IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship type, perceived trust, and ambiguity aversion


  • Hsin-Hsien Liu

    () (National University of Kaohsiung)

  • Jung-Hua Chang

    () (National Sun Yat-sen University)


Abstract Ambiguity averse suggests consumers to prefer risky options over ambiguous ones. In this study, the authors propose that consumer–brand relationship types influence consumers’ ambiguity aversion. Specifically, compared with consumers in exchange relationships with the focal brand, consumers in communal relationships are more likely to trust the focal brand and thereby be less averse to ambiguity. These proposals were tested in two experiments. In experiment 1, participants in communal relationships showed less ambiguity aversion than those in exchange relationships. In experiment 2, participants in communal relationships had higher perceived trust with the focal brand than the participants in exchange relationships, and they showed less dislike for tensile promotions. Experiment 2 also tested for and confirmed the mediating effect of perceived trust. This study concludes with a discussion of the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the results.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsin-Hsien Liu & Jung-Hua Chang, 2017. "Relationship type, perceived trust, and ambiguity aversion," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 255-266, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-016-9408-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-016-9408-z

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Fournier, Susan, 1998. " Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 343-373, March.
    2. Rajesh Bagchi & Xingbo Li, 2011. "Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs: Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(5), pages 888-901.
    3. Mobley, Mary F & Bearden, William O & Teel, Jesse E, 1988. " An Investigation of Individual Responses to Tensile Price Claims," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 273-279, September.
    4. Lisa C. Wan & Michael K. Hui & Robert S. Wyer Jr., 2011. "The Role of Relationship Norms in Responses to Service Failures," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 260-277.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    6. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    7. Gounaris, Spiros P., 2005. "Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from business-to-business services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 126-140, February.
    8. Pankaj Aggarwal & Sharmistha Law, 2005. "Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 453-464, December.
    9. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    10. Pankaj Aggarwal & Meng Zhang, 2006. "The Moderating Effect of Relationship Norm Salience on Consumers' Loss Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 413-419, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-016-9408-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.