Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust

R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs ⇑
Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While the concept of institutional trust has received considerable attention in different branches of the
Available online xxxx social science literature, brand trust has been somewhat neglected, particularly with respect to the food
sector. Motivated by the need to further investigate the concept, this paper develops a conceptual frame-
Keywords: work that explores the effects of brand trust, trust in the food system, consumer confidence and brand
Food system trust loyalty. While most extant studies have examined the brand trust-brand loyalty link, this paper proposes
Brand loyalty that: (i) the impact of brand trust on consumer confidence in brand attributes is mediated by trust in the
Structural equation modelling
food system, and (ii) brand trust leads to brand loyalty via consumer confidence. The proposition is tested
Salad
Food safety
using Structural Equation Modelling techniques based on survey data from a sample of Canadian con-
Food quality sumers of packaged green salad. Results indicate that in a food context, brand trust is positively associ-
ated with consumer confidence in brand quality and safety, largely via trust in the food system.
Furthermore, confidence in credence attributes is shown to lead to brand loyalty. While previous research
conceived brand trust as a multidimensional construct, the analysis suggests that trust in food brands
could be better explained by a one-factor model.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction lack of understanding of how theories of institutional trust can

The globalization of the agri-food industry has led to an increas-
ingly complex marketplace, raising competitive pressures for food
manufacturers and retailers who are constantly seeking new prod-
uct differentiation strategies. Branding of food products is moving
beyond processed, packaged foods to include branding of generic
‘raw’ agricultural commodities (e.g., salad, vegetables, meat). At
the same time, retailer-owned private labels have grown in impor-
tance. In addition to competing with national brands for shelf
space, private label brands have shifted from generic staples to
premium products (AAFC, 2010). The extension and deepening of
branding in food markets provides an additional quality signal
for consumers. Understanding how consumers perceive food
brands and how consumer trust in brands influences overall con-
sumer confidence contributes to our understanding of the drivers
and outcomes of trust in food.
Institutional trust has received considerable discussion in
several branches of the social science literature where scholars
have recognized trust as a key relational principle in buyer–seller
relationships (e.g., Ebert, 2006; Schoorman et al., 2007). Yet,
‘‘brand trust’’ has escaped similar extensive attention in consumer
studies, especially those positioned in a consumer-brand setting
(Delgado-Ballester, 2004). The neglect may be attributed to the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jill.hobbs@usask.ca (J.E. Hobbs).
be applied to objects such as brands (Delgado-Ballester, 2004).
For instance, there is a host of studies in food economics examining
trust in market actors with responsibility for food safety and prod-
uct quality (Frewer et al., 1996; Mazzocchi et al. 2004; Berg et al.,
2005; Dierks and Hanf, 2006; De Jonge et al., 2004, 2007, 2008a,b;
Kjærnes et al., 2007). Other studies (e.g., Innes and Hobbs, 2011)
recognize the role of quality signals such as brands in shaping con-
sumer preferences and purchasing behaviour, particularly for cre-
dence attributes where consumers rely on brand images, labels,
advertising and social networks to form opinions. Yet, little atten-
tion has been given to a detailed analysis of brand trust. Motivated
by the need to further investigate the drivers and outcomes of
brand trust, this paper explores the antecedents of brand trust,
how brand trust influences consumer confidence in credence attri-
butes and how it impacts brand loyalty.
No real consensus exists from other disciplines, including psy-
chology, sociology, economics, marketing and management, either
on a standard definition of brand trust, on its dimensionality, or
approaches to its measurement. For instance, Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001: 82) define brand trust as ‘‘the willingness of the
average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform
its stated function’’, while Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003: 11) view
brand trust as a: ‘‘Feeling of security held by the consumer in
his/her interaction with the brand, that it is based on the
perceptions that the brand is reliable and responsible for the
interests and welfare of the consumer’’.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
0306-9192/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
2 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Unlike the marketing perspective that legitimises the brand as a
partner and personifies it (e.g., Fournier, 1998), this paper draws
upon the economics of information literature in recognizing the
informational aspects of a brand. A brand is a quality cue on which
consumers may rely to form expectations about the product’s qual-
ity, including safety. Indeed, with incomplete and asymmetric
information, credibility is expected to be a key determinant of con-
sumer-based trust in a brand. To alleviate information problems,
private firms have developed their own codes of practice and
branding strategies. With investments in brand name capital, they
have a stronger incentive to maintain product quality, to avoid
damage to brand reputation and to boost consumer confidence in
their products (Alam and Yasin, 2010). Furthermore, and unlike
much of the food economics literature that has dealt with trust
in the context of a particular food safety event (e.g., De Jonge
et al., 2008a,b) or with risk perceptions towards biotechnology
(e.g., Lang and Hallman, 2005), this study examines the role of
brand trust during the course of normal consumption. Indeed, con-
sumers may be concerned about production-related features
beyond specific food safety events (Drescher et al., 2011; Innes
and Hobbs, 2011)1.
While most of the existing marketing and business literature
has focused on the direct relationship between brand trust and
brand loyalty, the novel contribution of this paper is to examine
how consumer confidence in quality attributes is expected to affect
the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. The
research premise is that consumer trust (related to values and
intentions) in brands may evolve to confidence (related to perfor-
mance) about the brands’ attributes through experiencing the
product and its benefits, which ultimately drives a consumer to
be committed to that brand. On the other hand, while others, for
example, Lau and Lee (1999) have modelled institutional trust as
an antecedent of brand trust, this paper proposes that trust in
the food system acts as a mediator between brand trust and con-
sumer confidence.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the section ‘Liter-
ature review and conceptual framework’ presents a review of liter-
ature on the postulated drivers and outcomes of consumer
confidence in food. Eight hypotheses mapping the key expected
relationships between brand trust, consumer confidence, trust in
the food supply and brand loyalty are developed. The hypotheses
yield a theoretical model of the determinants of brand trust. The
section ‘Methodology and data collection’ describes the Structural
Equation Model (SEM) used to test the hypotheses and the process
of data collection. The results of the SEM analysis are presented in
the section ‘Results and discussion’. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the implications of the analysis for policymakers
and for researchers.
Literature review and conceptual framework
The underlying conceptual framework for this analysis explores
a number of postulated relationships between brand trust and
consumer confidence, between consumer confidence and brand
loyalty, as well as the antecedents of brand trust. These relation-
ships are presented below, beginning with the hypothesized deter-
minants and outcomes of consumer confidence in brands.
1 2
The treatment of brand trust in this paper differs from the traditional notion of
‘brand equity’ as discussed in the marketing literature, where brand equity refers to
the additional value created by a brand. Marketing scholars have suggested that
brand loyalty is a driver of brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Bello and Holbrook, 1995). As
the food industry must build brand trust in order to enjoy the competitive advantages
provided by brand equity, there is a need first to understand how trust in food brands
is formed and how it affects brand loyalty. In this sense, the relationships examined in
this paper are a precursor to brand equity.
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
Confidence in food attributes refers to trust that is embedded in
food products and brands as well as to the main actors that provide
these final consumer products. As Poppe and Kjærnes (2003: 16)
point out ‘‘when we talk about trust in food the underlying under-
standing is that food is not merely a material and biological ‘‘thing’’
(. . .) above all, the food eaten is the outcome of what has been done
with it at all stages of production and distribution until it ends up
on somebody’s plate.’’ This suggests that consumer confidence in
food is affected directly by trust in the food system (regulatory
institutions and market actors) and by trust in food products and
brands. Stated differently, when a consumer is content with a
brand or trusts a particular retailer, that trust (which involves risk
of disappointment and uncertainty) may evolve into confidence
(which involves specific knowledge and faith). As such, it is
expected that an important element of public confidence in food
is a matter of trust in food actors as well as in quality signals such
as brands. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: An increase in brand trust increases consumer confidence
in the credence attributes of that brand.
H2: An increase in trust in the food system increases consumer
confidence in the credence attributes of that brand.
Trust in brands, and more generally in food products, is
expected to depend on the trust placed in the different actors
within the food system. This led Sodano (2002: 7) to argue that:
‘‘Consumers who pay a premium price for high quality products
which have quality characteristics they can check neither before
nor after the purchase, need a certain amount of ‘‘blind’’ trust in
suppliers.’’ While the relationship between trust in the system
and brand trust could be bidirectional (e.g., in a longitudinal study
that examines changes in these relationships in response to exter-
nal shocks), this paper examines the causal relationship from
brand trust to trust in the food system2. As such, it is postulated
that:
H3: An increase in brand trust increases trust in the food
system.
Researchers have argued that by investing in branding strate-
gies firms seek to build and sustain brand loyalty as a way to gain
consumers’ trust (Sodano, 2002). Thus, brand loyalty is modelled as
an indirect outcome of brand trust and a direct outcome of con-
sumer confidence in credence attributes. Indeed, trust is expected
to predict future intentions and guide consumers’ decision-mak-
ing. This process may evolve to confident expectations resulting
from positive experiences and ongoing satisfaction and lead to cus-
tomer loyalty. For instance, in their analysis of over 100 brands,
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) found a strong positive relation-
ship between brand trust and brand loyalty. Morgan and Hunt
(1994) posited that brand trust leads to brand commitment
because trust creates highly valued exchange relationships. In this
study, brand loyalty is defined as consumer commitment to repur-
chase a preferred brand consistently in the future. While trust is
more about perceptions, loyalty is conceptualized as the behaviour
engaged in over sequential transactions (Fournier, 1998). It is
expected that this commitment is generated by a certain level of
confidence in food brands. Stated differently, it is expected that:
The necessary and sufficient conditions to identify models with reciprocal effects
are complex (Kline, 2005). In practice acyclic models are always identified (Rigdon,
1995). The analysis focuses on the relationship between brand trust and food system
trust both to avoid technical issues with cyclic models and to retain food system trust
as a mediator to determine whether the latter mediates the link between brand trust
and consumer confidence. Indeed, non-recursive models add an additional level of
potential problems, including identification issues and excessive multicollinearity
among the instruments and the exogenous variables (Schaubroeck, 1990).
 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
System trust
Perceived
credibility H3+
H5+
Perceived
competence H6+
Brand trust
Perceived H7+
benevolence
H8+
Perceived
reputation
Fig. 1. Determinants and consequences of brand trust in credence attributes.
H4: An increase in confidence increases brand loyalty.
As can be seen from Fig. 1, hypotheses 1 through 4 describe the
postulated relationships between brand trust, consumer confi-
dence in brand attributes, and brand loyalty, along with the
expected mediating role of food system trust. But what factors
determine brand trust? Different disciplines have viewed the con-
cept of trust along diverse dimensions. Scholars have recognized
trust as a complex concept, suggesting that it cannot be predicted
by a single item (Butler, 1991; Frewer et al., 1996). Thus, there
have been wide-ranging discussions regarding what determines
trust. Yet, trust dimensions are likely to be contingent on the con-
text (firm-to-firm, firm-to-consumer, consumer-to-product) and
the target industry.
Consistent with the research on trust in the social sciences, this
paper initially conceives brand trust as a multidimensional con-
struct. Branded food products reflect a set of tangible and intangi-
ble aspects believed to have specific qualities that drive consumer
confidence in that brand. As such, consumers’ trust in a brand is
expected to be a combination of a set of specific attitudes about
the brand including its perceived performance, competence, and
benevolent intentions (Li et al., 2008). To model the relationship
between food brand trust and its indicators, a scale of brand trust
that encompasses as many relevant measures as possible is
required. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of brand trust
adopted in various studies, virtually all about non-food brands,
and which inform the development of a measurement scale of food
brand trust in this paper.
A review of these primarily non-food studies shows brand trust
has been operationalized mainly as a two or three dimensional
concept. This paper proposes a more comprehensive definition of
brand trust in food and synthesizes four potential dimensions:
competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation.
Perceived brand competence
Previous researchers have shown that brands must be compat-
ible with customers’ expectations and needs in terms of quality
and safety (Afzal et al., 2010). Aaker (1991) suggests that strong
brands are associated with higher perceived quality, ceteris paribus.
Thus, a competent brand is expected to provide a consumer with
consistent quality. A number of studies found that perceptions of
brand competence were developed through either direct usage or
word-of-mouth and posit that competence is an essential compo-
nent of brand trust (Lau and Lee, 1999; Afzal et al., 2010). When
a consumer perceives that a food brand matches his/her needs
with respect to safety and quality, it is postulated that he/she is
more likely to trust that brand. The following hypothesis is
derived:
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
3
H1+
Consumer confidence H4+
H2+ Brand Loyalty
in brand attributes
H5: An increase in perceived brand competence increases brand
trust.
Perceived brand credibility
Brand credibility is defined as the ‘‘believability of the product
information contained in the brand, which requires that consumers
perceive that the brand has the ability and willingness to continu-
ously deliver what is promised’’ (Erdem et al., 2006: 35). Credible
information about brand attributes is expected to increase the per-
ceived quality and value of the brand. Previous studies from food
and non-food contexts (e.g., Ha, 2004 (e-bookstores e.g. Amazon);
Erdem et al., 2006 (computers and orange juice)) found that cred-
ibility enhances brand trust. For instance, Gurviez and Korchia
(2002) found that the influence of credibility on brand trust is five
times greater than the impact of benevolence or integrity when
testing a model of a consumer-brand relationship with respect to
cosmetics brands and Coca-Cola. Furthermore, Erdem and Swait
(1998) found that, under uncertainty, credible brands as consistent
symbols of product quality have an impact on consumer trust by
lowering risk perceptions and information costs. Thus, it is antici-
pated that firms use brand trust as a risk-reduction strategy. To
summarize, it is postulated that:
H6: An increase in perceived brand credibility increases brand
trust.
Perceived brand benevolence
Brand benevolence reflects a firm’s intentions towards the con-
sumer. This analysis considers brand benevolence as the perceived
health/social/environmental benefits that could be gained from
buying/consuming the product. As such, a consumer believes that
the brand is benevolent when there is no major harm (e.g., health
risk) to purchase or consume it. Beliefs regarding brand benevo-
lence reflect confidence that the firm has a positive orientation
towards its consumers beyond any self-interest. For instance,
Delgado-Ballester (2004) argues that brand intentions weigh more
heavily than brand reliability because the latter is based on expe-
rience which is not necessarily an accurate barometer. As such, it
is hypothesized that,
H7: An increase in perceived brand benevolence increases
brand trust.
Perceived brand reputation
Brand reputation encompasses the consumer’s belief that the
brand will be consistent in delivering high quality, which may be
4 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Literature review on the antecedents of brand trust.
Studies
Consumer’s Trust in the Brand: Can it Be Built through Brand Reputation, Brand Competence and
Brand Predictability Afzal et al. (2010)a
Brand trust as a second order factor: an alternative measurement model Li et al. (2008)b
Development and validation of a brand trust scale Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003)c
Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories: A multigroup invariance analysis
Delgado-Ballester (2004)d
Proposal for a Multidimensional Brand Trust Scale Gurviez and Korchia (2002)e
Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty Lau and Lee (1999)f
a
Non-durable brand items (favourite consumer brand).
b
Various product categories – detergent, beer, digital camera, laptop computer, car and wireless phone service.
c
Deodorant.
d
Deodorant and beer.
e
Cosmetics, Coca-Cola.
f
Non-durable goods (favourite brand).
reflected in a willingness to pay a price premium. Brands are dis-
tinct from other marketing mix elements that signal quality (e.g.,
price, warranty) in the sense that brands reflect the cumulative
effect of the previous activities of a firm. This notion of the sum
of past behaviours is referred to as reputation in the economics of
information literature (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). If the actions
of a firm are consistent and its promotional communication is hon-
est, a brand should create a good image which in turn engenders
consumer trust. In addition to personal experience, brand trust is
influenced by the experiences and opinions of other consumers
(Afzal et al., 2010). On the other hand, if a brand has a poor repu-
tation, consumers may not trust it sufficiently to purchase it.
Branding and reputation are seen as more effective in mitigating
quality signalling problems compared with other strategies, espe-
cially for credence attributes (Sporleder and Goldsmith, 2001).
Consequently, the following hypothesis is derived:
H8: An increase in perceived brand reputation increases brand
trust.
To summarize, brands help consumers form quality expecta-
tions since they allow consumers to draw on their previous expe-
rience with the product. A satisfactory quality experience after one
purchase can pave the way to future repurchase (Grunert, 2002).
The hypothesized causal theoretical relationships that feed into
consumer confidence in credence qualities of a food brand are dis-
played in Fig. 1. In the trust-based conceptual model, it is postu-
lated that consumer confidence in credence attributes is directly
affected by trust in the food system and brand trust, and leads to
brand loyalty. Trust in the food system is hypothesized to mediate
the relationship between brand trust and consumer confidence. In
turn, it is postulated that brand trust is affected by the perceived
competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation of the brand.
Methodology and data collection
A two-phase procedure to developing a Structural Equation
Model (SEM) as proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) is used
to test the hypotheses in Fig. 1. A SEM is an estimation technique
for a series of separate multiple regression equations estimated
simultaneously. A SEM comprises two components: a measure-
ment part that describes the relationship between latent variables
and their observed indicators, and a structural part that specifies
the causal dependencies between the constructs, represented by
H1 to H8, and developed in the section ‘Results and discussion’.
One advantage of the separate estimation of the measurement
model and the structural model over a simultaneous estimation
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
Brand trust indicators
Brand reputation, brand competence, brand predictability
Competence, benevolence
Fiability, intentionality
Brand reliability, brand intentions
Credibility, Integrity, Benevolence
Brand predictability, brand liking, brand competence, brand
reputation, trust in the company
(i.e. one-step approach) is related to model fit (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988). When the model fit is poor, one cannot detect
whether the issue is in the measurement or in the structural part
under the one-step procedure. This makes it difficult to determine
whether the structural model depicting the underlying theoretical
propositions is incorrect, or whether the poor model fit is due to
unreliable measurements. This does not occur with the two-phase
procedure: if the measurement model exhibits poor fit, the prob-
lem is obviously in step 1. Hence, it would be meaningless to ana-
lyze the structural part of the model before revising the
measurement component and addressing any unsatisfactory mea-
surement constructs.
Data for the SEM were gathered through an online survey of
Canadian consumers conducted in July 2012. The survey was
administered nationally to a survey panel managed by a market
research company, with respondents given the option to respond
in either English or French. The survey was designed to elicit items
for the constructs in the model and focused on branded packaged
green salad, with a screener question to ensure that respondents
purchased packaged salad products. The recent well-publicized
food safety incidents regarding bagged salad products in North
America (e.g., the widespread recall of bagged spinach in 2008, a
2012 recall of bagged salad by Dole), the trend towards branded
salad products reflected in increased sales of refrigerated bagged
salads in Canada (ACNielsen, 2006), and the availability of a wide
range of brands at the national level were the motivations for
choosing packaged salad.
A total of 310 questionnaires were used to test the model3. The
sample was closely representative of the Canadian population in
terms of mean income ($62,905), median age (44 years), education
and regional distribution4, but had a relatively higher proportion
of female respondents (65%), which is to be expected given the tra-
ditional dominance of female food shoppers.
Measures
The survey explored respondents’ general attitudes towards
and trust in the food system, and purchasing habits for bagged
salad products, including identifying the brand most frequently
purchased by a respondent. Respondents were asked to consider
3
1251 individuals were invited to participate in the survey, with 529 surveys
completed, a 42% response rate. After excluding neutral choices (Prefer not to say)
(N = 64) and respondents who only purchased generic salad (N = 155), 310 surveys
completed by consumers of branded salad products were used for this analysis.
4
Thirty-seven percent of respondents had high school education or less, 53% had
some college or university, while 10% had a graduate degree. Sixty-two percent of
respondents were from Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec), 4.3% from Atlantic
Canada, 31.7% from western Canada and 2% from the Northwest Territories.
 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
their primary bagged salad brand when responding to the brand
perception questions5. Generally accepted measures from market-
ing and psychology were used to examine the hypothesized relation-
ships in Fig. 1, with adjustments to the wording to capture the
context of food attributes. In the survey, respondents were asked
to rate their level of agreement with particular items using a 5-point
Likert scale anchored with strongly disagree and strongly agree. A
neutral choice was included to avoid biased results from forced
choices.6
With respect to the latent endogenous variables, brand trust
was measured using a two-item scale previously used by
Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2001) tapping respon-
dents’ perceptions of the quality and safety of the product. Trust
in the food system in general was also examined with two mea-
sures: perceptions of the trustworthiness and the reliability of
the food system (e.g., Lau and Lee, 1999). Confidence in food attri-
butes was gauged with a three-item Likert scale measuring a con-
sumer’s certainty, optimism and familiarity with the product’s
quality and safety (De Jonge et al., 2008a). Adapted from Quester
and Lim (2003), brand loyalty was examined as a three-item scale
related to commitment to a brand.
The latent exogenous variables encompass the perceived credi-
bility, competence, benevolence, and reputation of the brand. The
survey questions used to capture these variables are summarized
in Table 2. Adapted from Lau and Lee (1999), three items reflecting
brand superiority with respect to quality were used to measure
brand competence on a five-point scale. Brand credibility was
gauged by three measures addressing the transparency and accu-
racy of the product information. In line with Gurviez and Korchia
(2002), two items including consumer wellbeing and corporate
social responsibility were used to measure brand benevolence.
Finally, brand reputation was gauged by three indicators: consis-
tent overall quality of the brand, positive word-of-mouth and
brand image (e.g., Lau and Lee, 1999).
Measurement model
Due to the nonnormality of the data7 and to the relatively small
sample – which can inflate overall goodness of fit test statistics
(Kaplan, 2000) – the eight-factor measurement model was estimated
using a bootstrapping procedure (500 bootstrap samples performed)
in Amos 20, a SEM program. In addition to the normalised Chi-
square (CMIN/DF), model fit was assessed via the comparative fit
index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). Values P0.90 have been recommended for CFI, and values
60.08 have been recommended for RMSEA (Browne and Cudeck,
1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Four items were removed from the original measurement
model as their corresponding standardized loadings were below
the minimum recommended cut-off point of .30 (Nunnally, 1978;
Byrd and Turner, 2000). The purified scales were retested for reli-
ability and validity with the results shown in Table 2. The esti-
mated measurement model shows a satisfactory fit (CMIN/
DF = 1.8308, CFI = .979, RMSEA = .052). All scores exhibit the ideally
recommended level of .70 (Lewis and Byrd, 2003; Hair et al.,
2006), except for an item under brand loyalty (i.e. When the salad
5
About 75% of the respondents bought national brands while 25% purchased
retailer private label (store) brands. Dole, Fresh Express and Earthbound Farm Organic
were among the most purchased manufacturer brands with 33%, 15% and 10% of
respondents purchasing these brands, respectively. President’s Choice (Real Canadian
Superstore/Loblaw’s) and Compliments (Sobeys/IGA) were the most purchased retailer
private label brands.
6 9
A copy of the survey instrument is available from the authors upon request.
7
The Mardia’s normalized estimate of multivariate kurtosis is equal to 37.843
which is greater than 5.00, thereby indicating nonnormal data (Bentler, 2005).
8
The measurement model has a Chi-square = 166.5527 and d.f. = 91.
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
5
brand I usually buy is not available in my usual shopping store, I
go and look for it in another store) which is marginally reliable
and statistically significant (b = .28, p = .002).
In terms of construct reliability, all constructs exhibit good
composite reliability exceeding the threshold of .70 (Nunnally,
1978). Except for brand loyalty, the extracted variances are above
50%, thereby demonstrating that the variance accounted for by
the scale is larger than the variance due to measurement error
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Hence, the constructs and their mea-
sures exhibit a high degree of validity. Having established that
the measurement model is a good fit, we now turn to the results
of the structural analysis.
Results and discussion
The postulated model is specified by the structural relationships
discussed in the text as H1–H8. The bootstrap Maximum Likeli-
hood (ML) estimation of the model yielded a good overall fit to
the data (CMIN/DF = 1.830, CFI = .971, RMSEA = .056), thereby con-
firming that the proposed theoretical network of relationships fits
the data. The hypotheses and path estimate results are summa-
rized in Table 3.
While there is support for H2 that an increase is trust in the
food system leads to increased consumer confidence (b = .57,
p < .001) and H3 that an increase in brand trust leads to an increase
in trust in the food system (b = .74, p < .001), the postulated rela-
tionship between brand trust and consumer confidence in cre-
dence attributes (H1) (b = .06, p = .493) is not supported by the
data. Thus, in the absence of the mediating effect of trust in the
food system, brand trust is a significant predictor of consumer con-
fidence (b = .49, p < .05) while when allowing for the meditating
effect of food system trust, the effect of brand trust is no longer sig-
nificant. Hence, it is deduced that the relationship between brand
trust and confidence is ‘‘fully mediated’’ by system-based trust.9
In other words, the postulated model identifies trust in the food
chain as the primary precursor of consumer confidence because it
plays a full mediating role between brand trust and confidence.
These results show that food system trust can lead indirectly to
brand loyalty through confidence in brand attributes.
Turning to the consequences of consumer confidence, the latter
was found to lead to brand loyalty, giving support to H4 (b = .36,
p < .0.05). This means that a one standard deviation increase in
confidence is associated with a .36 standard deviation increase in
brand loyalty. Therefore, the postulated relationship between con-
fidence and brand loyalty is confirmed.
The other question of interest is to determine the relevance of
different trust dimensions in the development of brand trust with
respect to food safety and quality. The analysis indicates that none
of the postulated determinants of brand trust (H5-H8) [compe-
tence (b = .03, p = .946), credibility (b = .08, p = .784), benevolence
(b = .07, p = 899) and reputation (b = .98, p = .068)] are significant
drivers of brand trust at the .05 level. These results are at odds with
previous studies on brand trust, largely in non-food contexts, and
provide the basis for an adaptation of the postulated model, as dis-
cussed below.
It was expected that each of brand competence, credibility,
benevolence and reputation would contribute to overall consumer
trust in brands. Yet, individually none of these dimensions was a
significant predictor for brand trust in the case of bagged salad. A
look at the correlations between the antecedents of brand trust
reveals that they are very high – exceeding .90 – which may signal
In SEM, mediation can be partial or full. If X (brand trust) is no longer significant
when M (system trust) is controlled, the finding supports full mediation. If X is still
significant (i.e., both X and M significantly predict Y: confidence), the finding supports
partial mediation.
6 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Measurement and reliability of Constructs.

Item description Standardized P- Squared Composite Average

loading value multiple reliability variance
correlation extracted
Consumer confidence .783 .645
1. How certain are you about the quality and safety of the packaged salad you buy? .77 <.001 .59
2. How optimistic are you with the overall quality of the packaged salad you will buy in the future? .84 <.001 .70
3. How knowledgeable do you consider yourself about the overall quality of the salad you buy? Droppeda
System trust .950 .904
1. In general, I can rely on the food system to provide high quality packaged salad .95 <.001 .90
2. In general, I think that the food system can be trusted to assure that packaged salad is of high .95 <.001 .91
quality
Brand trust .883 .791
1. I think that the salad brand I buy can be trusted for its high quality .88 <.001 .77
2. I think that the salad brand I buy has reliable quality .90 <.001 .81
Brand competence .744 .592
1. I believe that the salad brand I buy is of high quality .76 <.001
2. I believe that the salad brand I buy is safe to eat .78 <.001
3. I believe that the salad brand I buy is better than generic versions Droppeda
Brand credibility .709 .550
1. I believe that the salad brand I buy has transparent quality information .69 <.001 .57
2. I believe that the label of the salad brand I buy has accurate safety information .79 <.001 .61
3. I think the reason salad brands are usually more expensive than generic versions is their higher Droppeda
quality
Brand benevolence .754 .605
1. I think that the salad brand I buy enhances my well-being in terms of nutrition and health .79 .62
2. I think that the salad brand I buy is produced in a socially and environmentally responsible .77 .59
manner
Brand reputation .791 .560
1. I think that the salad brand I buy has consistent overall quality .80 <.001 .64
2. I hear positive comments about the salad brand I buy from my family and my friends .68 <.001 .46
3. In general, I have a positive view of food brands .76 <.001 .76
Brand loyalty .495 .377
1. As long as I am satisfied, I will usually stick with purchasing the same salad brand .82 <.001 .67
2. When the salad brand I usually buy is not available in my usual shopping store, I go and look for it .28 .002 .08
in another store
When another brand is on sale, I generally buy it instead of my usual brand. [reverse coded] Droppeda
a
Dropped because bootstrap Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimate <.30.

definitional overlap of the concepts. In other words, the four ante-
cedents of brand trust appear to be quite similar. The notion of
highly correlated aspects of a brand has been recognized in some
studies on brand trust, for example by Li et al. (2008) who found
both dimensions of overall trust (competence and benevolence)
to be highly correlated and yet significant.
A post hoc test of discriminant validity confirmed that the ante-
cedents of brand trust are not distinct constructs. To overcome this
issue, all dimensions were merged into a single factor named over-
all brand performance into which all items from Table 2 measuring
competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation are loaded
(see Fig. 2 below). Brand performance is used here as an
‘‘umbrella’’ term that refers to how consumers evaluate a brand
in terms of perceived quality and safety10. It allows for the interac-
tive effect of consumer perceptions of brand reputation, competence,
credibility and benevolence in shaping attitudes towards a brand.
The new variable shows that brand performance has a positive and
significant influence on brand trust (b = .99, p < .001).
The chi-square difference between the original model (i.e. the
four-dimensional brand trust model: v2o ¼ 76:743, d.f. = 34) and
the reduced model (i.e. the uni-dimensional brand trust model,
v2r ¼ 90:497, d.f. = 43) was not significant (v2diff ¼ 13:754,
p = .13>.05), indicating that the reduced model (more parsimoni-
ous) explains the data just as well as does the original model and
is preferred (e.g., Bryant and Satorra, 2012).
10
As discussed earlier, this differs from the notion of brand equity which reflects the
value added by a brand and is usually considered to be an outcome of brand loyalty.
The new reduced model of brand trust can be interpreted as fol-
lows: consumers tend to trust brands of packaged salad when
these brands are perceived as high quality, are backed by credible
information, have a good reputation and, at the same time,
enhance consumers’ welfare. These are inter-related aspects of
brand performance. In fact, a brand cannot be perceived as high
quality and safe to eat (brand competence) without containing
transparent information signalling its quality and safety (brand
credibility).
If a consumer has a negative experience with a branded salad
product, such as the product failing to meet a consumer’s expecta-
tions of product freshness, he/she can easily switch to another
brand or product (e.g., generic lettuce) in a subsequent purchase
decision. Indeed, 4% of the participants mentioned that they
switched away from a particular brand due to quality problems.
Among the reasons provided for switching away from the product
were: a high level of moisture in the bag which leads to brown or
rotten leaves, plastic and chemical after-taste. The change in pur-
chase patterns results from consumer mistrust in food products.
As brand trust affects trust in the food actors, the firm’s reputation
may be at risk since misrepresentation or purposefully reneging on
a promise (here freshness) can be seen as morally wrong. Thus,
violations of particular dimensions of trust such as benevolence
(e.g. intentional deception through opportunism) are likely to be
more damaging than errors due to lack of skills or knowledge
(Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003). As such, it is expected that behav-
iours that are incongruent with consumer expectations are likely
to destroy trust. In this context, Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000)

Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

Table 3
Structural Model.

Paths Hypotheses Standardized parameter estimates

Number Sign Path estimate P-value
Brand trust ? Consumer confidence H1 + .06 .493
***
System trust ? Consumer confidence H2 + .57
***
Brand trust ? System trust H3 + .74
Consumer confidence ? brand loyalty H4 + .36 .001**
Brand competence ? Brand trust H5 + .03 .946
Brand credibility ? Brand trust H6 + .08 .784
Brand benevolence ? Brand trust H7 + .07 .899
Brand reputation ? Brand trust H8 + .98 .068
***
Significant at 1%.
**
Significant at 5%.

Fig. 2. Reduced model.

argue that competence without benevolence can have detrimental
consequences on overall consumer trust.
In sum, it is deduced that trust in food brands cannot be sepa-
rated into individual dimensions of trust, but could be measured
by a single thorough dimension. In this sense, trust in the context
of food products appears to be distinct from trust in non-food con-
texts. This difference can be attributed to the nature of food brands
and food in general. Food products are perishable, such that quality
and availability may vary as a function of harvest conditions (sea-
sonality). Furthermore, food products are bought on a frequent
basis, while consumption of products that been poorly handled
or inappropriately stored might also present a health risk.
Implications and suggestions for future research
This paper seeks to extend previous research on consumer trust
in the context of food by examining the brand trust–consumer con-
fidence–brand loyalty link, wherein trust in the food system medi-
ates that link. In this regard, the paper sets out to develop a
framework drawing upon insights from the trust literature that
simultaneously integrates system-based trust and brand-based
trust as precursors for consumer confidence in credence attributes.
Empirically, the results offer new insights in three ways. First, the
analysis shows that brand loyalty for packaged salad is best
explained when consumers are confident about the quality and the
safety of brands. Unlike extant marketing research that investigates
the brand trust-brand loyalty link primarily in non-food contexts,
this paper suggests that trust may evolve into confidence and thus
drive a consumer to be committed to a particular food brand.
Second, the analysis reveals that trust in the food system fully
mediates the relationship between brand trust and consumer con-
fidence in brand attributes. Consequently, in this model, while
brand trust is important, it becomes peripheral to overall con-
sumer confidence in food in the presence of strong or weak trust
in the food system as a whole. Not only do the results suggest that
brand trust could be different in a food context, but they also indi-
cate that Canadians tend to be influenced more by their trust in the
food system than trust in specific food brands, at least in the con-
text of the products examined in this study.
Third, unlike previous research on brand trust that uses a num-
ber of factors to measure brand trust predominantly in non-food
contexts, this study finds that brand trust in food products could
be measured differently to take account of the interactive effects
of perceived competence, credibility, reputation and benevolence
on consumer trust. Thus, the umbrella notion of brand perfor-
mance proved to be a more robust concept in the context of this
study.
While the measures used in this paper are drawn from the
existing literature a number of items were dropped from the origi-
nal SEM due to their low scores, reflecting a weak relationship

Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
8 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
between the observed variable and the factor. This suggests they
are likely to be measuring a different construct from the other
items in the scale. Conducting early focus groups to confirm
the set of measures would have provided a stronger basis for the
postulated SEM. Furthermore, the high correlations between the
antecedents (competence, credibility, benevolence and reputation)
of brand trust suggest that the observed variables were measuring
more than one factor.
It is clear that trust is a complex phenomenon and although a
number of well-established measures of trust exist in the litera-
ture, future research might assess the validity of the measures with
respect to other food attributes. The model presented in this paper
provides a basis from which empirical analyses of the postulated
determinants and consequences of consumer confidence in cre-
dence attributes can be applied to other food categories, such as
meat products, to determine whether trust not only differs across
a food/non-food context but also whether differences exist across
product categories or across brands within the same product
category.
Public trust/mistrust in food safety and quality is relevant in a
food policy context as policymakers seek to determine the appro-
priate balance of public intervention in the delivery of food safety
and food quality assurances. Policy interventions often seek to
address consumers’ trust in the food system as a whole, given
the externality effects of a loss in trust for the collective reputation
of the food sector. Government agencies empowered to monitor
and enforce food safety legislation and food labelling regulations
form part of the ‘food system’, and trust in these agencies is a com-
ponent of overall consumer confidence. Brand trust lies beyond the
purview of state-level food policy but nevertheless is a contribu-
tory factor to consumer confidence in credence attributes. As such,
the shared responsibility between public and private actors for
food safety and food quality attests to the fact that trust in food
is a complex phenomenon.
Two major policy implications emerge from the current find-
ings. First, the results suggest that while brands are useful signal-
ling mechanisms, trusting them is not sufficient to enhance
consumer confidence in credence attributes. In fact, through
repeated purchases, consumers acquire knowledge that facilitates
independent evaluations of the product. This likely reduces reli-
ance on quality signals and enhances the role of trust expectations.
Second, and as a result, one can argue that consumers implicitly
place more weight on trusting the actors involved in the food sys-
tem than trusting individual food products and brands. The full
mediating role, and so the much stronger effect of system trust,
implies that investing in trust relationships with consumers is a
key element in gaining/maintaining public trust and, ultimately,
consumer confidence. One way to do so is by demonstrating to
the public the commitment of the whole food system to prevent
problems and meet public expectations for food quality and food
safety. Indeed, in the free-form comments provided by survey
respondents, many participants expressed uncertainty regarding
what happens to food products from farm to fork. This suggests
there may be a role for both the public and private sectors in
improving communication about the food system and the actors
which comprise that food system.
The current paper contributes to the understanding of how food
brands are perceived and how they contribute to overall public
confidence in credence attributes. Nevertheless, certain limitations
are of note and provide scope for extensions to the research pre-
sented in this paper. First, this paper uses cross-sectional data
about Canadians’ trusting perceptions. While this is believed an
adequate approach for this study that explores the relationship
between system-oriented trust, brand trust and consumer confi-
dence, trust is a dynamic process. More insight into the causality
of the relationships might be obtained through longitudinal field
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
studies that examine changes in brand trust and public confidence
in food over time. This could include, for example, examining how
external shocks (e.g., social and political events) alter the strength
and direction of relationships between brand performance and
brand trust, or between brand trust and food system trust; or
exploring how the relationships in the model may change if tested
under specific situations of increased risk (e.g. during a major food
safety incident).
Second, this paper looks at a broad spectrum of salad brands
and does not distinguish between public perceptions of manufac-
turers’ brands versus retailers’ private label brands. An avenue
for future research might be to examine differences in consumer
perceptions of manufacturer food brands versus retailer brands.
Finally, differences in personal characteristics could affect the
strength of relationships in the model. For example, the relation-
ships between consumer confidence and brand loyalty for salad
could be affected by risk aversion or past consumption experience.
Furthermore, demographic variables (e.g., income, education) may
also account for those who buy branded versus generic food prod-
ucts. Research that includes these variables is ongoing and may
help extend our understanding of public trust and consumer pur-
chasing decisions.
References
AAFC 2010. Global Private Label Trends. Market Analysis Report AAFC No. 11184E,
International Markets Bureau, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, 15p.
<http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/market-prices-and-statistics/food-and-
value-added-agriculture-statistics/pubs/global_private_label_trends_en.pdf>
(Accessed April 7 2014).
Aaker, D., 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name.
Free Press, NY.
ACNielsen Executive News Reports. 2006. What’s Hot Around the Globe: Insights on
Growth in Food and Beverages. <http://pt.nielsen.com/trends/
tr_0701_WhatsHotinFoodandBeverageProducts.pdf>.
Afzal, H., Khan, M.A., Rehman, K., Ali, I., Wajahat, S., 2010. Consumer’s trust in the
brand: can it be built through brand reputation, brand competence and brand
predictability. Int. Bus. Res. 3 (1), 44–51.
Alam, S.S., Yasin, N.M., 2010. Antecedents of online brand trust: malaysian evidence.
J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 11 (2), 210–226.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423.
Bello, D.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1995. Does an absence of brand equity generalize across
product classes. J. Bus. Res. 34 (2), 125–131.
Bentler, P.M., 2005. EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate
Software Inc, Encino, CA.
Berg, L., Kjaernes, U., Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L., Halkier, B., 2005. Trust
in food safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway. Eur. Soc. 7 (1), 103–129.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen,
K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newsbury Park,
CA, pp. 136–162.
Bryant, F.B., Satorra, A., 2012. Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square
testing. Struct. Eq. Model.: Multidiscip. J. 19 (3), 372–398.
Butler, J.K., 1991. Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
evolution of conditions of trust inventory. J. Manag. 17 (3), 643–663.
Byrd, T.A., Turner, D.E., 2000. Measuring the flexibility of information technology
infrastructure: exploratory analysis of a construct. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 17 (1),
167–208.
Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 (2), 81–93.
De Jonge, J., Frewer, L.J., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J., De Wit, W., Timmers, J., 2004.
Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: an exploratory study. British
Food J. 106 (10/11), 837–849.
De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J., Frewer, L.J., 2007. Understanding consumer
confidence in the safety of food: Its two-dimensional structure and
determinants. Risk Anal. 27 (3), 729–740.
De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Goddard, E., Frewer, L.J., 2008a. Consumer confidence in
the safety of food in Canada and the Netherlands: the validation of a generic
framework. Food Qual. Prefer. 19 (5), 439–451.
De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Van der Lans, I.A., Renes, R.J., Frewer, L.J., 2008b. How trust
in institutions and organizations builds general consumer confidence in the
Safety of food: a decomposition of effects. Appetite 51 (2), 311–317.
Delgado-Ballester, E., 2004. Applicability of a brand trust scale across product
categories: a multigroup invariance analysis. Eur. J. Mark. 38 (5/6), 573–592.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., 2001. Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 35 (11/12), 1238–1258.
 R. Lassoued, J.E. Hobbs / Food Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., Yague-Guillen, M.J., 2003.
Development and validation of a brand trust scale. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45 (1),
35–53.
Dierks, L.H., Hanf, C.H. 2006. Trust as a Determinant of Consumer Behaviour in Food
Safety Crises. Paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of
Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12–18 August.
Retrieved June 2011 from <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/25452>.
Drescher, L.S., De Jonge, J., Goddard, E., Herzfeld, T., 2011. Consumer’s stated trust in
the food industry and meat purchases. Agric. Hum. Values 29 (4), 507–517.
Ebert, T. 2006. Operationalisation and antecedents of trust in business networks
dealing with complex products and food products. Paper provided by European
Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 99th Seminar, February
8–10, 2006, Bonn, Germany No7742. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/
7742>.
Erdem, T., Swait, J., 1998. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. J. Consum.
Psychol. 7 (2), 131–157.
Erdem, T., Swait, J., Valenzuela, A., 2006. Brands as signals: a cross-country
validation study. J. Mark. 70 (1), 34–49.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343–373.
Frewer, L., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R., 1996. What determines trust in
information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk
Anal. 16 (4), 473–486.
Grunert, K.G., 2002. Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 13 (8), 275–285.
Gurviez, P., Korchia, M., 2002. Proposition d’une échelle de mesure
multidimensionnelle de la confiance dans la marque [Proposal for a
Multidimensional Brand Trust Scale]. Recherche et Appl. en Mark. 17 (3), 41–61.
Ha, H.Y., 2004. Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. J.
Prod. Brand Manag. 13 (5), 329–342.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis, sixth ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Herbig, P., Milewicz, J., 1995. The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand
success. J. Consum. Mark. 14 (4), 5–10.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),
1–55.
Innes, B.G., Hobbs, J.E., 2011. Does it matter who verifies production derived
quality? Can. J. Agric. Econ. 59 (1), 87–107.
Kaplan, D., 2000. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Please cite this article in press as: Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003
9
Kjaernes, U., Harvey, M., Warde, A., 2007. Trust in Food: A Comparative and
Institutional Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kline, R.B., 2005. Principle and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, second ed.
Guildford, New York.
Lang, J.T., Hallman, W.K., 2005. Who does the public trust? The case of genetically
modified food in the United States. Risk Anal. 25 (5), 1241–1252.
Lau, G.T., Lee, S.H., 1999. Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. J.
Mark. Focused Manag. 4 (4), 341–370.
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C. 2003. Trust and Trust Building.’’ Beyond Intractability.
Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium,
University of Colorado, Boulder. <http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-
essay/trust-building>.
Lewis, B.R., Byrd, T.A., 2003. Development of a measure for information technology
infrastructure. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 12 (2), 93–109.
Li, F., Zou, N., Kashyap, R., Yang, Z., 2008. Brand trust as a second order factor: an
alternative measurement model. Int. J. Mark. Res. 50 (6), 817–830.
Mazzocchi, M., Lobb, A.E., Traill, B.W. 2004. A strategy for measuring trust in food
safety information: A literature review. University of Florence Working Paper
Series on Trust No. 18. Florence University Press, Florence.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment–trust theory of relationship
marketing. J. Mark. 58 (3), 20–37.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Poppe, C., Kjaernes, U., 2003. Trust in Food in Europe. A Comparative Analysis.
Professional Report No5. National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo.
<www.trustinfood.org/SEARCH/BASIS/tif0/all/publics/DDD/24.pdf> [10/2/2011].
Quester, P., Lim, A.L., 2003. Product involvement/brand loyalty: is there a link? J.
Prod. Brand Manag. 12 (1), 22–38.
Rigdon, E.E., 1995. A necessary and sufficient identification rule for structural
models estimated in practice. Multivar. Behav. Res. 30 (3), 359–383.
Schaubroeck, J., 1990. Investigating reciprocal causation in organizational behavior
research. J. Org. Behav. 11, 17–28.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., 2007. An integrative model of
organizational trust: past, present and future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2), 344–354.
Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D., 2000. Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer
satisfaction and loyalty judgments. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (1), 150–167.
Sodano, V. 2002. Trust, economic performance and the food system: can trust lead
up to unwanted results? Paradoxes in food chains and networks. In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Chain and Network
Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry, Netherlands, 6–8 June
2002, pp. 104–118.
Sporleder, T.L., Goldsmith, P.D., 2001. Alternative firm strategies for signalling
quality in the food system. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 49 (4), 591–604.