Personality and Trust Fosters Service Quality
Sheila Simsarian Webber • Stephanie C. Payne •
Aaron B. Taylor
Published online: 15 June 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the
extent to which cognitive and affective trust mediate the
service provider personality–service quality relationship,
controlling for customer personality.
Design/Methodology/Approach Hypotheses were tested
using a matched sample of 249 customer-service provider
dyads.
Results Service provider service orientation incrementally
predicted customer cognitive trust in the service provider
above and beyond customer agreeableness, which related
significantly to affective and cognitive trust. Analyses fur-
ther revealed that cognitive trust mediated the service pro-
vider service orientation–service quality relationship.
Implications Hiring service-oriented front-line employ-
ees may facilitate customer cognitive trust which in turn
relates to service quality. In addition, training front-line
employees to identify agreeable customers may facilitate
the quick development of trusting relationships.
Originality/Value This is the first study to simultaneously
examine the impact of both the customer and the service
provider personalities on customer trust and service quality
in long-term relationships. Results demonstrated the role of
cognitive trust as a mediator of the relationship between
service orientation and service quality.
Keywords Service provider � Service orientation �Customer agreeableness � Affective trust � Cognitive trust �Service quality
Current global economic conditions require that organiza-
tions work to differentiate their service relationships and
encounters with customers. As a result, service organiza-
tions are devoting more attention to front-line service
employees who represent the organization to the customer
(Subramony et al. 2004). Over the past 10 years, significant
research in the area of emotional labor (Pugh 2001; Pugh
et al. 2011; Tsai and Huang 2001), service management
and marketing (Ferguson et al. 2005; Webber 2011) as well
as service climate (Schneider et al. 2009) has demonstrated
the increasingly important role of the front-line employee
across a variety of service engagements. The primary
relationship that unfolds between a customer and the ser-
vice provider has important implications for the customer’s
evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the service
(Schneider et al. 1998) and in turn, customer satisfaction
and loyalty (Webber and Klimoski 2004). Customers who
experience good quality service are more likely to return
and remain customers of the organization.
Both researchers and practitioners assert that service
organizations need to build customer trust to retain current
customers and obtain new business (Garbarino and Johnson
1999; Schneider and White 2004; Webber and Klimoski
2004). In the service sector, customer trust in the service
provider organization has been shown to be an important
mechanism through which critical customer outcomes are
achieved (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and
S. S. Webber (&)
Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, 8 Ashburnham
Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
S. C. Payne � A. B. Taylor
Psychology Department, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU,
College Station, TX 77843, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. B. Taylor
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
DOI 10.1007/s10869-011-9235-4
Johnson 1999). Without a trusting relationship with the
service provider, the customer is less likely to be satisfied
with the quality of the service and more likely to change
service providers (Webber and Klimoski 2004).
Recognizing the multidimensionality of trust, we pro-
pose that customer cognitive (competency-based) trust and
affective (emotion-based) trust in the service provider are
explanatory mechanisms for the relationship between the
service provider’s personality and service quality. We
conduct a conservative test of this relationship, controlling
for the customer’s personality.
There are four key issues that have yet to be addressed
in research studies examining the relationship between
customer and service provider personalities and service
effectiveness. First, despite some theorizing about the
importance of trust in the service relationships (e.g., Bove
and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Morgan
and Hunt 1994) no empirical research has been conducted
investigating the explanatory mechanisms for the rela-
tionships between service provider personality and service
effectiveness (cf. Liao and Chuang 2004). We contribute to
the service management literature by examining both
customer cognitive and affective trust in the service pro-
vider as explanatory mechanisms for why service provider
traits impact customer perceptions of service quality.
Second, most of the research on service relationships has
focused on one-time encounters (i.e., an interaction at a
check-out counter; e.g., Pugh 2001; Tan et al. 2004), short-
term engagements, or transactions (see Dwyer et al. (1987)
for a discussion of the transactional/relational continuum;
Gutek et al. 1999; Rogelberg et al. 1999). Our research
focuses on longer term engagements between a service
provider and his/her customer, specifically repeat custom-
ers at a hair salon. Our sample consists of matched pairs of
hairstylists and one of their customers. Often these
engagements extend over multiple years; thus the bond
between the service provider and customer is crucial to the
long-term stability of this relationship.
Third, our study responds to calls for more research
using a matched sample design (Suskind et al. 2003),
which involve gathering information from both the service
provider and his/her direct customer. Data from these
designs are difficult to obtain and add considerable value to
understanding service relationships as they explicitly relate
an individual service provider’s characteristics with his/her
customer’s reactions rather than linking aggregated
employee and customer data.
Fourth, prior research in this area has typically examined
either customer personality or service provider personality
(e.g., Burns and Bowling 2010; Liao and Chuang 2004;
Rogelberg et al. 1999; Tan et al. 2004). For example,
research by Tan and colleagues (2004) explored the idea that
customers shape their own service experience through their
dispositional tendencies which activate certain emotions by
the service provider. However, this research overlooks the
importance of the service provider’s personality and its
impact on the customer’s emotions. One notable exception is
emotional labor research which has focused primarily on
one-time service encounters between an employee and
customer to determine the impact of the employee’s emo-
tions on immediate customer behavior. The results of this
research demonstrate that positive employee emotions have
implications for positive customer reactions (Pugh 2001;
Tsai and Huang 2001). Using a matched sample design,
Groth et al. (2009) extended the emotional labor research
revealing that deep acting (in contrast to surface acting) had
a significant positive impact on service quality. Few other
studies in the emotional labor area empirically examine both
the customer and the service provider using a matched
sample design (Groth et al. 2009). The present study
examines both customer and service provider personalities,
specifically the incremental validity of the service provider’s
personality above and beyond the customer’s personality on
customer cognitive and affective trust and service quality.
Service Providers and Trust
Service researchers claim that customer contact employees
occupy a crucial role in the organization (Bettencourt and
Brown 1997; Bowen and Hallowell 2002; Bowen and
Schneider 1985; Gutek et al. 1999; Payne and Webber 2006;
Schneider et al. 1998). In the service industry, front-line
personnel (Crosby et al. 1990; Liao and Chuang 2004) or
‘‘customer contact’’ workers/employees (Bowen and
Hallowell 2002; Chase and Tansik 1983) represent the
organization to the customer (Bowen and Schneider 1985;
Liao and Subramony 2008). Research suggests that these
employees shape customers’ perceptions of the interaction
(Spiro and Weitz 1990), and they have a significant impact
on the customer’s evaluation of the services provided
(Bowen and Schneider 1985; Schneider et al. 1998; Tan et al.
2004).
Research evidence demonstrates that the service pro-
viders who produce high-quality services achieve greater
customer satisfaction, higher volumes of purchases, and
more return visits by previous customers (Borucki and
Burke 1999; Liao and Chuang 2004). However, the
mediating mechanisms through which personality charac-
teristics impact service outcomes have yet to be fully
examined. Researchers have proposed that trust is an
important mediating variable to consider in service rela-
tionships (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007).
Trust is an essential ingredient to any interpersonal
relationship including relationships between service pro-
viders and customers (Berry 1995; Moorman et al. 1993;
194 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
123
Morgan and Hunt 1994). A number of researchers have
proposed that interpersonal trust is a multidimensional
construct consisting of cognitive or competency-based trust
and affective or emotion-based trust (Johnson and Grayson
2005; Jones and George 1998; McAllister 1995; Williams
2001). Correspondingly, we measure both in this study.
Cognitive trust is based on knowledge about and posi-
tive expectations regarding another individual (Jones and
George 1998). Cognitive trust is grounded in an individ-
ual’s beliefs about the other persons’ reliability and
dependability as well as competence (McAllister 1995). In
service relationships, customers seek out and come to
expect consistent service from their service providers
(Webber and Klimoski 2004). Cognitive trust is even more
important when the customer perceives some risk associ-
ated with the service provided (including a loss of time or
an inconvenience; Bove and Johnson 2000) and when they
perceive the outcome is irreversible (Czepiel et al. 1985).
Affective trust is based on positive affect and mutual
identification (Jones and George 1998). Affective trust is
grounded in interpersonal care and concern for the other
individual or an emotional bond. In service relationships,
affective trust is important as it serves as the foundation for
a strong interpersonal relationship. Affective trust has been
conceptualized as a deep level of trust that requires an
emotional investment and is stable over time (McAllister
1995; Webber 2008; Williams 2001). Scholars focusing on
emotion- or affective-based trust have demonstrated that
affective-based trust positively relates to customer loyalty
(Webber and Klimoski 2004).
Empirical research supports the differentiation and
importance of these two dimensions of trust (McAllister
1995). However, this distinction has not been examined
extensively in the service relationship literature; instead
there has been more of a focus on cognitive trust (e.g.,
Morgan and Hunt 1994). Correspondingly, we examine
both cognitive and affective components of trust.
Customer Personality
Trust researchers have established that some people are
predisposed to trust others more readily and easily (Mayer
et al. 1995; Rotter 1967; Schoorman et al. 2007). For
example, Mayer et al. (1995) proposed a theoretical model
of trust in which characteristics of the trustor impact the
trust he/she has for another party. They propose that indi-
vidual personality characteristics are important antecedents
of trust development and advocated controlling for them
when testing for new predictors of trust. The personality
characteristic agreeableness facilitates trusting relationships
as agreeable people have a willingness and need to
‘‘get along’’ (cf. Hogan and Holland 2003) and promote
harmonious relationships. Highly agreeable individuals are
courteous, flexible, trustworthy, good-natured, cooperative,
forgiving, softhearted, and tolerant (Graziano and Eisen-
berg 1997), and they have an expectation that others will
behave similarly (Costa and McCrae 1992). Agreeableness
partially determines the extent to which people seek out and
maintain interpersonal relationships (Graziano and Eisen-
berg 1997), as well as trust others (Mooradian et al. 2006).
Research in the service environment has demonstrated that
agreeable people work to maintain positive relationships
(Tan et al. 2004). Correspondingly, we expect highly
agreeable customers to report stronger levels of cognitive
and affective trust in their service providers.
Hypothesis 1 Customer agreeableness will be positively
related to customer (a) cognitive and (b) affective trust.
Service Provider Personality
In addition to the customer’s personality, characteristics of
the trustee are also likely to play an important role in the
customer’s trust in the service provider (Mayer et al. 1995)
and perceptions of service quality. Researchers examining
service employees have demonstrated the important role of
personality on service effectiveness (Ahearne et al. 2005;
Bono and Vey 2005; Conte and Gintoft 2005; Diefendorff
et al. 2005; Judge et al. 2009; Salvaggio et al. 2007; Tan
et al. 2004). For example, research in the emotional labor
area shows that extraverted service employees are more
likely to demonstrate naturally felt emotions positively
impacting job satisfaction (Bono and Vey 2005; Die-
fendorff et al. 2005; Judge et al. 2009). In addition, service
employee’s extraversion and adaptability are positively
related to customer service satisfaction (Ahearne et al.
2005; Conte and Gintoft 2005).
In this study, we focus on the service provider’s service
orientation. The service management/marketing literature
has conceptualized service orientation (or ‘‘customer
interpersonal interaction’’) as both a personal disposition
(Bove and Johnson 2000; Brown et al. 2002) and an
employee’s behavior toward customers (Hennig-Thurau
2004; Saxe and Weitz 1982). Researchers adopting a dis-
positional approach to service orientation argue that spe-
cific individuals are predisposed to be service-oriented
which in turn influences service behaviors. Consistent with
other organizational researchers and the measure we use in
our study, we adopt the dispositional perspective where
service orientation has been defined as ‘‘the disposition to
be helpful, thoughtful, considerate, and cooperative’’
(Hogan et al. 1984, p. 167) and a ‘‘predisposition to provide
superior service through responsiveness, courtesy, and
genuine desire to satisfy customer needs’’ (Bettencourt
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 195
123
et al. 2001, p. 31). In relation to the Big 5, service orien-
tation has been empirically shown to be a combination of
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability
(Ones et al. 2005; Ones and Viswesvaran 2001) and
demonstrates a significant positive relationship with cus-
tomer service ratings.
Service providers with a strong service orientation are
concerned about fostering strong interpersonal relation-
ships with their clients, regardless of their client’s per-
sonality or interpersonal characteristics. Empirical research
has shown that service orientation is positively associated
with aspects of job performance that are crucial for main-
taining good relations with customers (Hogan et al. 1984).
Mayer and colleagues (Mayer et al. 1995; Schoorman et al.
2007) have shown that people are trusted when they are
perceived to have ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ser-
vice providers with a strong service orientation are likely to
demonstrate actions consistent with these qualities and
therefore be perceived as being trustworthy.
Service providers with a strong service orientation are
likely to make efforts to cultivate affective trust. For
example, a service provider might identify things that he/
she has in common with the customer fostering feelings of
similarity and positive affect for the service provider. The
service provider can also demonstrate care and concern for
their customer by listening to their needs and probing for
their input. It is important for customers to know that they
are understood and their service provider is responsive to
their needs. These behaviors facilitate affective trust in the
service provider.
Following the theoretical model of trust development
proposed by Mayer et al. (1995) advocating that
researchers control for the trustor’s personality character-
istics when predicting interpersonal trust, we expect service
provider service orientation to relate positively to customer
cognitive and affective trust in the service provider above
and beyond customer agreeableness.
Hypothesis 2 Service provider service orientation will be
positively related to customer (a) cognitive and (b) affec-
tive trust above and beyond customer agreeableness.
Trust As an Explanatory Mechanism
Trust is an important mediating mechanism that has
implications for individual and organizational effectiveness
(Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Mayer et al. 1995; McAllister
1995; Schoorman et al. 2007). In their seminal contribution
to trust research, Mayer et al. (1995) theoretically proposed
trust as an important mediating mechanism through which
perceived trustworthiness factors lead to higher levels of
trust which impact risk taking behaviors and in turn
important outcomes. In a service context, service providers
who are more service-oriented likely engage in more ser-
vice-oriented behaviors which elicit greater trust from their
customers. This trust allows service providers to demon-
strate more risky or less prescribed behaviors (e.g., pro-
posing a new hair style, squeezing a last minute client in
between two other appointments) which result in better
service for the customer. Mayer et al.’s model continues to
dominate the trust literature. Recently, Dirks and Ferrin
(2002) proposed trust as mediator between leader actions
and job performance, as well as organizational citizenship
behavior.
Following the model of trust as a mediator between
individual characteristics and outcomes, Morgan and Hunt
(1994) posited trust as a key characteristic in successful
relational exchanges. They further speculated that trust
functioned as a mediating variable in a model of relation-
ship marketing. Building on Morgan and Hunt (1994),
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) also found support for
interorganizational trust as a mediator of relationships
between customer attitudes and intentions in a relational
customer model using a sample of theater company sub-
scribers. Continuing this line of research, Bove and Mitz-
ifiris (2007) found support for trust as a mediator of the
relationships between customer personality traits (emo-
tional stability) and customer loyalty to the store with a
sample of fast food customers. We extend these cross-
sectional, single-source studies to service providers,
examining cognitive and affective trust as reported by their
individual customers as mediators of the service orienta-
tion–service quality relationship (see Fig. 1). Specifically,
we theorize that trust explains why service orientation
impacts customer perceptions of service quality. Customers
that trust their service employee are more likely to take
risks in their relationship including agreeing with the ser-
vice employee’s recommendations and actively soliciting
input from the service employee. These risk taking
behaviors positively impact service quality perceptions.
Hypothesis 3 (a) Cognitive and (b) affective trust will
mediate the relationship between service provider service
orientation and customer perceptions of service quality,
controlling for customer agreeableness.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Five hundred and thirty-five undergraduate psychology
students were recruited to participate in this study for 2 h
of research credit. They were told the purpose of the study
was to examine the predictors of customer satisfaction, that
196 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
123
they would complete a survey, and be asked to give a brief
survey to their hairstylist. The students (who are customers
in this study) were given a stamped envelope addressed to
the researcher that contained a one-page survey for their
hairstylist to complete. The students were encouraged to
give the survey to ‘‘their’’ hairstylist even if this required
them to wait until their next trip to their permanent resi-
dence or for them to mail the survey directly to their stylist.
Hairstylist surveys and their corresponding envelopes were
coded with random identification numbers so they could be
matched with the customer surveys upon return.
Three hundred twenty-nine hairstylists received the
survey from their respective customer, completed it on
their own time (approximately 10 min), and returned it to
us, for a conservative response rate of 61%. Although 535
hairstylists could have completed the survey, it is highly
unlikely that all customers distributed a survey to their
hairstylist. In fact, 176 customers reported that they did not
have someone they considered ‘‘my hairstylist/barber’’ and
therefore were less likely to give a survey to a hairstylist/
barber.
Hairstylists were informed that the purpose of the study
was to examine the predictors of customer satisfaction. The
hairstylists were encouraged to enclose a business card so
their name could be entered into a raffle for a $50 cash
prize at the end of the study, and the majority of them did.
The average length of time between receipts of the cus-
tomer and service provider surveys was 29 days.
To be included in the final sample, both the customer
and the hairstylist had to report matching information for
the stylist’s name and the shop where he/she was
employed. The final matched sample consisted of 249
hairstylists and one of their customers. The majority of
hairstylists were female (86.7%) and 36 years of age or
older (54.3%). On average, the employees had approxi-
mately 16 years of experience and half of those years were
acquired at their current shop. The customer portion of the
matched sample consisted of primarily 18 year old
(67.1%), Caucasian (85.1%) females (76.3%). On average,
the customers reported having a service relationship with
their hairstylist for five and one-half years.
Measures
All measures were responded to on 5-point agreement scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), unless other-
wise indicated. A complete list of the items used is inclu-
ded in Appendix. Agreeableness, cognitive and affective
trust, and service quality were rated by the customer, and
service orientation was rated by the hairstylist.
Customer Agreeableness
Customer agreeableness was assessed using items from
Saucier’s (1994) Mini-Markers scale. Participants rated
how accurately seven adjectives described them on a
5-point accuracy scale.
Service Orientation
The service provider’s service orientation was assessed
with Bettencourt et al.’s (2001) five item service orienta-
tion scale.
Cognitive Trust
Customer cognitive trust in the hairstylist was measured
with four items from McAllister (1995).
Affective Trust
Customer affective trust in the hairstylist was measured
with five items from McAllister (1995).
Service Quality
Customer perceptions of service quality were measured
using two items developed and validated by Schneider
et al. (1998). These items asked customers to evaluate the
overall quality of the service provided (1) by the hairstylist
and (2) at the salon/barber shop, on a 5-point scale
(1 = poor, 5 = excellent).
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model.
Note: Standardized path
coefficients. The residual
between affective and cognitive
trust correlated .536. * p \ .05
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 197
123
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and reli-
abilities for each of the scales examined in the study, as
well as the correlations among them.
Given the superiority of structural equation modeling
(SEM) over regression for testing mediation (Iacobucci
et al. 2007; James and Brett 1984), we tested our theoret-
ical model with SEM using MPlus (Muthen and Muthen
1998–2010), explicitly testing the indirect relationship
between the independent variable and the dependent vari-
able through the mediator. In order to allow for the
inclusion of cases with missing values (\1% of data were
missing), all models were estimated using full information
maximum likelihood. Following Anderson and Gerbing’s
(1988) two-step approach, we first conducted a confirma-
tory factor analysis to ensure each of the survey items
loaded significantly on the scales with which they were
associated. Then we tested our hypothesized structural
model as depicted in Fig. 1. We used several goodness-of-
fit indices to evaluate the fit of our model including com-
parative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI),
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and
standardized root mean residual (SRMR).
Chi square tests and fit indices for all models are shown
in Table 2. To be sure of the distinctiveness of the five
constructs used in the model, we compared the fit of a
5-factor model in which all items loaded only on their
associated constructs to the fit of models that combined two
or more of the factors. Given the strong correlation
between cognitive trust and service quality, one of these
was a 4-factor model in which cognitive trust and service
quality were combined. We also tested a 4-factor model in
which cognitive trust and affective trust were combined, a
3-factor model in which both components of trust were
combined with service quality, a 2-factor model in which
the customer-reported variables (agreeableness, affective
trust, cognitive trust, and service quality) were combined, a
2-factor model that combined the mediators with the out-
come, and a 1-factor model. The 5-factor model necessarily
had the best fit of all the models (as the other models were
nested within it), and the differences in fit between this
model and most others were large. As the 4-factor model
that combined cognitive trust and service quality fit only
marginally worse than the 5-factor model did, we estimated
1- and 2-factor models using only items associated with
these two constructs. The comparison of these models
allowed for an examination of overlap between the two
constructs while setting aside the fit of the remaining three
constructs. This analysis showed clear evidence that the
constructs were distinct. Although the 1-factor model fit
well, the 2-factor model fit noticeably better (see Table 2).
Next, we tested two structural models: (1) a partially
mediated model in which both direct and indirect effects of
service orientation on service quality were calculated, and
(2) a fully mediated model in which the direct path
between service orientation and service quality was set to
zero. As shown in Table 2, the fit for the fully mediated
model and the partially mediated model fit the data equally
well (v2(1) = 0.002, p [ .05). A potentially competing
model that may be proposed is a direct effects only model,
in which the four other variables have only direct effects on
service quality. However, as both this model and the par-
tially mediated model have saturated structural models,
they are equivalent from the perspective of fit and cannot
be distinguished on these grounds. In spite of this, the
tested mediated models are more plausible accounts of the
data in that they acknowledge the likely causal association
between service orientation and cognitive and affective
trust rather than simply modeling this association as a
correlation, as the direct effects model does.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that customer agreeableness
would be positively related to customer cognitive and
affective trust. As revealed in Fig. 1, agreeableness related
significantly to both cognitive trust (b = .344, p \ .05) and
affective trust (b = .205, p \ .05). Thus, Hypotheses 1a
and 1b were supported.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that service provider service
orientation would be positively related to customer cogni-
tive and affective trust in the service provider above and
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Cognitive trust 4.38 0.57 (.67)
2. Affective trust 3.74 0.82 .44** (.82)
3. Customer agreeableness 4.28 0.54 .30** .16* (.77)
4. Service orientation 4.50 0.50 .14* .10 .09 (.69)
5. Service quality 4.54 0.63 .66** .45** .25** .15* (.87)
Note: N = 249. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported along the diagonal. Correlations are between scale scores calculated as the mean of
item scores, rather than between the scales modeled as latent variables
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
198 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
123
beyond the impact of customer agreeableness. Consistent
with expectation, the hairstylist’s service orientation was
positively and significantly related to customer cognitive
trust after controlling for customer agreeableness
(b = .192, p \ .05). Service orientation was not signifi-
cantly predictive of customer affective trust, however
(b = .147, p [ .05). Thus, hairstylists with strong service
orientations obtained greater levels of customer cognitive
trust regardless of how agreeable the customer is in the first
place. These results support Hypothesis 2a but not 2b.
The final set of analyses examined the mediating role of
cognitive and affective trust as explanatory mechanisms for
the hairstylist personality–service quality relationship. The
standardized estimate of the indirect effect of service ori-
entation on service quality through cognitive trust was
significant (.168, p \ .05), supporting cognitive trust as a
mediator. These results provide full support for Hypothesis
3a. Contrary to Hypothesis 3b, the indirect effect of service
orientation on service quality through affective trust was
not significant (-.001, p [ .05), primarily because affec-
tive trust did relate significantly to service quality. Thus,
Hypothesis 3b was not supported.
Discussion
Service relationships and encounters are critical in the
increasingly challenging global work environment. Corre-
spondingly, how front-line service employees obtain
trusting and successful service relationships remains an
important area of research investigation (Schneider et al.
2005). Previous research in the area of service relationships
has demonstrated that customer personality is important to
consider (Tan et al. 2004). Researchers have also demon-
strated that service provider personality plays an important
role (Bettencourt et al. 2001). Surprisingly, limited
research has simultaneously examined the impact of both
the customer and the service provider personalities on
customer trust and service quality. Further, no researchers
have empirically tested trust as an explanatory mechanism
for relationships between service provider personality–
service effectiveness relationships using a matched sample
design. This study begins to address this gap in the research
literature by demonstrating the impact of both customer
and service provider personalities on trust and service
quality. In addition, this research reveals the important
mediating role of cognitive trust in service provider–cus-
tomer relationships.
Service Provider and Customer Personality
Our research demonstrated that the service provider’s ser-
vice orientation incrementally contributed to the amount of
cognitive trust customers have in the service provider and
their ratings of service quality, above and beyond their own
agreeableness. Consistent with the research by Mayer and
colleagues (Mayer et al. 1995; Schoorman et al. 2007)
proposing that some people are predisposed to trust others;
our results demonstrate that agreeable customers are more
likely to have competency-based trust in their service
providers. These findings demonstrate that both the service
provider and the customer’s personality are important to
consider when determining how trust is developed in a
service relationship.
Table 2 Structural equation modeling results
Model v2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Measurement models: all scales
5-Factor model 349.61 220 \.01 .929 .919 .049 .060
4-Factor model (cognitive trust ? service quality) 380.20 224 \.01 .915 .904 .053 .062
4-Factor model (affective trust ? cognitive trust) 549.46 224 \.01 .823 .800 .077 .073
3-Factor model (affective trust ? cognitive trust ? service quality) 615.17 227 \.01 .789 .764 .083 .076
2-Factor model (customer variables, service provider variables) 903.22 229 \.01 .633 .594 .109 .104
2-Factor model (predictors, mediators ? outcomes) 815.64 229 \.01 .681 .647 .102 .102
1-Factor model 1086.26 230 \.01 .534 .487 .123 .119
Measurement models: cognitive trust and service quality only
2-Factor model 18.30 8 .02 .984 .970 .072 .027
1-Factor model 43.69 9 \.01 .947 .911 .125 .040
Structural models
Partially mediated model 349.61 220 \.01 .929 .919 .049 .060
Fully mediated (direct path set to zero) 349.61 221 \.01 .930 .920 .048 .060
Note: N = 249. df = df for v2, p = significance of v2
CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 199
123
Further, previous research on service provider per-
sonality and service effectiveness has primarily focused
on direct relationships without regard for the customer’s
personality or explanatory mechanisms (e.g., Liao and
Chuang 2004). Our results revealed that service provider
personality contributed indirectly to perceived service
quality in part because customers reported having higher
levels of cognitive trust in their service providers. Based
on Mayer et al.’s (1995) theoretical model of trust, we
speculate that trust leads the service provider to engage
in more risky or less prescribed behaviors which results
in more effective service. Additional research is needed
to specifically identify these behaviors and confirm these
speculations.
Trust As a Mediator of the Service Provider
Personality–Service Effectiveness Relationship
Relationship marketing researchers have proposed that
trust in the service organization (rather than the specific
provider) is an important mediating variable and demon-
strated support for its mediating role with single-source
data (Bove and Mitzifiris 2007; Garbarino and Johnson
1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). We extend this research by
examining the importance of both cognitive and affective
trust in the service provider. Our results showed that cog-
nitive (but not affective) trust plays a critical role in
explaining why service provider personalities impact cus-
tomer perceptions of service quality.
Trust researchers have typically focused on inter-firm
relationships (Saparito et al. 2004; Yli-renko et al. 2001),
interpersonal relationships (Cook and Wall 1980; McAll-
ister 1995), or teams (Dirks 1999; Webber 2008). We
propose that cognitive and affective trust are important
components of dyadic service engagements and extend the
examination of this multidimensional construct to the ser-
vice context. Future research is needed to replicate our
findings and determine the boundaries of these relation-
ships. For example, when is affective trust important in
service relationships? Perhaps this component of trust is
more important in service encounters than longer term
service engagements. As the boundaries are determined,
the role of cognitive and affective trust in service envi-
ronments will be more fully revealed and have implications
for theoretical models of service provider relationships and
their influence on service quality and customer outcomes.
Managerial Implications
We offer managerial implications of the results of our
study particularly in light of the competitive nature of
service organizations in today’s economy. One important
element of the economic conditions is the need for service
organizations to differentiate themselves from the compe-
tition. In addition, it has been largely recognized that it
costs five to eight times more to gain a new customer than
it does to retain a current customer. Therefore, existing
customers are critical to the success of the organization and
represent an important avenue for recruiting/identifying
new customers (Schneider et al. 1998).
Building and sustaining effective customer relationships
is important. One approach to this would be to hire and
promote front-line employees who are service-oriented.
Service provider service orientation is associated with
higher levels of competency-based trust in the service
provider and higher ratings of service quality by the cus-
tomer. Therefore, hiring employees that are predisposed to
provide effective service will facilitate the success of the
service organization.
Cognitive trust is a critical component of an interper-
sonal service relationship. Trust can be difficult to obtain
and sustain. Securing customer trust appears to involve
both customer agreeableness as well as the service pro-
vider’s service orientation. Building high-quality service
relationships can differentiate a service organization from
their competition. In our study, cognitive trust was asso-
ciated with higher levels of service quality which has been
empirically shown to be an important antecedent of cus-
tomer loyalty (Schneider et al. 1998).
Getting to know one’s customer is an important skill for
any service provider. Often service providers work to
identify those customers who are more willing to develop
long-term engagements. Knowledge of the customer’s
personality may be one way to identify those customers
who are more willing to trust a service provider. This
research shows that agreeable customers are more likely to
trust than customers who are not agreeable. Training front-
line employees to identify agreeable customers may facil-
itate the quick development of trusting relationships. On
the other hand, customers who are low on agreeableness
may require extra attention from front-line employees to
foster a trusting relationship.
Limitations
We employed a field research study in which we gathered
data from two sources. Despite these strengths, there are a
few limitations that we should acknowledge. First, our
design does not permit causal inferences; thus, we cannot
be confident about the causal direction of the relationships
we found. Longitudinal research perhaps tracking a service
engagement from inception would provide greater insight
about cause and effect. Second, we examined only one
theoretically relevant personality trait for each individual in
the dyad. Although service orientation is a relatively broad
construct, there are likely other personality traits that
200 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
123
contribute to the service relationship and service effec-
tiveness (e.g., emotional stability). Third, we examined
one type of service relationship provider, hairstylists.
Additional research is needed to determine if our findings
generalize to other service relationships (e.g., doctors,
mechanics, physical trainers) and service encounters that
take place in libraries, banks, and restaurants as well as
service relationships with primarily male service
providers.
Second, due to the nature of the survey questions,
respondents may have inflated their responses to the
questions due to social desirability. This may have impli-
cations for the restricted range of responses for some of the
variables and a non-normal distribution of scores. Future
research is needed to determine the impact of social
desirability in a research study examining service provider
engagements. Finally, contrary to our theoretical model,
customers completed their evaluations before the hairsty-
lists. However, hairstylists responded to questions regard-
ing service organization which is considered a stable
personality characteristic reducing the impact of timing on
the research results.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that both customers and
service providers play an important role in the success of
the service relationship. Customer agreeableness is an
important predictor of customer trust and perceived service
quality. In addition, service provider service orientation
plays an important and unique role in securing trust and
achieving service quality. Finally, cognitive trust serves as
an important mediating mechanisms explaining why cus-
tomer and service provider personalities impact service
quality. Future research should include both customer and
service provider characteristics and behaviors in models of
effective service relationships and incorporate trust of the
service provider as an explanatory mediating mechanism
for these relationships.
Appendix: Survey Items
Customer Agreeableness (Saucier 1994)
Please use the following list of common human traits to
describe yourself as accurately as possible. Describe
yourself as you see yourself at the present time, not as you
wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you are
generally or typically, as compared with other persons you
know of the same sex and of roughly the same age.
(1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate)
1. Cold
2. Cooperative
3. Harsh
4. Kind
5. Rude
6. Sympathetic
7. Warm
Service Orientation (Bettencourt et al. 2001)
1. I enjoy helping others.
2. The best job I can imagine would involve serving
others in solving their problems.
3. I can get along with most anyone.
4. I pride myself in providing courteous service.
5. It is natural for me to be considerate of others’ needs.
Cognitive Trust (McAllister 1995)
1. This hairstylist approaches his/her job with profes-
sionalism and dedication.
2. Given this hairstylist’s track record, I see no reason to
doubt his/her competence and preparation for the job.
3. If people knew more about this hairstylist and his/her
background, they would be more concerned and
monitor his/her performance more closely (R).
4. I can rely on this hairstylist to reliably cut (and style)
my hair.
Affective Trust (McAllister 1995)
1. I can talk freely to this hairstylist about difficulties I
am having with school, work or family.
2. If I shared my problems with this hairstylist, I know
he/she would respond constructively and caringly.
3. We would feel a sense of loss if one of us moved to a
different hair salon.
4. I would have to say that we have both made
considerable investments in our relationship.
5. I consider this hairstylist one of my friends.
Service Quality (Schneider et al. 1998)
1. The overall quality of the service provided at the salon/
barber shop.
2. The overall quality of the service provided by my
hairstylist.
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 201
123
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to
empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the
influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer
satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 945–955.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing
interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 23, 236–245.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees:
Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction, and
prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73, 39–61.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A
comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of
service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 29–41.
Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2005). Toward understanding emotional
management at work: A quantitative review of emotional labor
research. In C. E. Hartel, W. J. Zerbe, & N. M. Ashkanasy
(Eds.), Emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 213–233).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Borucki, C. C., & Burke, M. J. (1999). An examination of service-
related antecedents to retail store performance. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20(6), 943–962.
Bove, L. L., & Johnson, L. W. (2000). A customer-service worker
relationship model. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 11(5), 491–511.
Bove, L., & Mitzifiris, B. (2007). Personality traits and the process of
store loyalty in a transactional prone context. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 21, 507–519.
Bowen, D. E., & Hallowell, R. (2002). Suppose we took service
seriously? An introduction to the special issue. Academy ofManagement Executive, 16, 69–72.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1985). Boundary-spanning-role
employees and the service encounter: Some guidelines for
management and research. In J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon, &
C. Surpreant (Eds.), The service encounter (pp. 127–147).
Lexington, MA: Heath.
Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002).
The customer orientation of service workers: personality trait
influences on self and supervisor performance ratings. Journal ofMarketing Research, 39, 110–119.
Burns, G. N., & Bowling, N. A. (2010). Dispositional approach to
customer satisfaction and behavior. Journal of Business andPsychology, 25, 99–107.
Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1983). The customer contact model for
organization design. Management Science, 29, 1037–1050.
Conte, J. M., & Gintoft, J. N. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five
personality dimensions, and sales performance. Human Perfor-mance, 18, 427–444.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust,
organizational commitment, and personal need nonfulfillment.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO–FFI)Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship
quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspec-
tive. Journal of Marketing, 54, 38–81.
Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Suprenant, C. F., & Gutman, E. G.
(1985). Service encounters: An overview. In J. A. Czepiel, M.
R. Soloman, & C. F. Suprenant (Eds.), The service encounter:Managing employee/customer interaction in service businesses(pp. 3–15). Toronto: Lexington Books.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The
dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339–357.
Dirks, K. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.
Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Dwyer, F., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27.
Ferguson, R., Paulin, M., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Contractual
governance, relational governance, and the performance of
interfirm service exchanges: The influence of boundary-spanner
closeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2),
217–234.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A
dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer
reactions to emotional labor: The roles of employee acting
strategies and customer detection strategies. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 52, 958–974.
Gutek, B. A., Bhappu, A. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Cherry, B. (1999).
Distinguishing between service relationships and encounters.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 218–233.
Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004). Customer orientation of service employ-
ees: Its impact on customer satisfaction, commitment and
retention. International Journal of Service Industry Manage-ment, 16, 460–478.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. M. (1984). How to measure service
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 167–173.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality
and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A mediation on
meditation: Evidence that structural equations models perform
better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17,
139–153.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests
for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in
service delivery. Journal of Business Research, 58, 500–507.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of
trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 531–546.
Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor
more difficult for some than for others? A multilevel, experi-
ence-sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62, 57–88.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors
influencing employee service performance and customer out-
comes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.
Liao, H., & Subramony, M. (2008). Employee customer orientation in
manufacturing organizations: Joint influences of customer prox-
imity and the senior leadership team. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93, 317–328.
202 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203
123
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,20, 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as
foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts?
Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learn-ing, 37, 523–540.
Moorman, C. R., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors
affecting trust in market relationships. Journal of Marketing,57(1), 81–101.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory
of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other
criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in
personnel selection. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 9, 31–39.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at
work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. HumanPerformance, 18, 389–404.
Payne, S. C., & Webber, S. S. (2006). Effects of service provider
attitudes and employment status on citizenship behaviors and
customers’ attitudes and loyalty behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 365–378.
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the
service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
1018–1027.
Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able
to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between
emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96, 377–390.
Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Creamer, V. (1999).
Customer service behavior: The interaction of service predispo-
sition and job characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychol-ogy, 13, 421–435.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal
trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
Salvaggio, A. N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L. H., Mayer, D. M., Ramesh,
A., & Lyon, J. S. (2007). Manager personality, manager service
quality orientation, and service climate: A test of a model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1741–1750.
Saparito, P. A., Chen, C. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (2004). The role of
relational trust in bank-small firm relationships. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 400–410.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s
unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment,63, 506–516.
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. (1982). The SOCO scale: A measure of the
customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of MarketingResearch, 19, 343–351.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly,
K. (2005). Understanding organization-customer links in service
settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1017–1032.
Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Lee, W. C., & Young, S. A. (2009).
Organizational service climate drivers of the American Cus-
tomer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and financial and market
performance. Journal of Service Research, 12, 3–14.
Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2004). Service quality: Researchperspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service
climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of
causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative
model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academyof Management Review, 32, 344–354.
Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization,
measurement and nomological validity. Journal of MarketingResearch, 27, 61–69.
Subramony, M., Beehr, T. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2004). Employee
and customer perceptions of service quality in an Indian firm.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 311–327.
Suskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003).
Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer
service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 179–187.
Tan, H. H., Foo, M. D., & Kwek, M. H. (2004). The effects of
customer personality traits on the display of positive emotions.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 287–296.
Tsai, W. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee
affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 1001–1008.
Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in
teams: A longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39(6),
746–769.
Webber, S. S. (2011). Dual organizational identification impacting
client satisfaction and word of mouth loyalty. Journal ofBusiness Research, 64(2), 119–125.
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Client–project manager
engagements, trust, and loyalty. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 85, 997–1013.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an
affective context for trust development. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 26, 377–396.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. (2001). Social capital,
knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young
technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
587–613.
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:193–203 203
123