ba trust commitment

University of Technology Berlin

Institute of Business Administration

Department of Marketing

Wilmersdorfer Str. 148

10585 Berlin, Germany

Trust and Commitment in

Marketing Literature

Heiner Schütte (317256) Bachelor Thesis

Supervisors

Professor Dr. Volker Trommsdorff

and

Dr. Steffen Herm

Berlin,

August 2010

Contents

Eidesstattliche Erklärung ........................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2. Well-Established Literature Stream: Trust supports Commitment ........................................ 3

2.1. Definition of Commitment .............................................................................................. 4

2.2. Definition of Trust .......................................................................................................... 4

2.3. Trust and Commitment in a B2B Context ...................................................................... 5

2.4. Trust and Commitment in B2B Service Industries ......................................................... 9

2.5. Trust and Commitment in B2C Service Industries ....................................................... 11

2.6. Trust and Commitment in Meta-Analysis Encompassing B2B and B2C Settings ....... 13

3. Contradictions and Modifications of Well-Established Literature Stream .......................... 14

3.1. Inconsistences ............................................................................................................... 14

3.2. Indirect Effect of Trust on Commitment ....................................................................... 15

3.3. More Differentiated View of Trust and Commitment .................................................. 16

4. Further Aspects Concerning Trust and Commitment in Relationship Marketing ............... 21

4.1. Precursors and Consequences of Trust and Commitment ............................................. 21

4.2. Further Aspects ............................................................................................................. 23

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 25

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 53

References ................................................................................................................................ 56

1 Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Die selbstständige und eigenhändige Ausfertigung versichert an Eides

statt

……………………………………………….. Berlin, den 26.08.2010 Unterschrift

2 1. Introduction

Trust and Commitment in Marketing

Literature

Abstract. A well-established literature stream identified trust and commitment as

key variables of relationship marketing with trust being the major determinant of

commitment. This literature review provides all environmental conditions, which

have contributed to this generalization. On the other hand, contradictions and

modifications are analyzed. Additionally, important further aspects are taken into

account. Finally, conclusions are made, important precursors of trust and

commitment are analyzed, and consequently implications derived.

1. Introduction

In times of globalization, companies‟ financial performance becomes more and

more important to remain competitive on international markets. Thus, sharing

capabilities and resources in successful interorganizational relationships is an

ambitious possibility to generate competitive advantages (Leonidou et al., 2008;

Palmatier et al., 2007). To develop and maintain relationships successfully it is

important for managers to understand the drivers of relationship performance

(Palmatier, Dant, & Grewal, 2007). A wide stream of marketing literature points

out that trust and commitment are key variables for relationship success (see, for

example, Andaleeb, 1996; Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010; Eastlick et al., 2006; Ganesan

& Hess, 1997; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Kingshott & Pecotich, 2007;

Leonidou et al., 2008; Morgan & Hunt, 1994;). But, under which conditions? Are

these key roles restricted to specific environmental settings? And if trust and

commitment are key variables of relationship marketing how are these constructs

interconnected? How they are causally related? Additionally, practitioners have to

understand the consequences and, especially, the precursors of these major

constructs. That is important because antecedents and outcomes are the elevating

screws for managers. Implications can be deviated and efficient strategies evolved

(Cater & Zabkar, 2009; Palmatier et al., 2007). Furthermore, as the role of trust

and commitment in relationship marketing is well established, it remains to

identify possible modifications and contradictions. Under which conditions differ

3 2. Well-Established Literature Stream: Trust supports Commitment

the roles of trust and commitment from the well-established key roles, and what

are possible explanations for it? Moreover, differences in conceptualizations and

operationalizations may cause different or rather more differentiated results. This

will be considered and explored. The objective of this literature review is to shed

some light on all of these questions and problems.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows: first, some general

illustrations and definitions are provided (i.e., definition of trust and

commitment); second, empirical results confirming the well-established literature

stream are presented with regard to the environmental setting where these results

were found; third, contradictions and modifications in conjunction with possible

explanations are provided; fourth, further aspects concerning trust and

commitment (e.g., important antecedents and outcomes) are mentioned; and

finally, conclusions and implications are discussed.

2. Well-Established Literature Stream: Trust supports

Commitment

Origin of a well established stream of marketing literature is Morgan and Hunt‟s

(1994) article “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”. In this

article the authors conceptualized and tested a model, which hypothesizes trust

and relationship commitment as key mediating variables between five antecedents

and five outcomes as sub-constructs of relationship marketing success (“key

mediating variable” KMV model). Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceptualized

relationship marketing as an ongoing process, which lasts for a relative long

period of time and is relevant in different partnerships (p. 21). The former aspect,

the long-term perspective of relationship marketing, is one reason for trust and

relationship commitment being central constructs for relationship marketing

success. Trust and commitment encourage marketers to aim long-term benefits,

which result from continuing existing partnerships instead of prefering attractive

short-term alternatives. Further reasons for the importance of trust and

commitment in relational exchanges are the encouragement of marketers to

work at preserving relationship investments by cooperating with exchange

partners (…) and view potentially high-risk actions as being prudent


because of the belief that their partners will not act opportunistically.

Therefore, when both commitment and trust – not just one of the other –

are present, they produce outcomes that promote efficiency, productivity,

and effectiveness. (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 22).

2.1. Definition of Commitment

Moreover, relationship commitment is defined as “an exchange partner believing

that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum

efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship is

worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely” (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p.

23). Commitment entails vulnerability and “connotes solidarity and cohesion,

encouraging the channel partner firms to resist apparently attractive short-term

alternatives in favor of the expected long-term benefits of staying with existing

partners” (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). Thus, commitment “goes beyond a

simple evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with a relationship”

(Ganesan & Hess, 1997, p. 441).

2.2. Definition of Trust

The aspect of vulnerability leads to the fact that only trustworthy partners will be

chosen for relational exchanges. Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined trust “as

existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner‟s reliability and

integrity” (p. 23). In addition, Morgan and Hunt (1994) highlighted “that

confidence on the part of trusting party results from the firm belief that the

trustworthy party is reliable and has high integrity, which are associated with such

qualities as consistent competent, honest, fair, responsible, helpful, and

benevolent” (p. 23). In other words, “trust is defined as a willingness to rely on an

exchange partner in whom on has confidence [italics excluded]” (Moorman,

Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p. 315). Next to this belief component, Moorman,

Zaltman and Deshpande (1993) stressed the necessity of the presence of a

behavioral intention component, which “reflects a reliance on a partner and

involves vulnerability and uncertainty on the part of the trustor” (p. 82). “In social

psychology, a consensus seems to be emerging that trust encompasses two

essential elements – trust in the partner‟s honesty and trust in the partner‟s

benevolence.” (Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer, & Kumar, 1996, p. 307). Andaleeb

(1996) has emphasized “that trusting involves future contingencies in which the


partner, in whom trust is bestowed, has a certain degree of freedom to disappoint

the expectations of the trusting party” (p. 79).

2.3. Trust and Commitment in a B2B Context

Accordingly, trust “is a major determinant of relationship commitment” (Morgan

& Hunt, 1994, p. 24), as it has a positive effect on commitment. This relationship

between the two constructs is one central idea of Morgan and Hunt‟s key

mediating variable (KMV) model (see Fig.1 in Appendix A), and justifies the

indirect relationships between trust and the relationship outcomes acquiescence,

propensity to leave as well as cooperation. More generally, as hypothesized within

the KMV model, the antecedents shared values and communication directly

enhance trust, whereas opportunistic behavior directly lowers trust. On the other

hand, trust directly increases the outcomes cooperation as well as functional

conflict and decreases uncertainty. Furthermore, it is suggested that the precursors

relationship termination costs, relationship benefits and shared values have a

positive and direct effect on relationship commitment1, while commitment

directly fosters acquiescence and cooperation as well as diminishes the propensity

to leave a relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 22). Thus, the last three

constructs are hypothesized as relational outcomes. Moreover, Morgan and Hunt

(1994) hypothesized that, both, trust and commitment mediate the relationship

between shared values and the construct of cooperation. Hence, shared values and

cooperation are important constructs within the KMV model, especially the latter

which proactively promotes relationship marketing success (Morgan & Hunt,

1994, p. 26). For testing the hypothesized paths the authors collected data from a

national sample of independent automobile tire retailers in the USA. Results show

support for twelve of the 13 hypotheses. Only the relationship between

relationship benefits and relationship commitment does not show a significant

result (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Consequently, “identifying commitment and trust as key mediating variables is

critical to the study and management of relationship marketing” (Morgan & Hunt,

1994, p. 31). Hence, results imply that commitment and trust are key to

understand the relationship development process, especially for practitioners

1 The structural equation modeling test of this relationship shows no significant result (vide infra).


(Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 32). But what can practitioners actively do to increase

trust and commitment in a partnership? Morgan and Hunt

posit that relationship commitment and trust develop when firms attend to

relationships by (1) providing resources, opportunities, and benefits that

are superior to the offerings of alternative partners; (2) maintain high

standards of corporate values and allying oneself with exchange partners

having similar values; (3) communicating valuable information, including

expectations, market intelligence, and evaluations of the partner‟s

performance; and (4) avoiding malevolently taking advantage of their

exchange partners. Such actions will enable firms and their networks to

enjoy sustainable competitive advantages over their rivals and their

networks in the global marketplace. (1994, p. 34).

The context of B2B relationships also represents the basis of Andaleeb‟s (1996)

experimental study. The author empirically analyzed manufacturer-distributor

relationships to gain a better understanding about “the independent and interactive

effects of trust and dependence on satisfaction and commitment” (Andaleeb,

1996, p. 77). Results prove the direct and positive impact of trust upon the level of

commitment as well as the interaction effect of trust and dependence (cf.

Geyskens, et al., 1996) on commitment. More precisely, the latter reveals that

when

the buyer is dependent on the supplier, the buyer‟s commitment will be

high and will not be very sensitive to different levels of trust in the

supplier. When the buyer is not dependent on the supplier, the buyer‟s

commitment will be very sensitive to different levels of trust in the

supplier. (Andaleeb, 1996, p. 82).

A more specific B2B environment has been in the focus of a study by Perry,

Sengupta, and Krapfel (2004). The authors investigated the roles of trust,

commitment, and effectiveness in technological uncertain environments within

horizontal strategic alliances (HSA). Similar to Morgan and Hunt (1994), results

of empirical tests of Perry et al.‟s (2004) model provide evidence for the

supporting relationship between trust and commitment and, in turn, for the

positive impact of commitment upon the level of effectiveness (pp. 954-955).

Furthermore, the authors tested interacting effects of trust, termination penalties,


technological uncertainty, and commitment (Perry, et al., 2004, p. 955). For

instance, Perry et al. (2004) proved “that trust and termination penalties work in a

supplementary manner to foster commitment” (p. 952). Consequently, the authors

posit that “the inclusion of conceptual safeguards, like termination penalties,

seems wise even when trust is present” (Perry, et al., 2004, p. 955). In addition,

they detected a combined negative effect of trust and technological uncertainty on

commitment as well as a combined positive effect of commitment and termination

penalties on effectiveness (Perry, et al., 2004, p. 953).

In 2007, Palmatier, Dant, and Grewal contributed another study, based on data

collected from business-to-business relationships, to discussion (Palmatier, et al.,

2007, p. 178). Thereby, the contribution concentrated on “a comparative

longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship

performance” (Palmatier, et al., 2007, p. 172). By evaluating evidence from 396

seller-customers exchange dyads across four consecutive years, the authors again

reinforced the mediating role of trust and commitment as well as the positive

effect of trust on commitment. Therefore, results detect that trust and commitment

are immediate precursors of exchange performance, whereas trust has direct and

indirect effects on relationship outcomes (Palmatier, et al., 2007). Furthermore,

the authors proved that environmental dynamism and market diversity,

respectively, moderate the effects of trust and commitment on specific relational

outcomes (e.g., environmental dynamism and market diversity moderate

commitment‟s impact on cooperation) (Palmatier, et al., 2007, p. 183). However,

as on the one hand trust and commitment do not fully mediate the effects of

relational investments on outcomes (cf. Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006)

and on the other hand “only the direct effects of trust, commitment, and

[relationship-specific investments] RSIs remain across all measurement periods

and perspectives (…), commitment, RSIs, and trust are key drivers of relational

outcomes” (Palmatier, et al., 2007, p. 186).

More recently, Barnes, Leonidou, L.C., Siu, and Leonidou, C.N. (2010) conducted

empirical research in a Chinese B2B setting (cf. Keh & Xie, 2009). Specifically,

they conceptualized a model to explore the effects of several extensively

examined constructs (i.e., opportunism, trust, conflict, commitment,

communication, satisfaction, and long-term orientation) in Western exporter-


Hong Kong importer relationships. Barnes et al.‟s (2010) results provide evidence

for a positive and direct effect of trust on commitment, too. Furthermore, the

authors verified a mediating role of trust and commitment. Further findings

document that opportunism diminishes trust, which, in turn, influences

commitment. Consecutively, commitment facilitates satisfaction. ”Surprisingly,

this [Barnes et al.‟s (2010)] study did not confirm the well-documented effect of

trust on satisfaction with the working relationship” (Barnes, et al., 2010, p. 48).

Equally, Leonidou, L.C., Talias, and Leonidou, C.N. (2008) also conducted a

study among international industrial buyer-seller relationships in a B2B context.

“Specifically, the emphasis is on the sources of power exercised and how these

affect trust and commitment in the relationship through the mediating role of

conflict and satisfaction.” (Leonidou, et al., 2008, p. 92). The authors verified that

exercised coercive power increases conflict and decreases satisfaction, whereas, in

contrast, exercised non-coercive power impedes trust. In turn, conflict erodes and

satisfaction enhances trust. Therefore, to avoid harmful and facilitate healthy

relationships the nature of power exerted should be carefully analyzed because it

is important to trace coercive and non-coercive power sources. “Finally, the study

confirmed the repeatedly proved positive effect of trust on commitment” and

concluded “that the nature of the power source exercised plays an instrumental

role in fostering or weakening trust and commitment in international business

relationships, through the mediating role of conflict and satisfaction.” (Leonidou,

et al., 2008, p. 100).

In 2007, a further study in a B2B environment concerning the trust-commitment

relationship has been published by Kingshott and Pecotich (2007). The authors

conceptualized a model based on social exchange theory, which was tested by a

sample of 343 distributor firms within the motorized vehicle industry (Kingshott

& Pecotich, 2007, p. 1053). Results show that the construct of psychological

contracts “have a positive impact upon the level of trust and commitment within

the relationship; however, perceived violations of the contract terms were found to

reduce the distributor‟s level of trust” (Kingshott & Pecotich, 2007, p. 1053).

More specifically, Kingshott and Pecotich (2007) found evidence that

psychological contracts on the one hand directly increase the level of trust and

commitment and that on the other hand the mediating role of trust boosts the


effect of psychological contracts on commitment indirectly. Further results prove

that contract violations decrease the level of trust, while trust positively affects

commitment (Kingshott & Pecotich, 2007, p. 1062). Hence, Kingshott and

Pecotich‟s (2007) “findings are consistent with the growing body of evidence in

the marketing literature highlighting this trust-commitment nexus” (p. 1062).

2.4. Trust and Commitment in B2B Service Industries

Considering that Morgan and Hunt‟s (1994) Commitment-Trust Theory is “a

widely accepted B-to-B relationship marketing paradigm” (Eastlick, Lotz, &

Warrington, 2006, p. 877), Keh and Xie (2009) chose as well a B2B context but

certainly examined services instead of products as the core of relationships. The

authors conceptualized a model within customer trust and customer identification

being mediators between corporate reputation and customer commitment. In turn,

customer commitment is hypothesized to be a direct precursor of the intention to

repeat a purchase and the willingness to pay a price premium (Keh & Xie, 2009,

p. 734). Results, based on data collected from customers of Chinese service firms,

support, among others, all of these relations. In contrast to previous studies

(e.g.,Morgan & Hunt, 1994), Keh and Xie (2009) explored customer identification

instead of trust as the major determinant of commitment (p. 740). “Therefore,

managers should realize that trust is fundamental to buying-selling relationships,

while identification is more effective to retaining customers.” (Keh & Xie, 2009,

p. 740). Nevertheless, as “customers who have deep trust in their providers tend to

continue the relationship” (Keh & Xie, 2009, p. 739), trust still remains as an

important mediating construct and an important precursor of commitment.

Moreover, Keh and Xie‟s (2009) findings demonstrate that corporate reputation is

an important precursor of trust and customer identification.

However, Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) also empirically proved the

positive effect of trust upon the level of commitment, even prior to Morgan and

Hunt (1994). The authors pointed out that trust in a B2B context within

relationships between market researchers and market research users only has

indirect effects on relational outcomes (e.g., utilization of market research

information). Thus, trust acts as a determinant of relationship processes. One of

these processes is the mediation of commitment. More precisely, Moorman et al.

(1992) documented that trust increases commitment, which, in turn, positively


influences the utilization of market research information. Furthermore, results of

empirical tests detect that the effects in interorganizational dyads, as hypothesized

within Moorman et al.‟s (1992) conceptual model, are just a little stronger than in

intraorganizational dyads (p. 314).

A replication and extension of Moorman et al.‟s (1992) study has been conducted

by Grayson and Ambler (1999), who shed some light on the decreasing impact of

trust, commitment, and involvement during the use of services in long-term

relationships. Thereby, the authors on the one hand adapted four key hypotheses

of Moorman et al.‟s (1992) study to a more general service context and on the

other hand added further investigations (Grayson & Ambler, 1999, p. 133). Out of

it, results provide evidence that on the one hand trust again directly fosters

commitment and on the other hand that trust additionally indirectly fosters

commitment through the mediating construct of rising expectations. Though,

further results indicate that the length of a relationship will dampens the impact of

trust. Hence, trust “is a significant predictor of marketing services use in short

relationships but not long ones” (Grayson & Ambler, 1999, p. 135).

Simultaneously to the study of Moorman et al. (1992), not even the replication of

Grayson and Ambler (1999) could

support trust or commitment as antecedents for advertising use, a finding

that seems to run counter to relationship marketing theory. Service

managers seeking to develop trust and commitment with their clients

therefore should recognize that building trust and commitment will not

always have a simple and positive effect on clients‟ use of their services.

(pp. 138-139).

Likewise, Farrelly and Quester (2003) chose the case of sponsorship business-to-

business relationships to be “the focus of an empirical investigation aimed at

uncovering the potential effect of market orientation, exhibited by both parties of

the sponsorship dyad, upon trust and commitment” (p. 530). Thus, this empirical

analysis is a further evidence for the direct and positive relationship between trust

and commitment. Additionally, on the one hand it suggested trust being and

commitment not being a mediating variable. On the other hand it proved that

market orientation influences trust and commitment positively (Farrelly &

Quester, 2003, p. 543).


Furthermore, Tellefsen and Thomas (2005) investigated service firm-business

service customer relationships and confirmed the positive effect of trust on

commitment, too. Though, the authors introduced a refinement in comparison to

Morgan and Hunt (1994), for example. They expanded conceptualizations and

examined the effects of several antecedents on two types of commitment, namely

personal and organizational commitment. The latter “reflects the bond between

the buying and selling firm”, while personal commitment “involves the bond

between the two firms‟ representatives” (Tellefsen & Thomas, 2005, p. 23).

Furthermore, as Tellefsen and Thomas (2005) proved that personal trust fosters

personal commitment, whereas organizational trust strengthens organizational

commitment, they also introduced an expanded conceptualization of trust. Further

results document that on the one hand cost performance increases organizational

commitment and that on the other hand likeability heightens personal

commitment. In addition, findings provide evidence for the positive impact of

dependence and continuity upon the level of both forms of commitment. In turn, a

higher level of either personal or organizational commitment leads to a higher

level of relational exchange (Tellefsen & Thomas, 2005). Thus, the authors‟

contributions imply the importance of including both personal and organizational

levels in the analysis of service business models and the coordination of efforts.

In 2007, a further study of business-to-business relationships in service industries

was published by Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007). The authors‟ empirical

analysis of data collected from a survey of advertising agencies clients

(corporations) again proved that trust fosters relationship commitment (Caceres &

Paparoidamis, 2007, p. 853). To specify, Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007) have

shown that relationship quality mediates the relationship between service quality

and the relationship outcome loyalty (p. 838). Sub-constructs of relationship

quality are relationship satisfaction, trust and, commitment. In addition, trust and

commitment are mediators between relationship satisfaction and loyalty, while

relationship satisfaction additionally mediates the relationship between service

quality and loyalty (Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007, p. 846).

2.5. Trust and Commitment in B2C Service Industries

Similarly, Aurier and N‟Goala (2010) also chose a service industry to investigate

the mediating roles of trust and relationship commitment in service relationships.


But Aurier and N‟Goala (2010), in contrast to the authors mentioned above,

concentrated on a business-to-consumer (B2C) setting. In the face of customer

relationship management (CRM) the authors explored how service companies are

able to influence the effects of overall customer satisfaction (a sub-construct of

service quality), trust, and relationship commitment on patronage behaviors (i.e.,

relationship maintenance and relationship development), which are comparable

with the construct of loyalty (cf. Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007). Aurier and

N‟Goala (2010) used the database of a bank (i.e., a regional branch of Credit

Agricole in the Southwest of France) to develop hypotheses, and tested these

hypotheses using longitudinal research. Results show on the one hand that,

equally to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust has a positive impact on relationship

commitment and on the other hand that the two constructs have different effects

on various outcomes. Therefore, “trust and relationship commitment play

differing and complementary roles” (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2009, p. 15). According

to that, trust influences relationship development, whereas relationship

commitment influences relationship maintenance. “In order to maintain and

develop service relationships, we [the authors] show[ed] that trust and relationship

commitment must be the object of specific and complementary strategies,

depending on the situation of the firm.” (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2009, p. 15). For

instance, trust is important for reaching objectives of a short-term perspective.

Likewise, Eastlick, Lotz, and Warrington (2006) empirically verified the validity

of Morgan and Hunt‟s (1994) Commitment-Trust Theory in online B2C

relationships. Thereby, they have emphasized the critical role of trust and

commitment in exchange relationships (Eastlick, et al., 2006, pp. 883-884). More

precisely, the authors showed that consumers‟ trust in a services e-tailer is

positively affecting their commitment toward the e-tailer. In addition, empirical

results, based on a random sample of Internet subscribers, support the mediating

roles of trust and commitment. Trust mediates the relationship between privacy

concerns as well as services e-tailer reputation and commitment. Hence,

commitment just is a mediator between trust and purchase intent, a relationship

outcome (Eastlick, et al., 2006, p. 878).

Furthermore, Garbarino and Johnson (1999) introduced an interesting point

concerning the Commitment-Trust Theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) as their


“findings indicate not only the generalizability of their theory to a consumer

context, but also identify an important limiting condition” (1999, p. 82). Their

research results, based on a survey of customers of a nonprofit theatre in New

York City, support that trust and commitment only are mediating constructs

between component attitudes and future intentions when customers are highly

relational. In the case of customers showing a low relational orientation it is the

construct of overall satisfaction which mediates the relationship between

component attitudes and future intentions (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999, p. 81).

Therefore, relationship marketing programs which aim to strengthen relationships

with high relational customers should concentrate on increasing trust and

commitment, while transactional marketing programs should focus on enhancing

customer satisfaction (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999, p. 82). In sum, Garbarino and

Johnson (1999) found evidence for the generalization of Morgan and Hunt‟s

(1994) Commitment-Trust Theory to the consumer context with the restriction

that this only is valid for high relational customers.

2.6. Trust and Commitment in Meta-Analysis Encompassing B2B and B2C

Settings

In 1998, Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar contributed some generalizations

about trust in marketing channel relationships. The authors‟ meta-analysis

supports the key mediating role of trust in marketing channels as well as the

positive impact of trust upon the level of long-term orientation, which is

simultaneously stated as commitment (Geyskens, Steenkamp, & Kumar, 1998, p.

242). Besides, Geyskens et al. (1998) identified economic outcomes (as one type

performance outcomes) and communication as the most effective precursors of

trust. Additionally,

main effects that were not significant are also of interest. No evidence is

found that the relations are systematically affected by whether the buyer or

the seller was investigated, the sample consisted of commercial channel

members or end users, involved consumer or industrial products, or the

operationalization of trust included the two facets of honesty and

benevolence or not. (Geyskens, et al., 1998, p. 242).

Moreover, an extensive contribution to the analysis of the trust-commitment

relationship was afforded by Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar (1999). Results

14 3. Contradictions and Modifications of Well-Established Literature Stream

of this meta-analysis provide evidence for the positive effect of trust on

commitment, which is not surprising as some of the previous studies are included

in their meta-analysis. Further results support that conflict within a relationship

decreases trust, while noneconomic satisfaction increases the level of trust

(Geyskens, et al., 1999, p. 232). Moreover, Geyskens et al. (1999) posit that the

positive relationship between trust and commitment has “been overresearched” (p.

234). For this reason, further empirical investigation of this relationship “should

be only to demonstrate that there may be conditions in which [this relationship] do

not hold” (Geyskens, et al., 1999, p. 234). Accordingly, the following section will

introduce some contributions to these conditions.

3. Contradictions and Modifications of Well-Established

Literature Stream

3.1. Inconsistences

Gao, Sirgy, and Bird (2005) emphasized the necessity of being aware of the side

of a dyad being in the core of investigations. They examined constructs relating to

both sides of supplier-buyer relationships in a B2B environment (p. 397). In the

authors‟ conceptual model “buyer trust was treated as both a direct predictor of

[decision-making uncertainty] DMU and a mediating variable for the supplier-

side variables” (Gao, et al., 2005, p. 401). Results confirm the mediating role of

buyer trust between buyer-perceived supplier trust as well as buyer-perceived

supplier commitment on the one hand and buyer DMU on the other hand. In other

words, buyer-perceived supplier commitment fosters buyer trust (Gao, et al.,

2005). Furthermore, buyer-perceived supplier commitment has a supplemental

direct and negative effect on buyer DMU (Gao, et al., 2005, p. 402). Certainly,

when making theoretical propositions it should be considered that the collection

of data only from the buyer-side “assume a certain degree of convergence

between buyer and supplier perceptions of the supplier commitment, supplier

trust, and supplier dependence” (Gao, et al., 2005, p. 404).

Furthermore, Coote, Forrest, and Tam (2003) conceptualized a model within trust

being the mediating variable between three well-established antecedents (i.e.,

communication, conflict, and similarity) and commitment. They tested the


hypothesized paths by analyzing non-Western B2B industrial marketing

relationships (i.e., between Chinese-owned businesses in a regional Asia-pacific

country). Thereby, the authors did not find a significant result for the

hypothesized positive association between trust and commitment, which “is

inconsistent with a premise of relationship marketing and past research” (Coote, et

al., 2003, p. 601). Additionally, results of this analysis do not support the argued

mediating role of trust. In contrast, Coote et al.‟s (2003) findings indicate direct

negative effects of conflict and similarity as well as a direct positive effect of

communication on commitment. Indeed, the associations of the two former

constructs only are significant when the moderating effect of normative contracts

is low. Coote et al. (2003) found the same associations between the three

antecedents and trust with the exception that the impact of similarity upon the

level of trust is positive instead of negative. However, the authors provide some

explanations for their contradicting results, as they emphasized “that the

moderating influence of normative contracting provides a potential explanation

for these inconsistencies” (Coote, et al., 2003, p. 602). On the other hand the

specialized setting may be the limiting factor of the authors‟ findings significance.

Nevertheless, Coote et al.‟s (2003) results imply that “marketing managers should

consider how normative contracts can be developed” (p. 602) and highlight the

importance of communication as well as the danger of conflict (Coote, et al.,

2003).

3.2. Indirect Effect of Trust on Commitment

Moreover, some modifications have been introduced by MacMilllan, Money,K.,

Money,A., and Downing (2005), who transferred the Commitment-Trust Theory

to the not-for-profit sector. MacMillan et al. (2005) used Morgan and Hunt‟s

(1994) KMV model as basis for the development of an adapted model. For this

reason, the KMV model “was amended to include both material and nonmaterial

benefits (…) with trust being an antecedent of nonmaterial benefits. As noted

above, outcome variables were also excluded.” (MacMillan, et al., 2005, p. 810).

The main difference of MacMillan et al.‟s (2005) model, in comparison to the

KMV model, is the introduction of the non-material benefits construct as a

mediator between trust and commitment (p. 810). Thus, for case of business-to-


business relationships in the non-profit sector results indicate that trust only has an

indirect impact upon the level of commitment (MacMillan, et al., 2005, p. 811).

Likewise, Brashear, Boles, Bellenger, and Books (2003) verified an indirect effect

of trust upon the level of commitment in a specific B2B setting (p. 197). The

authors examined precursors and outcomes of interpersonal trust in internal sales

manager-salesperson relationships (Brashear, et al., 2003, p. 189). Tests of

hypothesized paths within their conceptual model showed that shared values and

managerial respect, both, have a significant positive effect on salesperson trust.

Increasing trust enhances job satisfaction and the level of social norms of the

exchange, which both, in turn, lead to a higher level of organizational

commitment. In other words, in the examined context the constructs job

satisfaction and relationalism, both, mediate the link between salesperson trust

and organizational commitment (Brashear, et al., 2003, p. 195). However,

Brashear et al. (2003) stressed that differences in findings, in comparison to

previous studies (e.g., the interfirm relationships in a channel-of-distribution

context examined by Morgan and Hunt (1994)) “may reflect context-specific

trust-building processes” (Brashear, et al., 2003, p. 195).

3.3. More Differentiated View of Trust and Commitment

Operationalization of trust. Ganesan (1994) conceptualized and empirically

tested a model within trust and dependence being mediators between several

antecedents and the construct of long-term orientation (p. 2). The latter is referred

to be commitment (Anderson & Weitz, 1992). Hence, long-term orientation is

seen as a synonym of commitment (Ganesan, 1994). Moreover, Ganesan (1994)

investigated the effects of trust in a B2B context using a multidimensional

approach. Thereby, the author operationalized trust by its major dimensions

credibility and benevolence (Ganesan, 1994, p. 3). For testing the conceptual

model the author collected and analyzed data from two different perspectives, a

retailer and a vendor perspective (Ganesan, 1994, p. 1). With regard to previous

findings, Ganesan‟s (1994) analysis provides one crucial result. Only one

dimension of trust, namely credibility, has a significant effect on long-term

orientation, whereas the other dimension, benevolence, do not (Ganesan, 1994, p.


2). In other words, the multidimensional approach of trust yielded that only

credibility and not benevolence fosters long-term orientation or commitment,

respectively. Further results indicate “that the effect of dependence on long-term

orientation is affected by the channel role. Retailers are likely to have a long-term

orientation with a vendor on whom they are dependent”, while “vendors are likely

to develop long-term orientation only if the retailer is highly dependent on them”

(Ganesan, 1994, p. 12).

The construct of trust is in the focus of Ganesan and Hess‟s (1997) study, too. The

authors highlighted the importance of a more differentiated view of “trust as a

multi-dimensional construct” (Ganesan & Hess, 1997, p. 439). Therefore, they

distinguished among the levels (interpersonal, organizational) and dimensions

(credibility, benevolence) of trust. Consequently, Ganesan and Hess (1997)

applied these differentiated view for their empirical research. Regression analyses

only have shown significant paths between organizational benevolence as well as

interpersonal credibility and commitment. In other words, organizational

credibility and interpersonal benevolence do not have a significant impact on

commitment (Ganesan & Hess, 1997, p. 445).

In 2005, Johnson and Grayson also operationalized trust more differentiated. The

authors‟ “study has produced moderate evidence in favor of conceptualizing trust

as having cognitive and affective dimensions in financial service exchanges”,

which may in a B2C context “be fruitful for exploring the managerial benefits of

trust” (Johnson & Grayson, 2005, p. 505). “Cognitive trust is a customer‟s

confidence or willingness to rely on a service provider‟s competence and

reliability.” (Johnson & Grayson, 2005, p. 501). Whereas, the emotion-driven

element of affective trust is the “confidence one places in a partner”, which is

“characterized by feelings of security and perceived strength of the relationship”

(Johnson & Grayson, 2005, p. 501). Moreover, Johnson and Grayson (2005)

empirically showed that affective and cognitive trust are influenced by different

antecedents and, in turn, also lead to different consequences (Johnson & Grayson,

2005, p. 505).

Operationalization of commitment. However, Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer,

and Kumar (1996) considered some modifications and contradictions of Morgan


and Hunt‟s (1994) Commitment-Trust Theory. In their study the authors focused

on business-to-business relationships to examine the effects of the attitudinal

factor trust and the structural element interdependence on relationship

commitment, as central constructs of relationship marketing. Additionally, the

authors argued that the effects of these two constructs on relationship commitment

“are more complex than revealed by previous findings” (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p.

302). Hence, Geyskens et al. (1996) subclassified the concept of relationship

commitment by operationalizing two types of commitment, namely affective and

calculative commitment, which “clearly arise from different motivations for

maintaining a relationship” (p. 302). Affective commitment which has been solely

in the focus of past channel studies, e.g., Morgan and Hunt (1994), is an

attachment to or a positive regard for an organization (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p.

304) and “expresses the extent to which channel members like to maintain their

relationship with specific partners” (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p. 303). In contrast,

calculative commitment “results from a „cold‟ calculation of costs and benefits,

including an assessment of the investments made in the relationship and the

availability of alternatives to replace or make up for the foregone investments”

(Geyskens, et al., 1996, pp. 304-305). Besides, calculative commitment “measures

the degree to which channel members experience the need to maintain a

relationship” (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p. 303). Nevertheless, as definitions apply

“organizational behavior literature has typically conceptualized affective

commitment and calculative commitment as being independent” (Geyskens, et al.,

1996, p. 305). Moreover, the authors split up the construct of channel

interdependence structure and operationalized this construct by using the two sub-

constructs total interdependence and interdependence asymmetry (cf. Kumar,

Scheer, & Steenkamp, 1995). For their empirical analysis, the authors collected

data from automobile dealers in the United States and the Netherlands to

investigate the dealers‟ relationship to their suppliers (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p.

309). Results provide evidence that trust and interdependence have different

effects on relationship commitment. Thus, calculative commitment heightens

when total interdependence increases or rather trust in the supplier decreases.

Further, calculative commitment increases for the more dependent party and

decreases for the less dependent channel member when interdependence

asymmetry increases (Geyskens, et al., 1996). Results also show that trust and


total interdependence positively impact affective commitment, though results do

not indicate significance for the negative effect of interdependence asymmetry on

affective commitment (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p. 313). Nevertheless, “the negative

effects of interdependence asymmetry on affective commitment are mitigated by

trust” (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p. 309). Hence, findings indicate a moderating role

of trust on dependence asymmetry for both channel partners (Geyskens, et al.,

1996, p. 309). In sum, calculative commitment “is affected more strongly by the

interdependence structure of the relationship than is affective commitment, while

trust has a stronger effect on affective commitment than on calculative

commitment” (Geyskens, et al., 1996, p. 314). However, Geyskens et al. (1996)

also hypothesized a “positive interaction effect between trust and interdependence

asymmetry” (p. 313), which was confirmed by further significant results (cf.

Andaleeb, 1996).

As Gounaris (2005) investigated relationships between service providers and their

customers, the author‟s study focused on a more specific setting in a B2B context

(Gounaris, 2005, p. 125). In this study Gounaris (2005) explored on the one hand

the mediating role of trust between two antecedents (i.e., service quality and

customer bonding) and affective as well as calculative commitment. On the other

hand the author examined the mediating role of affective and calculative

commitment between trust and propensity to invest in as well as maintain a

relation (Gounaris, 2005, p. 133). Equally to Geyskens et al. (1996), Gounaris

(2005) proved that trust on the one hand directly enhances affective commitment

and on the other hand directly diminishes calculative commitment. Thus, the

author contributed to generalization of these associations as he empirical

confirmed Geyskens et al.‟s (1996) findings in B2B service industries (Gounaris,

2005, p. 134).. Moreover, Gounaris (2005) verified that both antecedents, service

quality and customer bonding, have a positive impact upon the level of trust (p.

234). Due to the fact that only affective commitment and not calculative

commitment has a significant and positive effect on both relationship outcomes,

practitioners should concentrate on developing affective instead of calculative

commitment, which requires mutual trust. “Gaining such trust frequently requires

relaxing dependency-creating mechanisms, and it certainly requires a strong

adherence on quality and customer bonding.” (Gounaris, 2005, p. 136).


In 2001, de Ruyter, Moorman, and Lemmink published their results, which are

similar to the findings of Geyskens et al. (1996), too. Although, the authors

explored supplier-customer relationships in high-technology markets, “a highly

specialized and idiosyncratic setting” (de Ruyter, Moorman, & Lemmink, 2001, p.

282), they also verified that in a B2B context trust increases affective and

decreases calculative commitment. Additionally, de Ruyter et al. (2001) proved

that a relationship building block, including trust, affective, and calculative

commitment, mediates the effects of all antecedents (i.e., offer, relationship, and

market characteristics) on loyalty intention, a relationship outcome (p. 281).

Therefore, since “affective commitment and trust play such an essential role in

customer relationships, marketers of high-technology products are advised to

emphasize activities and initiatives that promote positive feelings of affiliation”

(de Ruyter, et al., 2001, p. 283).

More recently, Cater and Zabkar (2009) adapted Geyskens et al.‟s (1996)

conceptualization of commitment. Though, they expanded Geyskens et al.‟s

(1996) operationalization and hypothesized affective, calculative, and normative

commitment as mediating variables within their model. For clarity, the authors

concentrated on B2B services provider-customer relationships as research setting

to investigate the effects of trust, satisfaction, and social bonds on affective,

calculative, and normative commitment. In turn, they examined the effects of

these three types of commitment on loyalty, a relational outcome. In favor, Cater

and Zabkar (2009) defined normative commitment as a moral “attachment due to

felt obligations” (p. 786). The authors‟ results provide evidence that only affective

commitment is positively influenced by all three antecedents and, in turn, solely

affects loyalty. Furthermore, the results show that satisfaction is the sole

antecedent which influences normative and calculative commitment, in fact in a

negative direction. As significant results document, affective commitment also

fosters normative commitment (Cater & Zabkar, 2009). However, due to the lack

of significant results, Cater and Zabkar‟s (2009) study do not support the claim of

previous studies (e.g., Geyskens et al., 1996; Gounaris, 2005 and de Ruyter at al.,

2001), which indicate that trust negatively affects calculative commitment.

Indeed, it “seems that trust fulfills a different role in professional business

21 4. Further Aspects Concerning Trust and Commitment in Relationship Marketing

services compared to business products” (Cater & Zabkar, 2009, p. 793), which

might explain these inconsistencies. Moreover, the

results of this study thus confirm the dominant role of affective

commitment and the nonsignificant role of calculative and normative

commitment in marketing relationships. This provides additional support

for the body of empirical literature on commitment in marketing

relationships that have all included affective commitment (in most cases

implicitly measured with a global commitment scale) (Cater & Zabkar,

2009, p. 793).

4. Further Aspects Concerning Trust and Commitment in

Relationship Marketing

4.1. Precursors and Consequences of Trust and Commitment

In 1993, Moorman, Deshpandé, and Zaltman extensively examined possible

antecedents of trust in B2B market research relationships. Their comprehensive

research has included “individual, interpersonal, organizational,

interorganizational/interdepartmental, and project factors” (Moorman, et al., 1993,

p. 81) as possible trust affecting constructs. Moorman et al.‟s (1993) findings

demonstrate that “the interpersonal factors are the most predictive of trust” (p.

81). More precisely, researcher‟s perceived integrity, willingness to reduce

research uncertainty, and confidentiality are the most important predictors of trust

(Moorman, et al., 1993, p. 93). Thus, “trust may be more a function of

interpersonal factors than of individual factors” (Moorman, et al., 1993, p. 93). In

general, the authors provide evidence “that the effects of various characteristics on

trust do not generally change across different types of research relationships”

(Moorman, et al., 1993, p. 95). This stability and generalizability also implies that

their conceptualizations “may be applicable to other information-based

relationships and perhaps to other relationships more generally” (Moorman, et al.,

1993, p. 95).

In a more recent study Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans (2006) “systematically

review[ed] and analyze[d] the literature on relational mediators in a meta-analytic

framework” (p. 137). In doing so, the authors reinforced the mediating role of


trust and commitment between customer-focused, seller-focused as well as dyadic

antecedents and relationship marketing effectiveness as all-embracing construct of

several outcomes (Palmatier, et al., 2006, p. 137). Nevertheless, the relationship

between trust and commitment has not been in the focus of this study. Indeed,

Palmatier et al. (2006) emphasized important precursors of, and outcomes

influenced by both constructs. According to the authors‟ findings relationship

investment has a minimal impact on commitment, whereas relationship benefits

have the greatest effect on commitment. Dependence also has a great impact on

commitment, but a limited on trust. Likewise, similarity has a greater effect on

commitment than on trust. In addition, interaction frequency influences trust more

than any of the other three mediators (Palmatier, et al., 2006). To turn to the

outcomes, Palmatier et al. (2006) detected that commitment has the greatest effect

on customer loyalty, while trust “is most critical for cooperation compared with

the other mediators” (p. 249). Furthermore, the investigations of the moderators‟

effects within the causal model lead, inter alia, to some managerial implications.

In fact, commitment has a stronger impact on the expectation of continuity in

consumer than in business markets.

Furthermore, consumers‟ perceived relationship investment has been in the focus

of De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, and Iacobucci‟s (2001) study, in which the

authors analyzed retailer-consumer relationships of a multi-country and multi-

industry sample. The study‟s results confirmed a positive effect of consumer

perceived relationship investment on relationship quality. Thereby, the authors

conceptualized the latter as a global measure composed of three dimensions,

namely trust, commitment, and satisfaction. In turn, De Wulf et al. (2001) found a

positive impact of relationship quality upon the level of behavior loyalty.

However, results also indicate that higher product category involvement as well as

higher consumer relationship proneness boosts the effect of perceived relationship

investment on relationship quality. But how can marketing practitioners increase

consumers‟ perception of relationship investment? For solving this objective, De

Wulf et al. (2001) examined the effects of several relationship marketing tactics

on perceived relationship investment. For instance, findings suggest that

“preferential treatment is less valued by the consumer” (De Wulf, et al., 2001, p.

46). In contrast, “interpersonal communication proved to be a dominant


determinant of perceived relationship investment (…), an observation that is

sensible given that relationships are inherently social” (De Wulf, et al., 2001, p.

46).

4.2. Further Aspects

Trust and commitment in the process of relationship development. In 1987,

Dwyer, Schurr and Oh introduced first ideas of the following research stream in

relationship marketing (vide supra). In their study, the authors emphasized the

necessity for differentiating discrete transaction and relational exchanges. Hence,

Dwyer et al. (1987) focused their investigations on long-term relationships and

conceptualized a framework which structures the process of relationship

development in phases. Moreover, the authors pointed out that trust, commitment,

and disengagement are critical constructs in the process of relationship

development (Dwyer, et al., 1987, p. 22). They highlighted the importance of

trust, as they conceptualized this construct as a rudiment of the subprocess

“expectations development” within the phases of exploration and expansion

(Dwyer, et al., 1987, p. 18). Consequently, after the phases of exploration and

expansions it follows commitment, as a phase, in the relationship development

process conceptualized by Dwyer et al. (1987). Thus, the importance of

commitment within the relationship development process is highlighted due to the

fact that it is structured as a separate phase.

This results have partly been reinforced by Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra

(2002). The authors analyzed archival and survey data of B2C services provider-

customer relationships to investigate the moderating effect of relationship age (cf.

Grayson & Ambler, 1999). Verhoef et al. (2002) have not found evidence for a

time-dependent effect of trust in this B2C environment, in contrast to Grayson and

Ambler (1999), who proved such an effect in a B2B context. “With respect to the

number of services purchased, a moderating effect of relationship age on the

effect of affective commitment, calculative commitment, and satisfaction is

found.” (Verhoef, et al., 2002, p. 211). Thus, investments in affective commitment

in all relationship phases may be worthwhile, especially in later phases of the

relationship (Verhoef, et al., 2002, p. 212).


General environmental influences. As China or the Chinese market,

respectively, becomes more and more important, Luo, Hsu, and Liu (2008)

contributed a study focusing on institutional environments in this state. The

authors examined the moderating roles of channel as well as governmental

networking on the effects within the customer orientation-customer

trust/commitment-firm performance (CTP) causal chain (Luo et al., 2008, p.202).

Results, based on data covering a business-to-business and business-to-consumer

context, provide evidence for positive linear moderating effects of channel

networking. Indeed, the moderating effects of governmental networking is most

valuable for a firm at a moderate rather than a high or low level (Luo, et al., 2008,

p. 210). Nevertheless, Luo et al.‟s (2008) findings “show that customer orientation

indirectly boosts firm performance in China through the mediator of

trust/commitment” (p. 210). To sum up, the authors‟ findings indicate that on the

one hand stronger channel relationships increases trust and commitment and, on

the other hand, “that governmental networking may not always be functional and

advantageous for a firm” (Luo, et al., 2008, p. 211).

Further key constructs of relationship marketing. However, another

contribution of Palmatier et al.‟s (2006) meta-analysis (vide supra) has been the

initiation for further research. As Palmatier et al. (2006) revealed, the direct effect

of relationship marketing investments on objective performance outcomes is

greater than the effect mediated by trust and commitment. Consequently

Palmatier, Jarvis, Bechkoff, and Kardes (2009) explored the role of gratitude as

possible further mediator (p. 1). For clarity, the authors conceptualized a model

with trust, commitment, and two sub-constructs of gratitude (i.e., feelings of

gratitude and gratitude-based reciprocal behaviors) being mediators between

relationship investments and seller performance outcomes (e.g., customer

purchase intentions, share of wallet, sales revenue, sales growth). But, within this

model a direct effect of trust on any outcome measure has not been hypothesized

(Palmatier, et al., 2009, p. 5). For testing the proposed hypotheses Palmatier et al.

(2009) conducted two studies, which covered a B2C as well as a B2B setting to

make results generalizable (Palmatier, et al., 2009, p. 7). Results on the one hand

provide evidence for a mediating effect of customer gratitude on seller

performance which “remains greater than the effect of commitment on these same

25 5. Discussion

outcomes” (Palmatier, et al., 2009, p. 13). On the other hand, results of the

replication confirm the positive impact of trust upon the level of commitment

(Palmatier, et al., 2009, p. 12). “In addition to its mediating role, gratitude

increases a customer‟s trust in the seller, both strengthening the quality of the

relationship and positively affecting seller outcomes through trust‟s influence on

performance-enhancing commitment.” (Palmatier, et al., 2009, p. 13). Thus,

relationship marketing effectiveness can be increased by leveraging gratitude.

5. Discussion

In conclusion, a lot of empirical research proved the positive and direct impact of

trust upon the level of commitment. All the research has covered a wide spectrum

of settings, which contributed to the generalization of this association.

Accordingly, this generalization is transferable to buyer-seller relationships in a

business-to-business environment. Specifically, empirical evidence has been

found on the one hand for services (Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007; Farrelly &

Quester, 2003; Grayson & Ambler, 1999; Keh & Xie, 2009; Moorman et al.,

1992; Tellefsen & Thomas, 2005) and on the other for products (Andaleeb, 1996;

Kingshott & Pecotich, 2007; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2007) as

core of these relationships. Additionally, the trust-commitment link in the product

case has even been proved in an international context (Barnes et al., 2010;

Leonidou et al., 2008). Moreover, empirical findings also indicate the

generalizability of the Commitment-Trust Theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) to

business-to-consumer relationships in service industries (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010;

Eastlick et al., 2006; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999).

As the exception proves the rule, Gao et al. (2005) verified a positive effect of

commitment on trust for B2B buyer-supplier dyads. For clarity, the authors

considered both sides of the exchange dyad within their conceptual model and

detected that buyer perceived supplier commitment fosters buyer‟s trust in the

supplier (Gao, et al., 2005). Furthermore, Coote et al.‟s (2003) findings show

some inconsistencies. More specifically, for non-Western industrial marketing

relationships (i.e., between Chinese-owned businesses in a regional Asia-pacific

country) the authors have not found significant results neither for the positive and

direct effect of trust on commitment nor for the mediating role of trust. However,

26 5. Discussion

the authors have qualified their inconsistent results by providing some

explanations (i.e., research setting and context) (Coote, et al., 2003). Only an

indirect impact of trust on commitment in a B2B context has been found for the

non-profit sector (MacMillan, et al., 2005) as well as for internal sales manager-

salesperson relationships (Brashear, et al., 2003).

Moreover, several studies have emphasized the necessity of a more differentiated

view of trust and commitment. Consequently, Cater and Zabkar (2009)

subclassified commitment and used the three dimensions of this construct, namely

affective, calculative, and normative commitment, for operationalization.

Empirical evidence for a positive and direct association between trust and

affective commitment explicitly is provided for a B2B environment in the

automobile industry (Geyskens, et al., 1996), service industries (Cater & Zabkar

2009; Gounaris, 2005), and high technology markets (de Ruyter, et al., 2001). All

except Cater and Zabkar (2009) also found a negative impact of trust upon the

level of calculative commitment. Indeed, Cater and Zabkar (2009) solely

operationalized normative commitment as one sub-construct of commitment,

though the authors have not found a significant effect of trust on normative

commitment. As a result, Cater and Zabkar (2009) pointed out “that out of the

three components of commitment affective commitment is on average the main

motivator for continuing the relationship” (p. 791). Therefore, to create closeness

within the relationship of two channel partners, managers should concentrate on

increasing affective commitment instead of calculative or normative commitment,

which again stresses the importance of trust, a major precursor of affective

commitment (Geyskens, et al., 1996).

Likewise, Ganesan (1994) operationalized trust by using its two major dimensions

credibility and benevolence. The author‟s results show that in a B2B setting only

credibility but not benevolence enhances long-term orientation or commitment,

respectively. Moreover, Ganesan and Hess (1997) expanded this

operationalization and additionally distinguished between the levels (i.e.,

organizational and interpersonal) of trust. In line, Grayson and Johnson (2005)

argued that in a B2C setting operationalizing trust as having an affective and a

cognitive dimension is advisable because both sub-constructs may have different

precursors and outcomes.

27 5. Discussion

As the key role of trust and commitment in relationship marketing is well

established (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994), it becomes clear that practitioners

should concentrate on enhancing both constructs in order to develop successful

and healthy relationships. But what benefits in detail result out of trust and

commitment? However, since trust is the major determinant of commitment (e.g.,

Morgan & Hunt, 1994), the consequences of commitment indicate the advantages

of harmonious relationships. In B2C markets healthy relationships lead to ongoing

customer purchase intentions (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010; Eastlick et al., 2006;

Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Palmatier et al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2009; Verhoef

et al., 2002), customer referrals (Palmatier et al., 2006; Verhoef et al., 2002), and

loyalty (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010; De Wulf et al., 2001; Palmatier et al., 2006).

The latter also is an outcome of harmonious relationships in B2B settings

(Caceres Paparoidamis, 2007; Cater & Zabkar, 2009; de Ruyter et al., 2001).

Further important positive outcomes in B2B environments are higher

effectiveness (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2009; Perry et al., 2004),

greater performance (Palmatier et al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2007; Palmatier et al.,

2009), and a higher amount of cooperation (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et

al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the development of trust remains

as a dominant source of successful and healthy relationships. Hence, to benefit

from prior relationship outcomes, for practitioners it is important to know how to

build trustful relationships. Thus, the identification of main precursors of trust

should be used to derive managerial implications and to adopt an effective

strategy (Cater & Zabkar, 2009). Consequently, on B2C markets a high quality of

the product (Johnson & Grayson, 2005) or service (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010),

respectively, is important to win trustworthy customers. However, a major

precursor of trust is satisfaction not even on B2C markets (Aurier & N‟Goala,

2010; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Grayson, 2005) but also in B2B

environments (Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007; Ganesan, 1994; Geyskens et al.,

1999; Leonidou et al., 2008). In a B2B context relationships usually are direct and

intensive channel dyads. Therefore, similarity and shared values, respectively, are

important to create satisfaction and primarily trust (Brashear et al., 2003; Coote et

al., 2003; MacMillan et al., 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006).

For example, Brashear et al. (2003) stressed “that shared values should be a key

focus of trust building in this context” (p. 197). To ensure that channel partners

28 5. Discussion

share values, expectations, and common goals communication between both dyad

sides is important. Hence, appropriate and regular communication facilitates trust

(Coote et al., 2003; de Ruyter et al., 2001; Geyskens et al., 1998; MacMillan et

al., 2005; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). For instance, normally

conflict erodes trust within a channel relationship (Coote et al., 2003; Geyskens et

al., 1998; Leonidou et al., 2008), but when the degree and the quality of the

communication between the channel partners is high, the experience of solved

problems enhances trust (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Moreover, relationship

investments strengthen trust (De Wulf et al., 2001; Ganesan, 1994; Palmatier et

al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2007; Palmatier et al., 2009), in fact that of both dyad

sides. On the one hand, relationship investments increase the investor‟s

interdependence, which generates relevance for the existence of trust (Kumar et

al., 1995). Thus, “it is an intention to become more deeply involved in the

relationship through investments of capital and effort” (Kumar, et al., 1995, p.

351). On the other hand, higher total interdependence decreases the investor‟s

incentive to engage in opportunism. This is perceived by the counterpart of the

dyad and thus increases the channel partner‟s trust in the investor (Barnes et al.,

2010; Kumar et al., 1995; MacMillan et al., 2005; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;

Palmatier et al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2007). In contrast, if relationship

investments cause interdependence asymmetry within a dyad, the investor‟s trust

will decrease because the probability that the counterpart behaves

opportunistically will increase (Kumar et al., 1995; Palmatier et al., 2007).

“Hence, though high, symmetric interdependence does not directly create trust or

commitment, it does create an intrachannel environment in which trust and

commitment can be cultivated and flourish because of the convergence of the

partners‟ interests.” (Kumar, et al., 1995, p. 350). However, investments of time,

effort, and capital remain as an efficient instrument to signal the willingness and

credibility to sustain a relationship (Gao et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 1995;

Leonidou et al., 2008;).

Moreover, as Dwyer et al. structured relationship development into phases, they

pointed out that the development of trust and commitment is related to different

time horizons. For this reason, from a managerial perspective it is important to

29 5. Discussion

know the time orientation of customers for the selection and use of marketing

tools, corresponding to the time characteristics (Ganesan, 1994).

Furthermore, interpersonal relationships are stronger and more efficient than

organizational relationships (Barnes et al., 2010; Cater & Zabkar, 2009; Moorman

et al., 1993; Palmatier et al., 2006; Tellefsen & Thomas, 2005). “Therefore, the

management of interpersonal relationships is important for the development of a

marketing relationship.” (Cater & Zabkar, 2009, p. 794). For instance, this

highlights the value of “strong business friendships” (Cater & Zabkar, 2009, p.

794) and implies that representatives of service firms, besides product knowledge

and technical skills, should also hold good interpersonal skills (Tellefsen &

Thomas, 2005). Moreover, Barnes et al. (2010) indicated that frequent personal

visits could be a supporting instrument in developing strong relational ties with a

Chinese channel partner. Additionally, they stressed “the crucial role of carefully

selecting appropriate partners in international business” (Barnes, et al., 2010, p.

52).

Luo et al. (2008) argued that in China also governmental networking on a

moderate level is relevant for long-term relationship success, which demonstrates

that, depending on the environmental setting, further general environmental

aspects might be important to consider.

Finally, “other variables could be considered to be as important as trust” (Coote,

et al., 2003, p. 602). Cater and Zabkar (2009), for example, showed that in

professional service relationships in B2B markets satisfaction is a further

important determinant of commitment. The same result was detected by Brashear

et al. (2003) for internal sales manager-salesperson relationships in a B2B context.

And even the key mediating role of trust and commitment in long-term

relationships may be augmented by further constructs in specific environments.

Palmatier et al. (2006) detected that not all of the antecedents‟ impact on

outcomes is mediated by trust and commitment. Consequently, Palmatier et al.

(2009) argued and empirically proved that gratitude in a B2B as well as in a B2C

context additionally mediates the effect of antecedents on outcomes.

30 Appendix A

Appendix A

Figure 1: The KMV Model of Relationship Marketing (Morgan & Hunt, 1994)

Appendix B

Table 1: Overview of included studies

Studies confirming:

trust supports

commitment (Morgan

& Hunt, 1994)

Andaleeb (1996); Aurier & N‟Goala (2010); Barnes et

al. (2010); Caceres & Paparoidamis (2007); Eastlick et

al. (2006); Farrelly & Quester (2003); Ganesan & Hess

(1997); Garbarino & Johnson (1999); Geyskens et al.

(1998); Geyskens et al. (1999); Grayson & Ambler

(1999); Keh & Xie (2009); Kingshott & Pecotich

(2007); Leonidou et al. (2008); Moorman et al. (1992);

Morgan & Hunt (1994); Palmatier et al. (2007); Perry et

al. (2004); Tellefsen & Thomas (2005)

Studies inconsistent

to (Morgan & Hunt,

1994)

Brashear et al. (2003); Cater & Zabkar (2009); Coote et

al. (2003); de Ruyter et al. (2001); Ganesan (1994); Gao

et al. (2005); Geyskens et al. (1996); Gounaris (2005);

MacMillan et al. (2005)

Studies with other

focus of investigations

De Wulf et al. (2001); Dwyer et al. (1987); Johnson &

Grayson (2005); Kumar et al. (1995); Luo et al. (2008);

Moorman et al. (1993); Palmatier et al. (2006);

Palmatier et al. (2009); Verhoef et al. (2002)

31 Appendix B

Table 2: Findings consistent: Trust supports Commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994)

Study

[journal; vhb ranking;

Impact factor; times

cited (see ISI WoK)]

Type of the Model (Direct) Antecedents

of Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;

n.s.= no sign. result)

(Direct) Outcomes of

Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;


Design/Methodology

/Approach /Empirical

Setting

Important Differences

/ Aspects with regard

to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Moorman et al. (1992)

[JMR;A+;3.01;471]

Commitment (C)

mediates the

relationship between

antecedents and

utilization of market

research information;

moderating effects of

individual differences

and organizational

differences;

Trust (T): none

mentioned;

C: T (+)*, perceived

quality of interactions

(+)*, researcher

involvement in

research activities

(+)n.s.;

T: utilization of market

research information

(+)n.s., perceived

quality of interactions

(+)*, C (+)*, researcher

involvement in

research activities (+)*;

C: utilization of market

research information

(+)n.s.;

B2B; Sample of

providers and users of

market research

information (number of

usable respondents:779 ;

response rate:45.3%); 3

user groups: marketing

managers, marketing

researchers,

nonmarketing managers;

User Trust in

Researcher (T)

Commitment to

relationship (C);

specific research

setting; moderating

effects;

An.: early study, first

significant result for:

T+C;

Im.: - T supports C, - T

acts as a determinant of

relationship processes, -

C reduces researcher‟s

incentive to perform and

encourage a lack of

consistency in researcher

behavior;

Morgan & Hunt (1994)

[JM;A+;3.78;1743]

Trust (T) &

Commitment (C) =

key mediating

constructs of

relationship

marketing; T

determinant of C;

T: Shared Values

(+)*, Communication

(+)*, Opportunistic

Behavior (-)*;

C: Shared Values

(+)*, Relationship

Benefits (+)n.s.,

Relationship

Termination Costs

(+)*, T (+)*;

T: Cooperation (+)*,

Functional Conflict

(+)*, Uncertainty (-)*,

C (+)*;

C: Cooperation (+)*,

Propensity to Leave (-

)*, Acquiescence (+)*;

B2B; Sample (number of


response rate:14.6%) of

national automobile tire

retailers within the

National Tire Dealers

and Retreaters

Association in the US;

Commitment-Trust

Theory of Relationship

Marketing; KMV

model;

Im.: - identifying T & C

is critical to the study

and management of

relationship marketing,

- T & C are key to

understanding the

development process;

32 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)

Study Type of the Model (Direct) Antecedents

of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Andaleeb (1996)

[JR;A;4.57;80 in

ebsco]

Trust (T) determinant

of Commitment (C);

no mediating

variables; interaction

effect of T and

dependence on C ;

T: none mentioned;

C: T (+)*,

Dependence (+)*;

T: Satisfaction (+)*, C

(+)*;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; experimental

study; Sample of sales

and purchasing

managers, who had

considerable experience

in negotiating

transactions with other

organizations (number of

usable respondents: 72);

contrived manufacturer

(supplier)-distributor

(buyer) relationship;

Separate and joint

effects of T and

dependence on C and

satisfaction, strong

influence of T on C and

satisfaction;

An.: T and dependence

will remain central to

explain exchange

relationships and

behaviors;

Im.: - effective

management of exchange

relationships requires

organizations to focus on

building and managing T

along with power, - T as

central concern for

success of long-term

relationship;

Ganesan & Hess

(1997)

[ML;B;0.56;39 in

ebsco]

Trust (T) and

especially

Commitment (C) are

mediators between

several antecedents

and outcomes, which

are partly not

mentioned;

T: none mentioned;

C: T [interpersonal

benevolence (+)n.s.,

interpersonal

credibility (+)*,

organizational

benevolence (+)*,

organizational

credibility (+)n.s.];

T: C (+)*;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; Mail survey

(number of usable

respedents:124 ;

response rate:83%) of

retail buyers from

department store chains

with annual sales ranging

from $200-800, five

retailing firms;

multidimensional view

of trust (cf. Ganesan,

1994), distinction

among the different

dimensions (credibility,

benevolence) and

levels (interpersonal,

organizational) of trust;

An.: interpersonal trust

has a different effect on

commitment compared to

organizational trust;

Im.: - multidimensional

view of T more

differentiated view of T,

- salesreps should be

credible through superior

job performance, - firms

should make short-term

sacrifices to engender

benevolence based on T;

33 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Geyskens et al.(1998)

[IJRM;A; 1.87;126]

Trust (T) as a key

mediator between

antecedents and

outcomes; Long-term

Orientation (LtO)

[=Commitment (C)]

as a relationship

outcome of T;

T: Environmental

uncertainty (-)*, Own

dependence (0)*,

Partner‟s coercive

power use (-)*,

Communication (+)*,

Econ. outcomes (+)*;

C: T (+)*,

Environmental

uncertainty (-)*, Own

dependence (0)*,

Partner‟s coercive

power use (-)*,

Communication (+)*,

Econ. outcomes (+)*;

T: Satisfaction (+)*,

LtO (+)*;

LtO: none mentioned;

B2B & B2C; Meta-

analysis which examines

the role of T in

marketing channel

relationships; 26

independent samples

reported in 23 articles

(subjects in total: 4548)

Contribution of some

generalizations about T

in marketing channels:

mediating role of T, T

is central to

relationship marketing;

no evidence for the

relevance of

investigations such as

buyer vs. seller side,

and B2B vs. B2C, or

operationalization of

the 2 facets of T in

isolation or in one

global measure;

An.: 0= no consensus on

causality; Commitment

(C) = Long-term

orientation (LtO) -

synonyms;

Im.: - building T is an

important organizational

goal (a very effective

way to increase

satisfaction & LtO), -

managerial focus on

sentiments, actions, and

economic outcomes may

be most effective;

Garbarino & Johnson

(1999)

[JM;A+;3.78;399]

H:Trust (T) &

Commitment (C) are

mediators between

component attitudes

and future intentions;

C mediator between

T & future intentions;

L: T & C outcomes

of mediator overall

satisfaction;

H: T: Component

attitudes [(actor

satisfaction (+)*,

actor familiarity (+)*,

play attitudes (+)*,

theater attitudes

(+)n.s.];

C: T (+)*,Component

attitudes [(actor

satisfaction (+)n.s.,

actor familiarity (+)*,

play attitudes (+)*,

theater attitudes

(+)n.s.];

L:T & C: overall

satisfaction (+)*;

H: T: C (+), future

intensions (+)*;

C: future intensions

(+)*;

L: T & C: none

B2C; Survey (number of


response rate: 40%) of

the customers of a

nonprofit New York off-

Broadway repertory

theater company

distinction between

customers with high

(H) and low (L)

relational orientations,

T+C and T &

C=mediators only for

high relational

customers (H);

Im.: - differences in the

level of T & C for low

and high relational

customers, - L:

transactional marketing

programs with focus on

satisfaction more

effective, - H:

Relationship marketing

should focus on

maintaining and building

T & C, not satisfaction;

34 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Geyskens et al. (1999)

[JMR;A+;3.01;150]

Trust (T) mediator

between conflict as

well as noneconomic

satisfaction and

commitment (C);

C final outcome;

T: conflict (-)*,

noneconomic

satisfaction (+)*;

C: T (+)*

T: C (+)*;

C : none mentioned;

B2B; Meta- analysis; 107

independent samples

reported in 93 studies as

basis of meta-analysis,

all relationships included

data from at least two

samples (Number of

Respondents (N)= 121-

3550), average total N

per relationship of 1277)

Meta-analysis (Type

II), generalization of

constructs,

accumulation of

constructs into

overarching constructs;

An.: T & C as outcomes

of marketing

relationships;

Im.: - phases of

development: conflict

and satisfaction will

develop first, T in the

medium term and C only

in the long term;

Grayson & Ambler

(1999)

[JMR;A+;3.01;150]

Several relational

factors [such as Trust

(T)] as principal

antecedents to

positive relational

outcomes;

furthermore

mediating roles of

relational dynamics

constructs

(opportunism,

expectations, etc.)

and moderating role

of long-term

relationship

(relationship length);

T: none mentioned;

Commitment (C): T

(+)*, perceived

quality of user-

provider interactions

(+)*, providers

involvement (+)*,

perceived

opportunism (-)n.s.,

perceived loss of

objectivity (-)n.s.,

rising expectations (-

)n.s.;

T: C (+)*, involvement

(+)*, interaction (+)*,

advertising use (only in

short relationship: +)

use of marketing

services (+)n.s., rising

expectations (+)n.s.,

opportunism (+)n.s.,

loss of objectivity

(+)n.s.;

C: use of marketing

services (+)n.s.;

B2B; Relationships

between advertising

agencies and their

clients, view of

marketing managers

(number of usable

respondents:200 ;

response rate:27%) of its

relationship with

advertising agency in the

United Kingdom;

Replication and

extension of Moorman

et al. (1992); long-term

relationships have a

dark side that dampens

the influence of T;

direct and indirect

impact of T on C (T&C

mediation: T +

rising expectations

+ C);

Im.: - T&C will not

always have a simple and

positive effect on client‟s

use of providers‟

services, - dynamics of

shorter relationships are

different than those of

longer relationships, - T

is important in earlier

and later phases of

relationship;

35 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Farrelly & Quester

(2003)

[EJM;C;0.76;55 in

googlescholar]

(Sponsor) Trust (T)

mediator between

Sponsor Market

Orientation (MO),

Property MO (as

perceived by

Sponsor) and

(Sponsor)

Commitment (C);

(Sponsor) T: Sponsor

MO (+)*, Property

MO (+)* (as

perceived by

Sponsor);

(Sponsor) C: Sponsor

MO (+)*, Property

MO (+) as perceived

by Sponsor)n.s.,

(Sponsor) T (+)*;

(Sponsor) T: (Sponsor)

C (+)*;

(Sponsor) C: none

mentioned;

B2B; Questionnaire was

completed from both

sides of protected

sponsorships;

Properties: Australian

Football League (AFL) –

local clubs and League,

Sponsors: protected

sponsors (46 dyads

completed their

questionnaire; number of

usable respondents: 92)

Specific context:

sponsorship

relationships; potential

effect of MO on T & C;

only T mediator;

Im.: - invest additional

resources critical to

leveraging relationship,

- raise level of market

orientation in order to

foster T & C, - greater C

may lead one to

underestimate partner‟s

effort (danger);

Perry et al. (2004)

[JBR;B;1.29;7]

Commitment (C)

mediates relationship

between Trust (T)

and Effectiveness; T

moderator between

termination penalties

& C as well as

between

technological

uncertainty & C;

T: none mentioned;

C: T (+), termination

penalties (+)*,

technological

uncertainty (-)*;

T: C (+)*;

C: Perceived Alliance

Effectiveness (+)*;

B2B; High-tech firms

listed in Ward‟s Business

Directory of US Private

and Public Companies

(number of usable

respondents: 106 ;

response rate: 10%)

additionally

moderating role of T, T

antecedent of C and

moderator; interaction

effects of T &

termination penalties, T

& technological

uncertainty, C &

termination penalties;

An.: Limited, specific

relationship

environment: Horizontal

Strategic Alliances

(HSA) in high-

technology industries;

Im.: - in HAS the

inclusion of contractual

safeguards is wise, - T

supports C and, in turn,

C fosters effectiveness;

36 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Tellefsen & Thomas

(2005)

[IMM;C;1.33;17]

Effects of several

antecedents on two

types of Commitment

(C) and, in turn on

relational exchange;

differentiation of C in

personal commitment

(PC) &

organizational

commitment (OC);

differentiation of

Trust (T) in personal

trust (PT) &

organizational trust

(OT);

PT & OT: none

mentioned, T as

antecedent;

PC: PT (+)*,

personal expertise

(+)n.s., personal

power (+)n.s.,

likeability (+)*,

personal dependence

(+)*, personal

continuity (+)*;

OC: OT (+)*, service

performance (+)n.s.,

delivery performance

(+)n.s., cost

performance (+)*,

organizational

dependence (+)*,

organizational

continuity (+)*;

PT: PC (+)*;

OT: OC (+)*:

PC: relational exchange

(+)*;

OC: relational

exchange (+)*;

B2B; service industry;

data were collected from

market research

managers about their

relationships with

research suppliers,

respondents worked in

the U.S. for

manufacturing, service,

or distribution

companies, (number of

usable respondents: 145 ;

response rate: 33%);

Differentiation of C in

two types of constructs:

PC & OC;

differentiation of T in

PT & OT; use of

relational exchange as

relationship outcome;

Im.: - coordinate efforts

at both personal and

organizational levels, -

include personal levels of

analysis in business

service models, - role of

individuals important in

business services, - train

representatives in

product knowledge,

technical skills AND

interpersonal skills, -

accurate in official

communications, -

dependence important in

relationships;

Eastlick et al. (2006)

[JBR;B;1.29;11]

Trust in a services e-

tailer (T) mediates


services e-tailer

reputation & privacy

concerns and

commitment toward a

service e-tailer (C); C

mediator between T

and purchase intent

toward a services e-

tailer;

T: services e-tailer

reputation (+)*,

privacy concerns (-)*;

C: T (+)*;

T: C (+)*;

C: purchase intent

toward a services e-

tailer (+)*;

B2C; Survey of a

random sample of

Internet subscribers

consisting of 2000 U.S.

households, stratified by

state (number of usable

respondents: 477;

response rate: 25.4%);

Application of B2B

relationship theories to

online B2C

relationships (including

necessary modification

with respect to privacy

concerns, T, and C),

importance of T & C in

B2C relationships in an

online services context;

An.: Online B2C market;

Im.: - privacy concerns

strongly and negatively

predict trust in a services

e-tailer, - with

modifications B2B

theories con be applied

to online B2C

relationships, -T&C both

are critical elements of

exchange relationships;

37 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Caceres &

Paparoidamis (2007)

[EJM;C;0.76;6]

Trust (T) &

Commitment (C)

mediators between

Relationship

Satisfaction and

Loyalty; C mediator

between Trust and

Loyalty;

T: Relationship

Satisfaction (+)*

[fostered by service

quality = technical &

functional Quality];

C: Relationship

Satisfaction (+)*,

Trust (+)*;

T: C (+)*, Loyalty

(+)*;

C: Loyalty (+)*;

B2B; Sample consisted

of companies that are

clients of advertising

agencies in a range of

media advertising, 774

companies were

randomly selected from

an advertising directory

in the European country

(number of usable

respondents: 234

companies)

Integration of concepts

of service/product

quality, relationship

satisfaction, T & C in a

business loyalty model;

T & C as sub-

constructs of

relationship quality;

An.: B2B setting in a

service industry (adv.

ag.);

Im.: - invest in

relationships based on T

& C, - focus efforts on

managing relationship

quality (T,C,relationship

satisfaction) because of

its direct influence on

loyalty;

Kingshott & Pecotich

(2007)

[EJM;C;0.76;3]

Trust (T) mediator

between antecedents

and Commitment (C);

T: psychological

contracts (PC) (+)*,

PC violations (-)* ;

C : PC (+)*, T (+)*,

PC violations (-)n.s.;

T : C (+)* ;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; distributor firms

within the motorized

industries (number of


response rate:23%),

generated from

commercial database;

supplier-distributor

relationships;

approach to Morgan

and Hunt‟s (1994)

KMV model with the

help of social exchange

theory, social exchange

theory perspective;

direct & indirect effects

of PC & PC violations

upon the level of T &

C;

Im.: - contract violations

occur and have a strong

negative impact on trust

effects of violations

should be considered

cautiously;

38 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Palmatier et al. (2007)

[JM;A+;3.78;27]

Commitment-Trust

Perspective:

(customer) Trust (T)

& (customer)

Commitment (C)

mediators between

antecedents and

outcomes, C mediator

between T and

outcomes; market

dynamics moderate

effects of T & C on

outcomes ;

T: Customer

Relationship Specific

Investments (RSI)

(+)*, Seller RSIs

(+)*, Seller

opportunistic

behaviors (-)*,

Interdependence

(+)n.s., Dependence

asymmetry (-)n.s.,

Relational norms

(+)*, Communication

(+)*;

C: T (+)*, Customer

RSIs (+)n.s.,

Interdependence (+)*,

Dependence

asymmetry (-)n.s.,

Relational norms

(+)*, Communication

(+)n.s.;

T: Sales growth

(+)n.s., overall

financial performance

(+)n.s., cooperation

(+)*, conflict (-)*,

C(+)*;

C: Sales growth (+)*,

overall financial

performance (+)*,

cooperation (+)*,

conflict (-)*;

B2B; Longitudinal

survey of B2B

relationships (cover

various products)

between company

(seller) and its local

distributor (customer),

(number of usable

respondents in all three

years: 396 ; response

rate: 24%);

Comparative

longitudinal analysis of

4 theoretical

perspectives of

interorganizational

relationship

performance;

additionally moderator

effect of environmental

dynamism and market

diversity on impact of

T & C on outcomes;

T,C, and RSI found to

be the most important

mediators in

interorganizational

relationships;

An.: Analysis of five

different perspectives:

Commitment-Trust,

Dependence, Transaction

Cost Economics,

Relational Norms, RBV

Perspective;

Im.: - increase T & C, -

promote investments by

both partners to improve

the efficacy and

effectiveness of the

interaction, - provide

incentives to push

customers to make RSIs;

Leonidou et al. (2008)

[IMM;C;1.33;5]

Effects of sources of

power exercised on

Trust (T) &

Commitment (C);

relationships between

power and T

mediated by conflict

and satisfaction;

T: Conflict (-)*,

Satisfaction (+)*;

C: T(+)*;

T: C (+)*;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; cross-border

industrial buyer-seller

relationships;

international business

exporter-importer

relationships; Producers

of industrial goods in the

U.S., which were

currently exporting their

goods abroad (number of


Exercised power as a

driver of T & C;

conflict and satisfaction

mediators between

sources of power

exercised and T; C as

relational outcome;

Im.: - define common

goals and enhance

communication, - invest

time, resources and effort

to the relationship, -

share experiences,

understand each other‟s

goals and predict one

another‟s behavior, -

carefully analyze the

nature of power exerted;

39 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Keh & Xie (2009)

[IMM;C;1.33;0]

Customer

Commitment (C)

mediates the


Customer Trust (T),

Customer

Identification

(IDENT) and

Purchase Intention

(PI), Price Premium

(PP); T mediator

between Corporate

Reputation and C, PI;

IDENT mediator

between Corporate

Reputation and C ;

T: Corporate

Reputation (+)*;

C: T (+)*, IDENT

(+)*;

T: C (+)*, PI (+)*, PP

(+)n.s., IDENT (+)*;

C: PP (+)*, PI (+)*;

B2B; customer-service

firm relationships;

customers of three

Chinese companies in

different B2B service

industries and different

sizes (number of usable

respondents: 351 ;

response rate: 35.2%)

Customer Identification

as major determinant of

C, T still important

precursor of C but not

the key one in this

study; Corporate

Reputation as

antecedent;

Willingness to pay a

price premium and

continue relationship

as outcomes;

An.: both, conceptual

and rival model were

used for estimating

results; partly mediation

of C between T & PI;

Im.: - T is fundamental

to buying-selling

relationships, while

IDENT is more effective

to retailing customers, -

T major determinant for

PI, C for willingness to

pay higher prices; -

development of a

favorable corporate

reputation important,

Aurier & N‟Goala

(2010)

[JAMS;A;1.58;0]

Trust (T) &

Commitment (C) key

mediators between

service evaluations

(e.g., overall

satisfaction) and

patronage behaviors

(i.e., relationship

maintenance,

relationship

development);

T: Overall

satisfaction (+)*,

Service quality(+)*;

C: T (+)*, Overall

Satisfaction (+)*,

Service Quality (+)*,

Value (+)*;

T: C (+)*, relationship

development [Service

Usage {depth} (+)*,

Cross-Buying

{breadth} (+)*];

C: relationship

maintenance [Duration

{length} (+)*,

Exclusivity (+)*];

B2C; Longitudinal

research design; study

concerns service

relationships between

consumers and a regional

branch of Credict

Agricole (bank) in the

Southwest of France

which covers 135 local

agencies, [Sample-1:

n=1,721 (Year 1),

Sample-2: n=1,467 (Year

2), Sample-3: n=520

(common response/non-

response behavior in

Year 1 + 2)]

In service industries: C

predicts the number of

service providers

(retention, exclusivity

vs. polygamy) while T

predicts the number of

bank products (cross-

buying) and service

usage level;

Longitudinal research

design; several

constructs similar to

Caceres&Paparoidamis

(2007) (e.g., service

quality, satisfaction,

loyalty);

Im.: - T&C play differing

and complementary roles

in order to maintain and

develop service

relationships, - T critical

when the objective of the

firm is to increase short-

term revenues;

40 Appendix B

Table 2 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Barnes et al. (2010)

[JIM;B;1.59;0]

Trust (T) mediates


Opportunism and

Commitment (C); C


between T and

Satisfaction;

Relationship

initiation has a

moderating effect on

Opportunism-T

relationship;

T: Opportunism (-)*;

C: T (+)*;

T:C (+)*, Satisfaction

(+)n.s.;

C: Satisfaction (+)*

B2B; Western exporter-

Hong Kong importer

relationships; sample:

firms with a Chinese

origin that were actively

involved in importing

(number of usable

respondents: 202);

T & C being mediator

between opportunism

and long-term

orientation in Western

exporter-Hong Kong

importer relationships;

six moderating effects

(e.g., relationship

initiation on

opportunism-T

relationship);

combination of

extensively examined

constructs;

An.: strong regard to

Chinese setting;

Im.: - T crucial for the

long-term existence of

relationships in a

Chinese context, -

conflict should be

avoided in a Chinese

setting, - frequent

personal visits are

important in a Chinese

context, - select

appropriate partners

carefully in international

business, - Western firms

need to work hard to

create relational ties;

41 Appendix B

Table 3: Findings divergent, variant or inconsistent to Morgan and Hunt (1994)

Study





of Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;



Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;


Design/Methodology

/Approach / Empirical

Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Ganesan (1994)

[JM;A+;3.78;747]

Trust (T) mediates


selective antecedents

and retailer‟s long-

term orientation

(LtO) [referred to be

“commitment”];

R: T: specific

investments (+)*,

reputation (+)p.s.,

experience (+)n.s.,

satisfaction (+)n.s.;

LtO: satisfaction

(+)*, T[credibility

(+)*, benevolence

(+)n.s.], perception

of dependence (+)*,

dependence (+)*;

V: T: specific

investments (+)p.s.,

reputation (+)n.s.,

experience (+)n.s.,

satisfaction(+)*;

LtO: satisfaction

(+)*, T[credibility

(+)*, benevolence

(+)n.s.], perception

of dependence (+)*,

dependence (+)n.s.;

R: T: LtO (+)p.s.;

C: none mentioned;

V: T: LtO (+)p.s.;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; Retail buyers (R:

number of

respondents:124 ;

response rate:83%) [dealt

with a wide variety of

products] and their

vendors (V: number of

respondents:52 ;

response rate:42%) from

6 regional department

store chains with annual

sales ranging from $200-

800 mio. in 1990;

Two separate empirical

analyses: Retailer and

Vendor perspective;

multidimensional


trust: credibility and

benevolence as sub-

dimensions; key roles

of dependence and trust

(credibility,

benevolence) on long-

term orientation

(referred to be

“commitment”);

credibility has a

significant effect on

LtO, whereas

benevolent do not;

An.: p.s.= partial support

(support only for the

dimension of

credibility); R=Retailer

Perspective, V=Vendor

Perspective; Long-term

orientation referred to be

“commitment”;

Focused on long-term

orientated relationships;

Retailer (buyer)-vendor

(seller) relationships;

Im.: - managerial

perspective: important to

know the time

orientation of customers

(retailer) for selection

and use of marketing

tools with corresponding

time characteristics, - use

the insight from the

analysis to change

customer‟s position

along spectrum of long-

to short-term orientation

;

42 Appendix B

Table 3 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Geyskens et al. (1996)

[IJRM;A;1.87;132 in

ebsco]

Trust (T)

affective commitment

(AC);

Trust (T) (-)

calculative

commitment (CC);

T moderator between

interdependence

asymmetry and AC;

T: none mentioned;

AC: total

interdependence (TI)

(+)*, interdependence

asymmetry (IA) (-)n.s,

T (+)*;

CC: TI (+)*, T (-)*,

IA [for the more

dependent channel

partner] (+)*, IA [for

the less dependent

firm] (-)*;

T: AC (+)*, CC (-)*;

CC & AC : none

mentioned;

B2B; Samples drawn

from lists of automobile

dealers, purchased from

commercial sources in

two countries, the US

(n=417 ; response

rate:28%) and the

Netherlands (n=289 ;

response rate:19%)

Differentiated view on

commitment and

interdependence (cf.

Kumar et al.),

Introduction and

definitions of AC and

CC, T has a negative

impact on CC, T

additionally moderator

between IA & AC; key

roles of T &

interdependence on C

An.: Two types of

commitment: AC- like to

maintain relationship,

CC- need to maintain

relationship;

Im.: - channel partners

should develop closeness

through AC instead of

CC, - T is important

construct & easy to

develop

de Ruyter et al. (2001)

[IMM;C;1.33;28]

Trust (T),Affective

Commitment ( AC),

and Calculative

Commitment (CC)

are mediators

between several

antecedents [Offer

Characteristics (OC),

Relationship

Characteristics (RC),

Market

Characteristics (MC)]

and Loyalty Intention

as outcome; T

influences AC & CC;

T: OC [product

performance, product

output, after sales

service] (+)*, RC

[account support,

communication, co-

operation,

harmonization of

conflict] (+)*;

AC: T (+)*, RC (+)*,

MC [replaceability,

switching costs,

switching risks] (+)*;

CC: T (+)*, MC (+)*;

T: AC (+)*, CC (-)*,

Loyalty Intention (+)*;

AC: Loyalty Intention

(+)*;

CC: Loyalty Intention

(+)*;

B2B; supplier-customer

relationships in the

market for very high-

volume (VHV) copiers in

the Netherlands; Study 1:

qualitative, interviews

with customers of the

three main suppliers in

the VHV market, used

for the development of

hypotheses, (number of


Study 2: quantitative,

sample of firms using at

least one VHV copier,

used to test hypotheses

(number of usable

respondents: 491);

Differentiated view of

commitment (AC &

CC); Mediating role of

T, AC, and CC in high-

technology B2B

markets;

T + AC;T -

CC

An.: highly specialized

& idiosyncratic setting; ;

high technology markets;

Im.: - AC & T play

essential role in customer

relationships, - marketers

of high-technology

products are advised to

emphasize activities and

initiatives that promote

positive feelings of

affiliation, - for the

creation of AC, let

customers share social

events of the firm, - to

achieve higher T & AC

supplier have to invest in

diverse areas;

43 Appendix B

Table 3 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Brashear et al. (2003)

[JAMS;A;1.56;21]

Salesperson Trust (T)

mediator between

antecedents and Job

Satisfaction (JSAT)

as well as

Rationalism (RAT);

Organizational

Commitment (C)

mediator between

JSAT, RAT and

Turnover Intention;

JSAT & RAT

mediate relationship

between T and C;

direct & indirect

relationships tested;

T: Shared Values

(+)*, Managerial

Respect (+)*,

Managerial

Opportunism (-)n.s.;

C: JSAT (+)*, RAT

(+)*;

T: JSAT (+)*, RAT

(+)*;

C: Turnover Intention

(-)*;

B2B; cross-sectional

survey; Sample consisted

of sales manager-

salesperson relationships

(interpersonal) in the

north-eastern United

States, respondents came

from wide range of

industries;

(number of usable

respondents : 402);

Focus of investigation

on internal

interpersonal

relationships; JSAT &

RAT mediators

between T & C; only

indirect effect of T on

C, Salesperson trust (T)

fosters indirectly

organizational

commitment (C), no

direct effect of T on C

measured;

An,: internal and

interpersonal

relationships; context

specific trust building

processes may reflect

differences of results in

comparison to previous

studies;

Im.: - shared values is

the strongest factor

affecting trust

selection process of new

employees may be the

first and possibly most

important step, - T is a

key element in

developing behavioural

norms between individ.;

Coote et al. (2003)

[IMM;C;1.33;23]

Antecedents of

Commitment (C);

mediating role of

Trust (T) between

antecedents & C

hypothesized but not

confirmed;


normative contracts;

T: communication

(+)*, conflict (-)*

only in low

contracting group,

similarity (+)*only in

low contracting

group,;

C: T (+)n.s.,

communication (+)*,

conflict (-)* only in

low contracting

group, similarity (-

)*only in low

contracting group;

T: C (+)n.s.;

C: none mentioned;

B2B; buyer-supplier

relationships sampled

from overseas Chinese

businesses in a regional

Asia-Pacific country;

(number of usable

respondents: 152 ;

response rate: 15%);

No significant result

for the T-supports-C

hypothesis; no

mediating role of T;

moderating effect of

normative contracts; all

in a non-Western

industrial marketing

setting;

Im.: - quality of two-way

communication and the

level of conflict are more

important to establishing

C than T, - marketing

managers should

consider how normative

contracts can be

developed, - enhance

communication, avoid

conflict, & minimize

harsh words to build C &

T;

44 Appendix B

Table 3 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Gao et al. (2005)

[JBR;B;1.29;15]

Buyer Trust in

Supplier (T) mediator

between antecedents

and Buyer Decision-

Making Uncertainty

(DMU); Buyer

Perceived Supplier

Commitment (C)

fosters T;

T: Buyer Perceived

Supplier

Commitment (+)*,

Buyer Perceived

Supplier Trust (+)*,

Buyer Perceived

Supplier Dependence

(-) n.s.;

C: none mentioned;

T: Buyer DMU (-)*;

Buyer perceived

Supplier Trust: T (+)*;

Buyer perceived

supplier C: Buyer

DMU (-)n.s., T (+)*;

B2B; Large national

sample of members of

the National Association

of Purchasing

Management (NAPM) in

the U.S. (number of


response rate: 25.4%); 37

states were represented

in the survey;

Buyer‟s perception of

seller-side relational

variables, effect of

perceived supplier-side

variables on buyer

trust; dyadic view;

Buyer perceived

supplier commitment

Buyer Trust in

Supplier;

An.: Data collected from

only one side of dyad –

the buyer side, model‟s

theoretical propositions

assume certain degree of

convergence between

buyer and supplier

perceptions;

Im.: - buyer-supplier

relationships based on T

& C help to reduce buyer

DMU, - indicate high

level of T by devoting

tangible relationship-

specific resources to the

exchange;

Gounaris (2005)

[JBR;B;1.29;35]

Trust (T) mediator

between antecedents

and Affective

Commitment (AC) as

well as Calculative

Commitment (CC),

AC and CC

mediators between T

and Outcomes

T: Service Quality

(+)*, Customer

Bonding (+)*;

AC: T (+)*;

CC:T (-)*;

T : AC (+)*, CC (-)* ;

AC : Maintain Relation

(+)*, Invest in Relation

(+)* ;

CC : Maintain Relation

(+)n.s., Invest in

Relation (+)n.s. ;

B2B; cross-sectional

sample; Data collected

from companies from

different industries from

various regions of

Greece, respondents have

been identified by

approaching consulting

companies; (number of

useable respondents: 127

; response rate: 45%);

line management

position concerning

respondents ranged from

middle to more senior

positions;

Effects of service

quality and customer

bonding on T and, in

turn, on AC & CC in

B2B services; T

AC, T (-) CC

for services in B2B

markets (cf. Geyskens

et al., 1996) ;

Im.: - importance of

distinction between AC

and CC because of

significantly different

effects, - emphasis ought

to be on developing AC

instead of CC

relationship is based on

mutual T, -service

quality & customer

bonding are trust

boosters, - investment of

resources in the

relationship may increase

dependence and this in

turn may leads to C ;

45 Appendix B

Table 3 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

MacMillan et al.

(2005)

[JBR;B;1.29;7]

The construct of non-

material benefits

(nmB) mediates the


Trust (T) &

Commitment (C); T

mediator between

antecedents and non-

material benefits;

T: Shared Values

(+)*, Communication

(+)*, Non-

Opportunistic

Behavior (+)*;

C: Shared Values

(+)*, Material

Benefits (+)n.s.,

Relationship

Termination Costs

(+)n.s., nmB (+);

Outcomes are

excluded;

T: nmB (+)*

B2B;All funding

organizations of one

crime-prevention

nonprofit organization

(NPO) in South Africa

(number of usable

respondents: 41 ;

response rate: 33%)

Limitation, Adaptation,

and Modification of the

KMV model (Morgan

& Hunt, 1994) to the

NPO sector; Trust (T)

non-material

benefits (nmB)

Commitment (C); only

indirect effect of T on

C;

Im.: - NPOs should

engage in strategies that

develop nmB, since it is

the major driver of C, -

communication crucial

factor, most complex

antecedent of T;

Cater & Zabkar (2009)

[IMM;C;1.33;3 in

googlescholar]

Affective

Commitment (AC),

Calculative

Commitment (CC),

and Normative

Commitment (NC) as

mediator variables

between antecedents

and Loyalty; Trust

(T) as antecedent;

AC: T (+)*, Social

bonds (+)*,

Satisfaction (+)*;

NC: AC (+)*,T

(+)n.s., Social bonds

(+)n.s., Satisfaction

(+)*;

CC: T (-)n.s.,

Satisfaction (-)*;

AC: NC (+)*, Loyalty

(+)*;

NC: Loyalty (+)n.s.;

CC: Loyalty (-)n.s.;

B2B; service industries;

professional business

services provider-

customer relationships;

data collected from

managers responsible for

marketing research in

marketing research client

companies in Central and

Eastern Europe in 2005

(number of usable

respondents: 150 ;

response rate 65.2%);

Multi-attribute measure

of commitment;

conceptualization and


three components of

commitment: AC, NC,

CC; mediating role of

these components (cf.

Geyskens et al., 1996);

T as an antecedent

Im.: - conscious

management of each

component of

commitment facilitate

profitability & customer

retention, - satisfaction

major precursor of AC

enhance satisfaction, -

management of

interpersonal

relationships important, -

build strong business

friendships;

46 Appendix B

Table 4: Findings with focus of investigation not on trust-commitment relationship

Study





of Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;



Trust and

Commitment

(*=sign. result;


Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Dwyer et al. (1987)

[JM;A+;3.78;900 in

ebsco]

Framework for

developing buyer-

seller relationships; 5

phases of relationship


Trust (T) rudiment of

subprocess of

“expectations

development” within

Phase II. Exploration

and Phase III.

Expansion;

Commitment (C) as

one phase of relation.

development, Phase

IV.;

T: none

operationalized, but

„conflicts of interest‟

& „prospects for

unity and trouble‟ are

mentioned in the text;

C: none


„T‟,

„inputs/investments

to the association‟

and other aspects of

Pases I-III are


T: none


„favorable attitudes (-

)‟, „communications (-

)‟, „bargaining behavior

(-)‟, „risk taking (+)‟,

„dependence (+)‟ &

„effectiveness (+)‟ are


C: none


„certainty (+)‟,

„efficiency (+)‟ &

„effectiveness (+)‟ are


B2B & B2C; no

operationalization, no

measurements;

T, C & disengagement

critical constructs of

relationship


Relationship

development process in

phases; discrete

transactions vs.

relational exchange;

idea that T has a

positive impact on C

indicated in the text;

Im.: - realize important

differences between

discrete transaction &

relational exchange, -

relationship development

is a process of ever-

expanding

interdependency between

buyer & seller, - develop

an exchange structure

that makes termination

of the relationship

unattractive;

Moorman et al. (1993)

[JM;A+;3.78;350]

User Trust in the

Researcher (T)


between various

antecedents and

Utilization of Market

Research

Information;

Hypothesized effects

of individual and

organizational

moderators

Antecedents ONLY

for T hypothesized

and tested.

T: Individual User

Characteristics [none

significant],

Perceived (perc)

Researcher Research

Abilities &

Motivations

[Expertise (+)*,

Willingness to reduce

uncertainty (+)*],

ONLY for T & just

conceptualized not

tested;

T: Utilization of

Market Research

Information (+);

B2B; A sample of

research users was

generated by contacting

each firm and division on

the Advertising Age

1990 list of the top 200

advertisers and ask them

for participation and

recommendation of

nonmarketing managers;

(number of usable

respondents: 779 ;

response rate: 45.3%)

Extensive investigation

of antecedents of trust;

weak effects of the

moderators on the

hypothesized

relationships;

An.: non-significant

antecedents of T not

listed because of limited

space & clear

arrangement; regard to

psychological &

sociological components

of T

Im.: - interpersonal

factors are the most

predictive of T / results

indicate trust may be

more a function of

47 Appendix B

perc. Researcher

Personal Abilities &

Motivations

[Sincerity (+)*,

Integrity (+)*,

Tactfulness (+)*,

Timeliness (+)*,

Congeniality (-)*],

perc. User

Organizational

Structure

[Formalization (-)*],

perc. User

Organizational

Culture [none

significant], perc.

User Organizational

Location [none sign.],

perc. User &

Researcher

Organizational /

Departmental Power

[Researcher Org /

Dept Power (+)*],

perc. Researcher

Organizational /

Departmental Culture

[Researcher Org /

Dept Hierarchy (-)*],

perc. Researcher

Organizational

Location [Researcher

Org / Dept Location

(-)*], perc. Project

Characteristics

[Customization (+)*]

interpersonal factors than

individual factors, -

researcher‟s perceived

integrity, willingness to

reduce research

uncertainty, and

confidentiality are the

most important

predictors of T, -

findings generalizable to

different types of

relationships;

48 Appendix B

Table 4 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Kumar et al. (1995)

[JMR;A+;3.01;267]

Direct effects of

perceived

interdependence on

channel firm attitude,

precisely the

constructs of

interfirm conflict,

Trust (T), and

Commitment (C); no

mediating or

moderating role

mentioned;

T: Interdependence

asymmetry [IA] (-)*,

total interdependence

[TI](+)*;

C: Interdependence

asymmetry [IA] (-)*,

total interdependence

[TI] (+)*;

T: none mentioned;

C: none mentioned;

T,C, and conflict as

outcomes of IA & TI;

B2B; new car dealers in

two states from a

commercial list (number

of usable respondents:

417)

Effects of

interdependence

asymmetry and total

interdependence on T,

C and interfirm

conflict; (TC

relationship is not

examined )

Im.: - T & C do not

naturally flourish in

asymmetric relationships

(must be developed an

cultivated), - highly

interdependent

relationships are more

likely to endure and the

basis for sustainable

comp. advantages;

De Wulf et al. (2001)

[JM;A+;3.58;119]

Trust (T),

Commitment (C), &

Satisfaction

conceptualized as

dimensions of higher-

order construct

relationship quality

(RQ); RQ mediator

between perceived

relationship

investment and

behavioral loyalty;

product category

involvement &

consumer

relationship

proneness moderate

effect of relationship

investment on RQ;

RQ

[T,C,Satisfaction]:

perceived

relationship

investment (+)*;

RQ [T,C,Satisfaction]:

behavioral loyalty (+)*;

B2C; cross-country

(U.S., Netherlands,

Belgium [Flemish part])

& cross-industry (food,

apparel) investigation;

retailer-consumer

relationships;

information collected

from real consumers;

U.S. (food: n=231,

apparel: n= 230),

Netherlands (food:

n=337, apparel: n= 338),

Belgium (food: n= 289,

apparel: n=302);

Multi-country and

multi-industry sample;

effect of perceived

relationship investment

on RQ; impact of

different relationship

marketing tactics on

perceived relationship

investment; T & C as

dimensions of RQ;


product category

involvement and

consumer relationship

proneness;

An.: n…number of

usable respondents;

Im.: - perceived

relationship investment

positively affects RQ, -

interpersonal

communication is a

dominant determinant of

perceived relationship

investment, - preferential

treatment (as relationship

marketing tactic) is less

valued by the consumer,

- direct mail tactic only

in the Netherlands and

Belgium advisable, not

in the U.S.;

49 Appendix B

Table 4 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Verhoef et al.(2002)

[JAMS;A;1.59;64]

Effects of relational

constructs [Trust (T),

Affective

Commitment (AC),

Calculative

Commitment (CC),

Satisfaction, Payment

Equity] on

relationship outcomes

[Customer referrals

(CR), Number of

Services Purchased

(SP)]; and

moderating effect of

relationship age on

these relationships;

T: none mentioned;

AC: none mentioned

CC: switching costs,

relationship

termination costs

(only mentioned in

the text, not

operationalized)

T: CR (+)*, SP (+)n.s.;

AC: CR (+)*, SP (+)*;

CC: CR (-)n.s.,

SP (-)n.s.;

B2C; Survey of

customers of one

insurance company in the

Netherlands (number of

usable respondents:1986

; response rate: 35% )];

combination of archival

and survey data;

focus of investigation

on moderating effect of

relationship age, no

evidence for a time-

dependent effect of T

(cf. Grayson&Ambler,

1999), no moderating

effect of relationship

age on customer

referrals;

differentiation of C

between AC & CC (cf.

Moorman et al., 1996);

T,AC,CC all

antecedents, on the

same level, no

relationship among

themselves analyzed;

Im.: - worthwhile to

invest in AC in all

relationship phases,

especially in the later

phases, - worthwhile to

invest in relational

constructs to increase

customer referrals, -

knowledge on how short-

and long-term

relationships differ can

be helpful for developing

specific strategies for

both relationship types;

Johnson & Grayson

(2005)

[JBR;B;1.29;37]

Differentiated


two dimensions of

trust: Cognitive

Trust (CT) and

Affective Trust (AT)

are mediators

between antecedents

and outcomes;

Commitment (C)

excluded;

CT: service provider

expertise (+)*,

product performance

(+)*, firm reputation

(+)n.s., satisfaction

with the previous

interactions (+)*;

AT: CT (+)*,firm

reputation (+)*,

satisfaction with the

previous interactions

(+)n.s., similarity

(+)*;

C: none mentioned;

CT: AT (+)*, sales

effectiveness (+)*,

anticipation of future

interactions (+)*;

AT: anticipation of

future interactions

(+)*;

C:none mentioned;

B2C; Survey data from

customers of a large

United Kingdom

financial advisory

service firm, respondents

= randomly selected

customers; (number of


response rate:19%);

Exploration of the

multidimensionality of

the trust construct, 3

dimensions: cognitive,

affective, and

behavioural; only AT

& CT operationalized

because behaviour trust

is implicitly treated as

the consequence of AT

& CT;

Im.: - the construct of

trust has two dimensions,

a cognitive and an

affective, - both

dimensions of trust have

unique antecedents, -


(cognitive) trust and

sales effectiveness exist,

- a multidimensional

conceptualization may be

fruitful for exploring the

managerial benefits of

trust;

50 Appendix B

Table 4 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations


[JM;A+;3.78;76]

Trust (T) &

Commitment (C) are

mediators between

several antecedents

and outcomes; T & C

=customer-focused

relational mediators

(on the same level, no


both constructs

hypothesized and

tested), among

relationship

satisfaction &

relationship quality;

effects on outcomes

influenced by several

moderators ;

T: Customer-

focused[relationship

benefits (+)*,

dependence on seller

(+)*], seller-


investment(+)*, seller

expertise(+)*],

dyadic[communicatio

n (+)*, similarity(+)*,

relationship duration

(+)*, interaction

frequency (+)*,

conflict (-)*];

C: Customer-


benefits (+)*,

dependence on seller

(+)*], seller-


investment(+)*, seller

expertise(+)*],

dyadic[communicatio

n (+)*, similarity(+)*,

relationship duration

(+)*, interaction

frequency (+)*,

conflict (-)*];

T: Customer-

focused[expectation of

continuity(+)*, word of

mouth(+)*, customer

loyalty(+)*], seller-

focused[seller objective

performance (+)*],

dyadic[cooperation

(+)*];

C: Customer-

focused[expectation of

continuity(+)*, word of

mouth(+)*, customer

loyalty(+)*], seller-

focused[seller objective

performance (+)*],

dyadic[cooperation

(+)*];

B2B & B2C ; Meta-

analysis,

conceptualization & test

of a causal framework;

111 independent samples

of 94 different

manuscripts (combined

number of respondents

(N):38077 ; average

N:343);

Meta-analysis of

effectiveness of

relationship marketing;

focus of investigation

not on relationship

between T & C but

rather on determinants

of relationship

performance as well as

impact and importance

of relationship

strategies;

Im.: - managers should

engage in proactive

relationship marketing

spending, - expertise,

communication and

similarity to customers

are the most effective

antecedents/relationship-

building strategies, -

interpersonal

relationships are more

effective than

organizational

relationships, - the

impact of commitment

in consumer markets is

higher than in business

markets;

51 Appendix B

Table 4 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations

Luo et al. (2008)

[JAMS;A;1.56;0]

Customer Trust

toward the firm (T) &

Customer

Commitment toward

the firm (C) are

mediators between

customer orientation

and firm

performance;

relationships

moderated by

institutional

networking (channel

networking,

government

networking); no


T & C hypothesized

& measured, both

constructs on the

same „level‟;

T: Customer

Orientation (+)*;

C: Customer

Orientation (+)*

T: Firm Performance

(+)*;

C: Firm Performance

(+)n.s.;

B2B & B2C; China,

Chinese market;

Sampling frame is the

official directory of

China Basic Statistical

Unit Yearbook, from

which firms located in

three metropolitan areas

were randomly selected

(number of usable

respondents: 238 ;

response rate 71.7%);

Focus of

investigations:

Moderating effects of

channel and

governmental

networking on

customer orientation-

customer

trust/commitment-firm

performance (CTP)

causal chain;

An.: Results: Moderating

effect of channel

networking positive

linear (+), moderating

effect of government

networking is restricted

to a moderate level of

governmental

networking ();

Im.: - governmental

networking may have

both positive and

negative impacts on the

CTP chain, not always

functional and

advantageous to a firm, -

customer focused firms

may receive higher T &

C and, in turn, improved

firm performance;

52 Appendix B

Table 4 (continued)


of Trust and

Commitment


Trust and

Commitment

Design/Methodology


Setting



to previous studies

Implications /

Annotations


[JM;A+;3.78;3]

Customer Gratitude

(G) [feelings of

gratitude (FG),

gratitude-based

reciprocal behaviors

(GB)], [customer]

Trust (T), and

[customer]

Commitment (C) are

mediators between

relationship

marketing (RM)

investments and

seller performance

outcomes;

1:T: RM investments

(+)n.s. [Rep], FG

(+)*;

C: RM investments

(+)* [Rep], T (+)*

[Rep];

2a: T: RM

investments (+)*

[Rep], GB (+)*;

C: RM investments

(+)* [Rep], T (+)*

[Rep];

2b: T: RM

invesments (+)*

[Rep], GB (+)n.s.

[Rep];

C: RM investments

(+)* [Rep], T (+)*

[Rep];

1: T: C (+)* [Rep];

C: customer purchase

intentions (+)* [Rep];

2a: T: C (+)* [Rep];

C: Share of wallet

(+)*[Rep], Sales

revenue (+)* [Rep];

2b: T: C (+)* [Rep];

C: Sales growth (+)*

[Rep];

Study 1: B2C; focus on

affective component of

gratitude; laboratory

experiment, business

undergraduate students at

a mid-western U.S.

university (number of


Study 2: B2B; focus on

behavioral component of

gratitude; longitudinal

design (2b); field study

(2a), survey of customers

manufacturers‟

representative firms

selling industrial

products/services across

a wide range of

industries in North

America (2a: number of

usable respondents: 446),

matched with sales data

provided by seller (2b:

number of usable

respondents: 126);

Effects of FG & GB on

T; T,C, and G as

mediators between

antecedents and

outcomes; T has no

direct impact on

outcomes;

An.: Rep=Replication;,

mediating role of

gratitude as main focus

of research, investigation

of commitment-trust

relationship only via

replication;

Im.: - increase RM‟s

effectiveness by

leveraging gratitude, -

increase customer‟s

perception of the seller‟s

free will and

benevolence when

providing a RM benefit,

- sellers should give

customers opportunities

to reciprocate soon after

providing them with an

RM benefit to take

advantage of high levels

of gratitude;

53 Appendix C

Appendix C

Zusammenfassung in deutscher Sprache (gemäß § 21, (5) StuPO)

In Zeiten der Globalisierung und des damit verbundenen steigenden internationalen

Wettbewerbs, steigt die Bedeutung erfolgreicher Geschäftsbeziehungen.

Beispielsweise können in business-to-business (B2B) Beziehungen Fähigkeiten und

Ressourcen effizient geteilt oder in business-to-consumer (B2C) Beziehungen

Kundenbedürfnisse gezielt aufgezeigt und gedeckt werden. Erfolgreiche Beziehungen

steigern demnach die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit eines Unternehmens.

Vertrauen („trust“) und Verbundenheit („commitment“) sind laut Marketing Literatur

entscheidende Elemente zur Entwicklung erfolgreicher, effizienter und anhaltender

Geschäftsbeziehungen. Den Ursprung einer etablierten Meinung in der Marketing

Literatur stellt die Studie von Morgan und Hunt (1994) dar. Die Autoren entwickelten

das sogenannte „key mediating variable“ Model, wonach Vertrauen sowie

Verbundenheit vermittelnde Variablen zwischen mehreren Ausgangs- und

Ergebniselementen sind und Vertrauen zudem ein unmittelbarer Treiber von

Verbundenheit ist (siehe Fig.1 in Appendix A). Die fördernde Wirkung von Vertrauen

in Bezug auf Verbundenheit ist weit verbreitet in der Marketing Literatur. Ziel dieser

Literatur-Review ist es die Bedingungen der Gültigkeit und der Widersprüche

letztgenannter Verknüpfung zu analysieren und aufzuzeigen.

Im business-to-business Kontext wurde der positive und direkte Effekt von Vertrauen

auf Verbundenheit für den Austausch von Dienstleistungen (Caceres & Paparoidamis,

2007; Farrelly & Quester, 2003; Grayson & Ambler, 1999; Keh & Xie, 2009;

Moorman et al., 1992; Tellefsen & Thomas, 2005;) sowie für den Handel von

Produkten (Andaleeb, 1996; Kingshott & Pecotich, 2007; Morgan & Hunt, 1994;

Palmatier et al., 2007;) empirisch belegt. Die Gültigkeit der Vertrauen-Verbundenheit

Relation im B2B Kontext ist speziell sogar im internationalen Handel von Produkten

nachgewiesen worden (Barnes et al., 2010; Leonidou et al., 2008). Zusätzliche

Gültigkeit findet der positive Effekt von Vertrauen auf Verbundenheit auch in B2C

Beziehungen des tertiären Sektors (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010; Eastlick et al., 2006;

Garbarino & Johnson, 1999).

Allerdings gibt es auch widersprüchliche Ergebnisse in der Marketing Literatur.

Demnach haben Gao et al. (2005) einen positive Effekt von Verbundenheit auf

Vertrauen nachgewiesen. Genauer gesagt haben die Autoren für B2B Käufer-

Lieferanten Beziehungen durch ein signifikantes Ergebnis nachgewiesen, dass die

54 Appendix C

vom Käufer wahrgenommene Verbundenheit des Lieferanten das Vertrauen des

Käufers positiv beeinflusst (Gao et al., 2005). Des Weiteren haben Coote et al. (2003)

für nicht-westliche Marketing Beziehungen keinen signifikanten Effekt von Vertrauen

auf Verbundenheit nachweisen können (Coote et al., 2003). Lediglich ein indirekter

positiver Effekt von Vertrauen auf Verbundenheit wurde von MacMillan et al. (2005)

für B2B Beziehungen des gemeinnützigen Sektors sowie von Brashear et al. (2003)

für interne Beziehungen zwischen Verkaufs-Managern und Verkäufern gefunden.

Darüber hinaus wurden unterschiedliche Verknüpfungen zwischen Vertrauen und

Verbundenheit als Folge unterschiedlicher und differenzierterer Operationalisierungen

dieser Elemente in der Marketing Literatur diskutiert. So wurden beispielsweise

signifikante Ergebnisse für einen direkten, positiven Effekt von Vertrauen auf

affektive Verbundenheit (Cater & Zabkar, 2009; de Ruyter et al., 2001; Gounaris,

2005; Geyskens et al., 1996) sowie für einen direkten, negativen Effekt von Vertrauen

auf kalkulatorische Verbundenheit gefunden (de Ruyter et al., 2001; Gounaris, 2005;

Geyskens et al., 1996).

Um die Schlüsselelemente erfolgreicher Beziehungen effizient fördern und

dementsprechende Strategien entwickeln zu können, ist es wichtig deren Wegbereiter

zu kennen. Wie bereits gezeigt ist Vertrauen das Schlüsselelement zur Bildung von

Verbundenheit. Doch wie fördert man die Bildung von Vertrauen in

Wirtschaftsbeziehungen? Auf B2C Märkten ist die angebotene Produkt- (Johnson &

Grayson, 2005) bzw. Servicequalität (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010) ein Hauptwegbereiter

für Vertrauen. Eine entscheidende Rolle in diesem (Aurier & N‟Goala, 2010;

Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Grayson, 2005) wie auch in einem B2B

Umfeld (Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007; Ganesan, 1994; Geyskens et al., 1999;

Leonidou et al., 2008) spielt die Zufriedenheit des Gegenübers. Im letztgenannten

Kontext sind auch geteilte Wertvorstellungen eine Vorbedingung zur Bildung von

Vertrauen (Brashear et al., 2003; Coote et al., 2003; MacMillan et al., 2005; Morgan

& Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). Um dies festzustellen und allgemein Vertrauen

zu fördern ist eine gute, offene und regelmäßige Kommunikation zwischen den

Unternehmen der Beziehung von entscheidender Bedeutung (Coote et al., 2003; de

Ruyter et al., 2001; Geyskens et al., 1998; MacMillan et al., 2005; Morgan and Hunt,

1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). Zudem ist die Investition von Zeit, Anstrengung und

Ressourcen ein wirksames Instrument zur Förderung von Vertrauen innerhalb von

Geschäftsbeziehungen (De Wulf et al., 2001; Ganesan, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006;

55 Appendix C

Palmatier et al., 2007; Palmatier et al., 2009). Der Investor signalisiert durch derartige

Investitionen seinem Partner, dass seine Abhängigkeit vom Erfolg der Beziehung

gestiegen ist und er demnach einen geringeren Anreiz zu opportunistischem Verhalten

hat (Barnes et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 1995; MacMillan et al., 2005; Morgan and

Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2007). Damit wechselseitiges

Vertrauen innerhalb der Beziehung entsteht sollte auch der Partner spezifisch in die

Beziehung investieren, damit auch sein Anreiz zu opportunistischem Verhalten sinkt

(Kumar et al., 1995).

56 References

References

Andaleeb, S. S. (1996). An Experimental Investigation of Satisfaction and

Commitment in Marketing Channels: The Role of Trust and Dependence.

Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 77-93.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain

Commitment in Distribution Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 18-

34.

Aurier, P., & N‟Goala, G. (2009). The differing and mediating roles of trust and

relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and

development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 303-325.

doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0163-z

Aurier, P., & N‟Goala, G. (2010). The differing and mediating roles of trust and

relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and

development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 303-325.

doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0163-z

Barnes, B. R., Leonidou, L. C., Siu, N. Y. M., & Leonidou, C. N. (2010).

Opportunism as the Inhibiting Trigger for Developing Long-Term-Oriented

Western Exporter–Hong Kong Importer Relationships. Journal of

International Marketing, 18(2), 35-63.

Brashear, T. G., Boles, J. S., Bellenger, D. N., & Brooks, C. M. (2003). An Empirical

Test of Trust-Building Processes and Outcomes in Sales Manager--

Salesperson Relationships. [Article]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 31(2), 189-200.

Caceres, R. C., & Paparoidamis, N. G. (2007). Service quality, relationship

satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. [Article].

European Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), 836-867.

Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in

marketing research services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing

Management, 38, 785-797. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.10.004

Coote, L. V., Forrest, E. J., & Tam, T. W. (2003). An investigation into commitment

in non-Western industrial marketing relationships. Industrial Marketing

Management, 32(7), 595-604. doi: 10.1016/s0019-8501(03)00017-8

de Ruyter, K., Moorman, L., & Lemmink, J. (2001). Antecedents of Commitment and

Trust in Customer–Supplier Relationships in High Technology Markets.

Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 271-286.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in

Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration.

[Article]. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33-50.

Deishin, L., & Mendelson, H. (2007). Adoption of Information Technology Under

Network Effects. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 395.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27.

Eastlick, M. A., Lotz, S. L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Understanding online B-to-C

relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and

commitment. [Article]. Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 877-886.

Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (2003). The effects of market orientation on trust and

commitment: The case of the sponsorship business-to-business relationship.

[Article]. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 530-553.

Ganesan. (1994). Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller

Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.

57 References

Ganesan, & Hess, R. (1997). Dimensions and Levels of Trust: Implications for

Commitment to a Relationship. Marketing Letters, 8(4), 439-448.

Gao, T., Sirgy, M. J., & Bird, M. M. (2005). Reducing buyer decision-making

uncertainty in organizational purchasing: can supplier trust, commitment, and

dependence help? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 397-405.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust,

and Commitment in Customer Relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing,

63(2), 70-87.

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about

trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International

Journal of Business Research, 15, 223-248.

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1999). A Meta-Analysis of

Satisfaction in Marketing Channel Relationships. [Article]. Journal of

Marketing Research (JMR), 36(2), 223-238.

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects

of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic

study. [Article]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 303-

317.

Gounaris, S. P. (2005). Trust and commitment influences on customer retention:

insights from business-to-business services. Journal of Business Research,

58(2), 126-140.

Grayson, K., & Ambler, T. (1999). The Dark Side of Long-Term Relationships in

Marketing Sciences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 132-141.

Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service

relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500-507.

Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral

intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. [Article].

Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 732-742.

Kingshott, R. P. J., & Pecotich, A. (2007). The impact of psychological contracts on

trust and commitment in supplier- distributor relationships. European Journal

of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1053-1072.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995). The Effects of Perceived

Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Research

(JMR), 32(3), 348-356.

Leonidou, L., Talias, M., & Leonidou, C. (2008). Exercised power as a driver of trust

and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer–seller relationships.

Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), 92-103. doi:

10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.08.006

Luo, X., Hsu, M. K., & Liu, S. S. (2008). The moderating role of institutional

networking in the customer orientation-trust/commitment-performance causal

chain in China. [Article]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2),

202-214.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., & Downing, S. (2005). Relationship

marketing in the not-for-profit sector: an extension and application of the

commitment-trust theory. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 806-818.

Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors Affecting Trust in

Market Research Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships Between

Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and

Between Organizations. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314-

328.

58 References

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A Comparative Longitudinal

Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives of Interorganizational Relationship

Performance. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 172-194.

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors Influencing

the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis. [Article].

Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136-153.

Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The Role of

Customer Gratitude in Relationship Marketing. [Article]. Journal of

Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.

Perry, M. L., Sengupta, S., & Krapfel, R. (2004). Effectiveness of horizontal strategic

alliances in technologically uncertain environments: are trust and commitment

enough? Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 951-956.

Tellefsen, T., & Thomas, G. P. (2005). The antecedents and consequences of

organizational and personal commitment in business service relationships.

Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 23-37. doi:

10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.07.001

Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2002). The Effect of Relational

Constructs on Customer Referrals and Number of Services Purchased From a

Multiservice Provider: Does Age of Relationship Matter? [Article]. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 202-216.

ba trust commitment

Documents