Accountability and Trustworthiness in Consumer Dispute Resolutions: A Comparative Study of Initial and Repeated Consumers
Abstract
Many studies have indicated the significance of trustworthiness in alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) and how it protects consumer rights. Studies on trustworthiness in online alternative dispute resolutions (ODR) have received extensive attention, while traditional consumer ADR (CDR) has received less attention. Additionally, few studies have claimed that consumer familiarity with CDR may affect the measurement of trustworthiness. Thus, this study aims to examine the relationship between accountability and three dimensions of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) in consumer ADR. This study also seeks to compare the relationship between initial and repeated consumers. A total of 323 sets of data were collected and analysed from consumers who filed their claims with the Tribunal Consumer Claim Malaysia. Using path analysis, this study supports the relationships between accountability and both ability and benevolence; however, it rejects the relationship between responsibility and integrity. Additionally, this study found a significant difference between initial consumers and repeated consumers in the three relationships. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by adopting and testing a relationship suggested in the Causal Attribution Model of Trust Repair (CAMTR). The ADR platform should have a strong ability to organise and coordinate with consumers who have prior experience because they attribute their experiences differently from initial consumers.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, N. C. (2015). Public interest litigation in alternative dispute resolution: A proposed mechanism in a tribunal for consumer claims. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 204-210.
Amin, M. N. H., Zakaria, Z., & Daud, M. Z. (2022). Consumer protection according to Islam and its assurance through the tribunal for consumer claims, Malaysia: A review of the literature. Journal of Shariah Law Research, 7(1), 63-84.
ASEAN Committee on Consumer Protection. (2023). Regional report on needs and gaps of consumer dispute resolution in ASEAN, ASEAN Consumer. https://aseanconsumer.org/file/Regional%20Report%20-%20Needs%20and%20Gaps%20on%20Consumer%20Dispute%20Resolution%20in%20ASEAN_Final.pdf
Aziz, T. N. R. A., & Hamid, N. A. A. (2020). The settlement of disputes through online dispute resolution (ODR): A literature review. Asian Journal of Research in Business and Management, 2(4), 90-98.
Azman, F. (2022, February 15). Lebih ramai keanggotaan TTPM akan dilantik, segera selesaikan kes pengguna–Nanta Linggi. Astroawani.com. https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/lebih-ramai-keanggotaan-ttpm-akan-dilantik-segera-selesaikan-kes-pengguna-nanta-linggi-353265
Biard, A. (2018). Monitoring consumer ADR quality in the EU: a critical perspective. European Review of Private Law, 2, 171-196.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
Calnan, M., & Rowe, R. (2008). Trust, accountability, and choice. Health, Risk and Society, 10(3), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802063125
Chung, A., & Yu, Y. (2021). Consumer trust in the digital economy: The case for online dispute resolution. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ser-rp-2021d15_en.pdf
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639-649.
Ehren, M., Paterson, A., & Baxter, J. (2019). Accountability and trust: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Educational Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09352-4.
Ellen, P.S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.
Ferreira, D. B., Giovannini, C., Gromova, E., & Schmidt, G. R. (2022). Arbitration Chambers and Trust in technology provider: Impacts of trust in technology-mediated dispute resolution proceedings. Technology in Society, 68, 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101872.
Ferry, L., Midgley, H., & Haslam, J. (2024). Democracy, accountability, accounting and trust: A critical perspective reflecting on a UK Parliamentary inquiry into the role of government accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99, 102738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102738.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice: 1-55. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 1-17.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28, 725-737.
Harian Metro (2022, March 15). TTPM sasar dengar 1,253 kes dalam 3 bulan, Harian Metro. https://www.hmetro.com.my/mutakhir/2022/03/824202/ttpm-sasar-dengar-1253-kes-dalam-3-bulan
Ilias, I. I., Zain, M. I. M., Rahmat, N. E. & Keumala, D. (2023). A comparative assessment of alternative dispute resolution for financial consumer protection in Malaysia and Indonesia. Environment Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 8(SI13), 23-29.
Irvita, M., & Asriani. (2025). Transparency and accountability in the justice system: Building public trust and justice. Priviet Social Sciences Journal, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.55942/pssj.v5i4.367
Isaeva, N., Gruenewald, K., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2020). Trust theory and customer services research: theoretical review and synthesis. The Service Industries Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1779225.
Ismail, R. & Osman, Z. (2019). Alternative dispute resolution process in the tribunal for consumer claims of Malaysia: A way forward. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 9(5), 342-351.
Jiménez, D. L., Dittmar, E. C., & Portillo, J. P. V. (2022). Consumer trust in the digital environment: Dispute prevention and alternative dispute resolution. Law State and Telecommunications Review, 14(1), 113-138.
KPDN.GOV (2024). Laporan Tahuan 2023. https://www.laporantahunan.kpdn.gov.my//wp-content/uploads/2024/10/KPDN-AR2023-DL.pdf
Lieberman, J. K., & Henry, J. F. (1986). Lessons from the alternative dispute resolution movement. The University of Chicago Law Review, 53(2), 424-439.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Min, J., Kim, J., & Yang, K. (2023). CSR attributions and the moderating effect of perceived CSR fit on consumer trust, identification, and loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 72, 103274.
Mucha, J. (2016). Alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes in the European Union: challenges and opportunities. Queen Mary Law Journal, 7(Special Conference Issue), 27-36.
Ong, C. E., & Teh, D. (2016). Redress procedures expected by consumers during a business-to-consumer e-commerce dispute. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 17, 150-160.
Ramli, S. I., Adam, A. N. N., Shamsudin, N., & Abidin, N. Z. Z. (2024). Local council employees’ integrity: A case study of the enforcement and licensing department. International Journal of Law, Government and Communication, 9(37), 399-415.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Safei, S. & Abdullah, N.C. (2023). Framework for alternative dispute resolution in the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(2), 71-85.
Sekhon, H., Ennew, C., Kharouf, H., & Devlin, J. (2014). Trustworthiness and trust: influences and implications. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(3-4), 409–430. doi:10.1080/0267257x.2013.842609
Sperry, K., & Siegel, J. T. (2011). Victim responsibility, credibility, and verdict in a simulated rape case: Application of Weiner’s attribution model. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 16-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02022.x
Tetlock, P.E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 293-332.
Tomlinson, E.C. & Mayer, R.C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85-104.
Wallace, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). Measuring trust and confidence in courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.418.
Wood, M., Wood, C., Styring, P., Jones, C. R., Smith, J. K., Day, M., Chakraborty, R., & Mensah, G. (2023). Perceptions of accountability and trust in the regulatory governance of wood burning stove sustainability: Survey evidence from the post-Brexit UK. Energy Policy, 177, 113549.
Ye, N., & Zhao, Z. (2024). The reform of consumer protection in mobile payment services in China: Legislation, regulation, and dispute resolution. Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice, 54, 106007.
Zainal Abidin, N. Z., & Salamat, A. S. A. (2023). The stewardship of benevolence: its importance in achieving accountability and public trust towards local government. Voice of Academia, 19(1). https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/78756/
Zhao, Z., & Ki, E. J. (2018). Does severity matter? An investigation of crisis severity from a defensive attribution theory perspective. Public Relations Review, 44, 610-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.08.008
Copyright (c) 2025 Mei Teh Goi, Abd Rahman Said Alli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.
