United States in the expansion phase of the relationship.
Managers are advised to pay close attention to conflict resolution as the factor
Values represent Standardized Regression Weights. 1
st
Value = US; 2
nd
Value = Brazil, 3
rd
Value = China
Do Not Differ
Do Not Differ
R2=
R2=
R2= 0.58; 0.61; 0.01
R2
=
0.53; 0.61; 0.64
Conflict
Resolution
Cognitive
Trust
Confidential
Communication
Cooperation
Affective
Commitment
Frequency
Communication
Social
Bond
0.53
0.69
0.21
0.76; 0.78; 0.64
0.55; 0.53; 0.75
0.18*; 0.26**; 0.46
0.76; 0.78; n/S
0.29; n/S; 0.34**
0.77; 0.72; 0.80
0.31; 0.28; 0.63
Fig. 2. Model Results. Notes: All p-values <0.01, unless noted as: *p-value <0.10;
**p-value <0.05; or n/s. Statistically significant differences: Conflict resolution →
Cogitative trust (all three samples differ); Social bond →Cognitive trust AND
Cognitive trust →Cooperation (US and Brazilian samples do not differ but both
differ from the Chinese sample).
24 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

with the greatest influence on building buyersupplier trust in the United States.
Suppliers should avoid conflicts or attempt to resolve them as they arise and
increase the frequency of communication with buyers that signal competence,
reliability, honesty, and benevolence. A trusted partnership greatly contributes
to increasing mutual cooperation, the exchange of confidential information, and
affective commitment between buyers and suppliers.
China’s Results
As expected in a highly collectivist country, social bond plays a major role and
is the greatest determinant of cognitive trust in China. Conflict resolution and
communication frequency, although less than social bond, also contribute to
shaping cognitive trust in China as well. In turn, cognitive trust positively
impacts confidential communication and affective commitment; however, cogni-
tive trust has no significant, direct impact on cooperation (see Table 11).
In order to further examine the role cooperation plays in the Chinese model,
and as an ad-hoc decision, we performed a combination of Baron and Kenny
(1986) and bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to test for the mediating
effects of confidential communication and affective commitment on the relation-
ship between cognitive trust and cooperation. We found that affective commit-
ment fully mediates the relationship. The direct effect of cogitative trust on
cooperation was not significant without the mediator. In the presence of the
affective commitment as mediator, the direct effect became negative while the
indirect effect was significant. Results indicate that cognitive trust only increases
cooperation between buyers and sellers in China to the degree that it increases
affective commitment (see Table 12).
The explanatory power of the Chinese model is excellent. Together, conflict
resolution, communication frequency, and social bond explain 80 percent of
cognitive trust, which combines to explain 63 percent of confidential communi-
cation and 64 percent of affective commitment. When testing for the mediating
role of affective commitment on the relationship between cognitive trust and
cooperation, the model increases the variance explained in cooperation from 1
to 20 percent.
Table 10. United States’Results.
R
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.18 0.011
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.29 0.000
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.53 0.000
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.76 0.000
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.76 0.000
Cognitive trust →Confidential communication 0.55 0.000
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01; R
2
, standardized regression weights;
P, probability. .
25Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

China’s Discussion and Managerial Implications
Friendships play a greater role in business relationships in collectivist versus
more individualist societies (Hofstede, 2001). Our results confirm that social
bond is the most important factor impacting cognitive trust in the Chinese
model, followed by communication frequency and lastly by conflict resolu-
tion. The collectivist inclination of the Chinese society contributes to heighten
the emphasis buyers placed on personal relationships as a precursor to busi-
ness dealings. Cultivating social bond becomes a matter of necessity for
Chinese buyers and suppliers and a part of the guanxi development process
(Shou, Guo, Zhang, & Su, 2011) essential in committed business relation-
ships. Our findings are supported by other guanxi scholars; Jukka et al. (2017)
found that “the Chinese managers emphasized relationship—specific person-
alized trustworthiness […] personalized communication, commitment, and
personalized benevolence”(p. 492); all aspects of guanxi.Furthermore,
guanxi has a tremendous influence on loyalty and a buyer’s patronage behav-
ior (Lee et al., 2017). We found that Chinese buyers will only cooperate with
suppliers they have built a sense of allegiance with and consider as “part of
the family.”
Managers are advised to build friendship with buyers in China by investing
time in getting to know their business partners. Chinese buyers value the suppli-
er’s personal touch in the relationship dealings and appreciate a supplier’s close
and personalized attention. These behaviors contribute to building social bond
that in turn will increase the buyer’s trust in and commitment to the supplier. A
high degree of affective commitment or buyer’s loyalty toward the supplier has
Table 11. China’s Results.
R
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.007
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.34 0.000
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.040
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.06 0.183
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.64 0.000
Cognitive trust →Confidential communication 0.75 0.007
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01.
Table 12. China’s Mediating Results.
R
2
P
Cognitive trust →Cooperation -0.35 0.000
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.64 0.000
Affective commitment →Cooperation 0.56 0.000
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01.
26 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

been considered “the holy grail of marketing”(Lee et al., 2017, p. 3) and enables
greater cooperation between partners in China.
Brazil’s Results
Brazil’s UA score was the highest among the three countries. As expected, con-
flict resolution was significantly more important in increasing cognitive trust
than it was for the other two samples. With a medium score in individualism,
Brazil also considered social bond an important determinant of cognitive trust.
In turn, cognitive trust had a significant impact on all three outcomes (confiden-
tial communication, cooperation, and affective commitment) see Table 13.
Unlike our proposal, communication frequency did not have a significant
impact on cognitive trust in the Brazilian model. Using the same methodology
as we did in the Chinese sample, we tested for the mediating effects of conflict
resolution and social bond on the relationship between communication fre-
quency and cognitive trust. We found that conflict resolution fully mediates the
relationship indicating that communication frequency only impacts cognitive
trust to the extent that it helps resolve conflicts in the Brazilian model (see
Table 14):
The explanatory power of the Brazilian model is also excellent. Conflict reso-
lution, communication frequency, and social bond explain 72 percent of cogni-
tive trust which also explains 28 percent of confidential communication, 61
percent of cooperation, and 61 percent of affective commitment.
Brazil’s Discussion and Managerial Implications
The results indicate that a country with a high degree of UA places great
emphasis on a partner’s ability to resolve conflicts as the most important deter-
minant of trust. According to Hofstede (2001),“uncertainty-avoidance cultures
shun ambiguous situations”(p. 148) and prefer predictable environments.
Conflict presents an unstable environment which can cause a great deal of stress
for Brazilian organizations. Countries that avoid uncertainty at all cost are
more likely to end a partnership due to conflict or refuse to build one that pre-
sents potentiality to create conflict. Claro and Claro (2008, p. 208) found that
Table 13. Brazil’s Results.
R
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.26 0.003
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.05 0.458
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.69 0.000
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.78 0.000
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.78 0.000
Cognitive trust →Confidential communication 0.53 0.000
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01.
27Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Brazilian companies seek to build trust primarily “as a mechanism to overcome
potential problems”and Graça and Barry (2016) found that conflict resolution
is the greatest determinant of perceptions of communication effectiveness in
Brazil. In addition, and similar to our findings, conflict resolution not only
impacts outcomes such as trust and satisfaction directly, it also serves as a medi-
ator between communication and trust and trust and other relational outcomes
(Graça, Barry, & Doney, 2015).
It is highly recommended when dealing with buyers and managers from high
UA countries such as Brazil to avoid conflicts or to attempt to solve them before
they become problems. In case conflicts arise, it is recommended that suppliers
openly discuss solutions to these conflicts. It is also important to note that
increasing the amount of communication and contact with the buyer sends a
positive signal that attempts are being made to avoid or resolve conflicts. This
behavior, in turn, will increase buyer’s trust in the supplier which ultimately
increases the degree of confidential communication being exchanged, mutual
cooperation, and degree of loyalty and allegiance in the partnership.
CONCLUSION
The study here illustrates the complexity of cognitive trust and its importance in
shaping business systems which allow for efficient exchanges to occur between
organizations. The centrality of trust is widely shared; what is vastly misunder-
stood is how trust is built to create social capital and its role in shaping
exchanges across three distinct cultural samples. The results of our study demon-
strate that there are similarities and differences across countries with low,
medium, and high scores in UA and individualism.
The importance of cognitive trust in allowing business partners to share con-
fidential information is universal across the three distinct cultures tested in our
study. The ability of business partners to openly divulge proprietary information
can be mutually beneficial in creating efficiencies and trust is the vehicle to
facilitate such exchange in the United States, China, and Brazil.
In a high individualist country such as the United States, our findings demon-
strate that the relationship marketing theory largely explains trust behavior.
Trust is a KMV of relational outcomes (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) in the West and
our study supports the importance of conflict resolution, communication fre-
quency, and to a lesser degree, social bond in building buyersupplier relation-
ships in the United States. The study also confirmed that cognitive trust plays a
Table 14. Brazil’s Mediating Results.
R
2
P
Communication frequency →Conflict resolution 0.37 0.001
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.05 0.464
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.73 0.000
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01.
28 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

central role in permitting the exchange of confidential communication, increas-
ing cooperation, and affective commitment between partners.
This study demonstrates that in China, a country ranking low in both indi-
vidualism and UA, social bonds play a much greater role in building trust which
in turn only increases cooperation to the extent that it serves as a mechanism to
secure committed relationships. In fact, trust without commitment has a nega-
tive impact on cooperation. The differences between the United States and
China also illustrate how the trust-building process is distinctly shaped under
relationship marketing and guanxi contexts.
The importance of conflict resolution is paramount in Brazil, a country that
ranks high in UA and low in public trust. Not only is conflict resolution behav-
ior the greatest determinant of trust, it mediates the relationship between com-
munication frequency and trust. Countries with low levels of tolerance toward
ambiguity are conflict-averse and are more likely to engage in trusted and com-
mitted business partnerships under a conflict-free and problem-solving climate.
The original scales of this study were derived from research designed to mea-
sure relationship marketing under Anglo-Saxon context. Despite our careful
measures to assure that the English version of the survey was carefully trans-
lated, understood in China and Brazil and equivalent to the original, misunder-
standing of survey items cannot be ruled out.
Finally, although the relationship marketing paradigm shares some universal-
ity across distinct cultural contexts, striking differences are also found in our
research. We demonstrate that the moderating influences of national culture are
complex and confounded by each nation’s degree of individualism, UA, general-
ized public trust, and institutional peculiarities such as guanxi. Future cross-
cultural research in relationship marketing cannot ignore the peculiarities of
national culture moderators in testing relational models across distinct cultural
contexts. Therefore, we recommend that future studies include other country
samples, as well as other relationship marketing constructs (e.g., relationship
quality, communication quality, and social and functional benefits), to increase
the generalizability of our findings and expand the applicability of relationship
marketing in various cultural contexts.
REFERENCES
Akrout, H. (2015). A process perspective on trust in buyersupplier relationships.“Calculus”an
intrinsic component of trust evolution. European Business Review,27(1), 1733.
Akrout, H., & Diallo, M. F. (2017). Fundamental transformations of trust and its drivers: A multi-
stage approach of business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management,66,
159171.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,103(3), 411423.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships. Journal of Marketing,54(1), 4258.
Armstrong, S. J., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research,14(3), 396402.
29Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Ashnai, B., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Francescucci, A. (2016). Inter-personal and inter-
organizational trust in business relationships: An attitudebehavioroutcome model.
Industrial Marketing Management,52, 128139.
Aulakh, P. S., Kotabe, M., & Sahay, A. (1996). Trust and performance in cross-border marketing
partnerships: A behavioral approach. Journal of international business studies,27(5),
10051032.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,51(6), 11731182.
Barry, J. M., & Doney, P. M. (2011). Cross-cultural examination of relationship quality. Journal of
Global Marketing,24(4), 305323. doi:10.1080/08911762.2011.602321
Bjørnskov, C. (2007). Antecedents of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public choice,
130(1), 121.
Borit, M., Vanhée, L., & Olsen, P. (2014). Understanding the impact of culture on cognitive trust-
building processes: How to increase the social influence of virtual autonomous agents. Paper
presented at the TRUST@ AAMAS, Montreal, Canada.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using amos graphics: A road less traveled.
Structural Equation Modeling,11(2), 272300. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. (2010). Building long-term orientation
in buyer-supplier relationships: The moderating role of culture. Journal of Operations
Management,28(6), 506521. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.02.002
Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural
effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management
Review,23(2), 285304.
Chua, R. Y. (2012). Building effective business relationships in China. MIT Sloan Management
Review,53(4), 1.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research,16(1), 6473.
Claro, D. P., & Claro, P. B. O. (2008). Managing trust relationships: Calculative, affective, belief and
performance. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review,5(4), 289303.
Craig, C. S., & Douglas, S. P. (2005). International marketing research (3rd ed.). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Craig, C. S., & Douglas, S. P. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural dynamics for
consumer research. International Marketing Review,23(3), 322342. doi:10.1108/
02651330610670479
Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons.
Organizational behavior and Human Decision processes,64(2), 151170.
Davies, M., & Prince, M. (2005). Dynamics of trust between clients and their advertising agencies:
Advances in performance theory. Academy of Marketing Science Review,2005,1.
Doney, P. M., Barry, J. M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Trust antecedents and outcomes in global B2B ser-
vices. European Journal of Marketing,41(9/10), 10961116. doi:10.1108/03090560710773363
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing,61(2), 3551.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national cul-
ture on the development of trust. Academy of management review,23(3), 601620.
Dowell, D., Morrison, M., & Heffernan, T. (2015). The changing importance of affective trust and
cognitive trust across the relationship lifecycle: A study of business-to-business relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management,44, 119130.
Fornell, C., & Lacker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,18(3), 382388.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and inter-
dependence on relationship commitment: A trans-atlantic study. International Journal of
research in marketing,13(4), 303317.
Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. (2015). Performance outcomes of behavioral attributes in buyer-
supplier relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,30(7), 805816.
30 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. (2016). B2B commitment building in emerging markets: The case of
Brazil. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,36(2), 105125. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2016.1188708
Graça, S., Barry, J., & Doney, P. (2017). An institutional view of the communication flows between
relation-based and rule-based countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets,12(1),
7992.
Graça, S. S., & Barry, J. M. (2016). Culture impact on perceptions of communication effectiveness.
International Business Research,10(1), 116.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). Attributional confidence in low-and high-context cultures.
Human communication research,12(4), 525549.
Ha, J., Karande, K., & Singhapakdi, A. (2004). Importers’relationships with exporters: Does culture
matter? International Marketing Review,21(4/5), 447461.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.).
Essex: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hewett, K., & Bearden, W. O. (2001). Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of for-
eign subsidiary marketing operations: Implications for managing global marketing operations.
Journal of Marketing,65(4), 5166.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies,14(2), 7589.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organiza-
tions across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994). Relationship marketing in the era of network competition.
Marketing Management,3(1), 18-18.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of
Business Research,58(4), 500507.
Jukka, M., Jukka, M., Blomqvist, K., Blomqvist, K., Ping Li, P., Ping Li, P., …Gan, C. (2017).
Trust-distrust balance: Trust ambivalence in Sino-western B2B relationships. Cross Cultural &
Strategic Management,24(3), 482507.
Lai, C., Singh, B., Alshwer, A. A., & Shaffer, M. A. (2014). Building and leveraging interpersonal
trust within and across MNE subsidiaries: A social exchange perspective. Journal of
International Management,20(3), 312326.
Lee, L. W. Y., Tang, Y., Yip, L. S. C., & Sharma, P. (2017). Managing customer relationship in the
emerging markets Guanxi as a driver of Chinese customer loyalty. Journal of Business
Research,86, 356365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.017
Li, S. (2009). Managing international business in relation-based versus rule-based countries. New York,
NY: Business Expert Press.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and valida-
tion procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques.
MIS Quarterly,35(2), 293334.
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Petersen, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural market-
ing research: A state-of-the-art review. Industrial Marketing Review,13(5), 743.
Massey, G. R., & Kyriazis, E. (2007). Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new
product development projects. European Journal of Marketing,41(9/10), 11461172.
doi:10.1108/03090560710773381
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of management review,20(3), 709734.
Mital, M., Israel, D., & Agarwal, S. (2010). Information exchange and information disclosure in
social networking web sites: Mediating role of trust. The Learning Organization,17(6),
479490.
Mohr, J., Fisher, R. J., & Nevin, J. R. (1996). Collaborative communication in interfirm relation-
ships: Moderating effects of integration and control. Journal of Marketing,60(3), 103115.
Mohr, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A theoretical per-
spective. Journal of Marketing,54(4), 3651.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research rela-
tionships. Journal of Marketing,57(1), 81101.
31Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing,58(3), 2038.
Ndubisi, N. (2007). Relationship quality antecedents: The Malaysian retail banking perspective.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,24(8), 829845. doi:10.1108/
02656710710817117
Ndubisi, N. (2011). Conflict handling, trust and commitment in outsourcing relationship: A Chinese
and Indian study. Industrial Marketing Management,40(1), 109117.
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business
strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies,39(5),
920936.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and com-
paring indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3),
879891.
Ramström, J. (2008). Inter-organizational meets inter-personal: An exploratory study of social capital
processes in relationships between northern European and ethnic Chinese firms. Industrial
Marketing Management,37(5), 502512.
Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and company consequences of customer-
salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing,75(1), 1132.
Rodríguez, C. M., & Wilson, D. T. (2002). Relationship bonding and trust as a foundation for com-
mitment in US-Mexican strategic alliances: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal
of International Marketing,10(4), 5376.
Roy, S. K., Balaji, M., Soutar, G., Lassar, W. M., & Roy, R. (2018). Customer engagement behavior
in individualistic and collectivistic markets. Journal of Business Research,86, 281290.
Samaha, S. A., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). The role of culture in international relation-
ship marketing. Journal of Marketing,78(5), 7898.
Sharma, N., Young, L. C., & Wilkinson, I. (2015). The nature and role of different types of commit-
ment in inter-firm relationship cooperation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,30(1),
4559.
Shou, Z., Guo, R., Zhang, Q., & Su, C. (2011). The many faces of trust and guanxi behavior:
Evidence from marketing channels in China. Industrial Marketing Management,40(4),
503509.
Styles, C., Patterson, P. G., & Ahmed, F. (2008). A relational model of export performance. Journal
of International Business Studies,39(5), 880900.
Sullivan, J., Peterson, R. B., Kameda, N., & Shimada, J. (1981). The relationship between conflict
resolution approaches and trust—A cross cultural study. Academy of Management Journal,
24(4), 803815.
Terawatanavong, C., & Quazi, A. (2006). Conceptualising the link between national cultural dimen-
sions and B2B relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,18(3), 173183.
Voss, K. E., Johnson, J. L., Cullen, J. B., Sakano, T., & Takenouchi, H. (2006). Relational exchange
in US-Japanese marketing strategic alliances. International Marketing Review,23(6),
610635.
Williams, J. D., Han, S.-L., & Qualls, W. J. (1998). A conceptual model and study of cross-cultural
business relationships. Journal of Business Research,42(2), 135143.
Wilson, D. T. (1995). An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science,23(4), 335345.
Wu, M.-Y., Weng, Y.-C., & Huang, I.-C. (2012). A study of supply chain partnerships based on the
commitment-trust theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,24(4), 690707.
doi:10.1108/13555851211259098
32 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

APPENDIX 1
Scales and Composite Reliability Scores
Conflict resolution (CR: US ¼0.89, CH ¼0.90, BR ¼0.77)
This supplier tries to avoid potential conflicts with us
This supplier tries to solve manifest conflicts before they create problems
This supplier has the ability to openly discuss solutions when problems arise
Communication frequency (CR: US ¼0.94, CH ¼0.89, BR ¼0.88)
We have frequent interactions with this supplier
We value the amount of contact that this supplier makes with our company
We desire and welcome frequent contacts with this supplier
Social bond (CR: US ¼0.92, CH ¼0.80, BR ¼0.80)
The friendship aspect of our relationship with this supplier is very important to us
We enjoy spending time with this supplier
We value the close, personal relationship we have with this supplier
We enjoy this supplier’s company
Cognitive trust (CR: US ¼0.96, CH ¼0.95, BR ¼0.92)
Honesty: This supplier keeps promises it makes to our business
We believe the information that this supplier provides us
This supplier is trustworthy
The information provided by this supplier is credible
Benevolence: This supplier is genuinely concerned that our business succeeds
We trust that this supplier keeps our best interests in mind
When making important decisions, this supplier considers our welfare as well as its own
Competence: The performance by this supplier meets our expectations
The performance by this supplier leads to desired results
The turnaround time for work performed by this supplier meets our expectations
Compared to alternative suppliers, we are confident this supplier will better help usaccomplish our goals
Confidential communication (CR: US ¼0.84, CH ¼0.76, BR ¼0.75)
We share proprietary information with this supplier
We keep this supplier well informed about what is going on in our company
We believe it is imperative that this supplier keep us updated on critical information about their
company’s operations
Cooperation (CR: US ¼0.91, CH ¼0.70, BR ¼0.86)
Our company helps this supplier in whatever ways they ask
This supplier helps our company out in whatever ways we ask
Affective commitment (CR: US ¼0.89, CH ¼0.85, BR ¼0.87)
Our loyalty to this supplier is a major reason why we continue to work with this supplier
We want to stay associated with this supplier because of our allegiance to them
We intend to continue working with this supplier because we feel they are “part of the family”
Notes: Scales have been adapted to reflect the context of this study.
33Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

APPENDIX 2
Descriptive Statistics
Mean
(US)
Std.
Deviation
(US)
Mean
(Brazil)
Std. Deviation
(Brazil)
Mean
(China)
Std. Deviation
(China)
Conflict resolution 5.4970 1.01973 5.4242 1.05690 5.1633 0.58698
Communication
frequency
5.2761 1.46882 6.0091 0.95831 5.2433 0.78974
Social bond 5.0281 1.35851 4.0273 1.33167 4.7700 0.62227
Cognitive trust 5.6288 0.94436 5.3884 0.91449 5.2700 0.46882
Confidential
communication
4.7554 1.51601 4.6394 1.39617 4.4467 0.77593
Cooperation 5.0030 1.33575 4.6045 1.55200 4.0000 0.84984
Affective
commitment
5.1755 1.28332 4.5818 1.57739 5.0467 0.77997
34 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY

APPENDIX 3
Conflict
Resolution
Comm.
Frequency
Social
Bond
Cognitive
Trust
Confidential
Comm.
Coop Affective
Commit
Correlation Matrix (US)
Conflict
resolution
1
Communication
frequency
0.588 1
Social bond 0.623 0.502 1
Cognitive trust 0.776 0.667 0.646 1
Confidential
communication
0.446 0.518 0.648 0.505 1
Cooperation 0.649 0.563 0.788 0.709 0.595 1
Affective
commitment
0.607 0.503 0.718 0.677 0.498 0.712 1
Correlation Matrix (China)
Conflict
resolution
1
Communication
frequency
0.255 1
Social bond 0.574 0.386 1
Cognitive trust 0.679 0.567 0.613 1
Confidential
communication
0.388 0.407 0.494 0.434 1
Cooperation 0.145 0.058 0.363 0.003 0.089 1
Affective
commitment
0.785 0.291 0.621 0.561 0.379 0.317 1
Correlation Matrix (Brazil)
Conflict
resolution
1
Communication
frequency
0.356 1
Social bond 0.366 0.129 1
Cognitive trust 0.710 0.379 0.519 1
Confidential
communication
0.333 0.300 0.372 0.471 1
Cooperation 0.539 0.141 0.582 0.687 0.363 1
Affective
commitment
0.554 0.198 0.621 0.714 0.371 0.608 1
Notes: Values in italics are non-significant (p>0.05).
35Cognitive Trust in Business-to-Business Relationships

APPENDIX 4
BR US z-score
R
2
PR
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.26 0.003 0.18 0.011 0.950
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.05 0.458 0.29 0.000 0.860
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.69 0.000 0.53 0.000 2.897***
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.78 0.000 0.76 0.000 0.749
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.78 0.000 0.76 0.000 0.932
Cognitive trust →Confidential communication 0.53 0.000 0.55 0.000 0.801
CH US z-score
R
2
PR
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.006 0.18 0.011 2.011**
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.34 0.000 0.29 0.000 0.524
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.039 0.53 0.000 2.567**
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.06 0.367 0.76 0.000 8.176***
Cognitive trust →Affective commitment 0.64 0.000 0.76 0.000 1.036
Cognitive trust →Confidential communication 0.75 0.007 0.55 0.000 0.671
CH BR z-score
R
2
PR
2
P
Social bond →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.007 0.26 0.003 1.552
Communication frequency →Cognitive trust 0.34 0.000 0.05 0.459 1.117
Conflict resolution →Cognitive trust 0.46 0.040 0.69 0.000 4.109***
Cognitive trust →Cooperation 0.06 0.183 0.78 0.000 4.313***
Cognitive trust→Affective commitment 0.64 0.000 0.78 0.000 0.436
Cognitive trust →Confidential tommunication 0.75 0.007 0.53 0.000 0.115
Notes:*p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01; BR, Brazil; CH, China; US,
United States.
36 SANDRA S. GRAÇA AND JAMES M. BARRY