This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]

On: 05 December 2014, At: 12:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Strategic Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

Managing customer citizenship

behavior: a relationship perspective
a
M. S. Balaji
a
Department of Marketing, Taylor's Business School, Taylor's
University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Published online: 05 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: M. S. Balaji (2014) Managing customer citizenship behavior: a relationship
perspective, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22:3, 222-239, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2013.876076

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876076

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2014
Vol. 22, No. 3, 222–239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876076

Managing customer citizenship behavior: a relationship perspective

M. S. Balaji*

Department of Marketing, Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
This paper aims to examine customer citizenship behavior (CCB) and explore the
interrelationships between relationship value, relationship quality, relationship
strength, and CCB. The study conceptualizes an integrated citizenship behavior
model and applies it to India’s banking services industry in the business-to-customer
context. Structural equation modeling was employed to empirically test the hypotheses
using a sample of 347 responses collected by a survey questionnaire. The findings
indicate that relationship value significantly influences relationship quality, and
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

relationship quality has a significant effect on relationship strength and CCBs.

Relationship value had an indirect effect on relationship strength and citizenship
behavior through relationship quality. This study also reveals significant differences
between relationship quality and citizenship behavior across the customer’s gender.
Implications and future research directions of the study are proposed.
Keywords: customer citizenship behavior; relationship value; relationship quality;
satisfaction; relationship strength; trust

1. Introduction
Recently interest has grown in the area of customer citizenship behavior (CCB).
Citizenship behaviors are discretionary and pro-social actions displayed by customers
which benefit both the service provider and other customers (Bove, Pervan, Beatty, &
Shiu, 2009; Garma & Bove, 2011; Yi & Gong, 2008). Although these behaviors are not
explicitly rewarded by a firm’s formal reward programs, it is considered critical to the
success of a firm (Yi, Gong, & Lee, 2013). Citizenship behaviors are extra-role initiatives
beyond the requirements of the customer role performed in most service encounters. Prior
research studies have shown that CCBs are positively related to affect, satisfaction,
loyalty, and brand equity (Bove et al., 2009; Burmann, Jost-Benz, & Riley, 2009).
Consequently, researchers have directed considerable efforts to understand citizenship
behavior and enable strategy development and implementation for effectively dealing with
such behavior.
Extant research suggests that relationship value and relationship quality are critical for
both customers and firm to develop long-term relationships (Barry & Terry, 2008). An
exchange relationship offering superior value and quality is rewarded with customers’
deep commitment and loyalty toward the firm. Furthermore, these customers exhibit a
lower tendency to switch to alternative partners and show an increased likelihood to
intensify their relationships with the firm (Liu, Guo, & Lee, 2011; Storbacka, Strandvik, &
Grönroos, 1994). With so many benefits at stake, managers must better understand the
factors influencing the customer –firm relationships. A careful examination of relationship
marketing literature reveals that a number of key research issues are still unanswered. In
particular, it is not still clear when customers perform citizenship behavior in a
relationship exchange. Are relationship value and quality both antecedents of CCB?

*Email: sathyaprakashbalaji.makam@taylors.edu.my

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Journal of Strategic Marketing 223

Further, customer gender has been proposed to affect the relationship outcomes and
citizenship behavior separately (Ndubisi, 2006; Sanchez-Franco, Ramos, & Velicia,
2009). Then, to what extent are the linkages between relationship quality and citizenship
behavior impacted by gender? Addressing these questions is relevant for developing and
implementing marketing strategies which enable customer patronage through building and
maintaining customer – firm relationship.
This study makes several contributions to the relationship marketing literature. First,
CCB is a relatively new concept in the field of marketing and customer behavior literature.
Although there have been recurrent calls for research into customer behaviors, majority of
earlier research have focused on the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) performed
by employees (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Moorman, 1991; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Yoon & Suh, 2003). The present study aims to
respond to these recent calls by examining CCB toward the service firm. The findings of
the study expand the current knowledge by understanding the extra-role behavior
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

performed by customers. This is of strategic importance as previous studies have largely

examined the customer in-role behaviors such as company identification (Ahearne,
Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005), coproduction (Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007), and
customer loyalty (Rauyruen & Miller, 2007).
Second, we address a significant gap in the marketing literature by examining the CCB
from a relationship marketing perspective. More specifically, this study investigates the
role of relationship value, relationship quality, and relationship strength in influencing
CCB in the business-to-consumer context. This has important implications for framing
appropriate customer-centric strategies for effective management of customer behavior.
Third, several researchers suggest that customer value may be an important predictor of
building long-term customer relationships and loyalty (Woodruff, 1997). Despite this, few
studies have examined the role of relationship value on behavioral outcomes in the
business-to-customer setting. To this end, the present study examines the outcomes of
relationship value on relationship strength and CCB. Finally, this study extends previous
research (Arnold & Bianchi, 2001; Ndubisi, 2006) by examining the moderating role of
gender in the linkages between relationship quality, relationship strength, and CCB. While
substantial evidence supports the role of individual differences in predicting interpersonal
relationships (Odekerken-Schröder, de Wulf, & Schumacher, 2003), the role of gender has
received considerably less attention. Understanding the role of gender differences may
provide insight for effective management of customer relationships.

2. Literature review
This paper examines the potential antecedents of CCB. This study proposes that relationship
value and relationship quality play a key role in promoting CCB toward the service firm. By
examining citizenship behavior from a relationship perspective, this study will provide a
much broader and comprehensive understanding of customers’ extra-role behaviors in a
relationship exchange.

2.1. Customer citizenship behavior

CCB extending OCB describes voluntary and helpful behaviors performed by the
customer over and above that which they would typically perform in an exchange
relationship (Gilde, Pace, Pervan, & Strong, 2011). These constructive behaviors consist
of helping other customers, providing solicited responses to firms, affiliation, advocacy,
 224 M.S. Balaji

and participating in firm activities. Helping refers to regulatory efforts exercised by the
customers in assisting other customers during the service delivery process (Bettencourt,
1997). Providing solicited responses relates to customer willingness to provide useful
information to the service provider and its employees for improving future service
performance. Affiliation is the expression of warmth, support, and comfort that establishes
a positive relationship between the customer and service firm (Anaza & Zhao, 2013).
Advocacy relates to recommendation of the service firm to others such as friends or
family. Finally, participating in firm activities is similar to civic virtue and involves
participation in activities organized by the service firm or its employees (Farh, Zhong, &
Organ, 2004).
The social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can be used to predict the CCB. Social
exchange theory states that interpersonal relationships between two parties depend on the
perception of rewards and costs involved in a social exchange. The significant value
received by one party creates the obligation for the other party to reciprocate (Bagger &
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

Li, 2011). Thus, the parties involved in a social exchange go beyond the call of duty to
maintain and further enhance their relationship (Anaza & Zhao, 2013). Based on the social
exchange theory, we develop a conceptual model depicting the hypothesized relationship,
as proposed in the next section. CCB was included in this study as it may help managers in
predicting customers’ future and extra-role behavior from a relationship perspective.

2.2. Relationship value

The concept of value has been identified by the academicians and practitioners as the basic
building block underlying buyer – seller relationships (Ravald & Grönroos, 1996).
Relationship value refers to the overall assessment of the expected benefits and costs
relative to the competition gained through customers’ exchange relationship with a service
firm. Thus, relationship value involves a ‘trade-off’ of the costs and benefits received by
a customer from the service provider relative to competitors (Ulaga & Eggert, 2006).
Consistent with the research works by Ulaga and Eggert (2005) and Liu (2006), this study
treats relationship value as a higher-order construct consisting of three components,
namely economic value, value of core service, and value of support service.
Economic value focuses on the customer’s evaluation of value in terms of the benefits
and costs associated with the firm’s offering relative to competitors (Gassenheimer,
Houston, & Davis, 1998). The benefit component refers to the utility of the offering and is
associated with service quality (Liljander & Strandvik, 1993). The cost component refers to
the monetary value or price paid for the product or service offering. Value of the core
services relates to the actual outcome as perceived by the customers. This includes technical
(service outcome), functional (service delivery process), temporal (service interaction), and
spatial performances (service location) of the product or service (Heinonen & Strandvik,
2009; Sharma & Patterson, 1999). Value of support service pertains to the interpersonal
relationship with the firm as perceived by the customer. The support service value is derived
from effective ways of doing business through appropriate communication and interaction
between the exchange partners (Liu, 2006).

2.3. Relationship quality

Relationship quality reflects the customer’s overall evaluation of the exchange
relationship with the firm (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). Although there is no consensus
in the literature on what constitutes relationship quality, Jap, Manolis, and Weitz (1999)
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 225

argue that relationship quality should include constructs that reflect the ‘attitudinal,
process and future expectations’ of the buyer – seller relationship (p. 304). Furthermore,
Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans (2006) demonstrated that treating relationship quality
as a global construct better explains objective performance than examining individual
components. Consequently, this study models relationship quality as a higher-order factor
composed of trust, satisfaction, and commitment. These constructs are widely used in the
literature for representing relationship quality (Naudé & Buttle, 2000; Roberts, Varki, &
Brodie, 2003). Additionally, as suggested by Jap et al. (1999), these constructs reflect
customers’ attitudinal assessment of the relationship (trust), evaluation of the firm’s
process of meeting the expectations (satisfaction), and future engagement in the
relationship (commitment).
Trust relates to the propensity or attitude of the customer toward the service provider.
It is described as the willingness of the customer to rely on the exchange partner
(Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993). Trust is considered a key determinant of long-
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

term orientation of both customers and firms in an ongoing relationship (Ganesan, 1994).
Satisfaction refers to the extent to which a customer experiences fulfillment or
contentment from the quality of relationship with the firm (Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003).
Extant research suggests that satisfaction is an affective state resulting from the ability of
the firm to meet or exceed the a-priori relationship expectations of the customers.
Commitment, a form of relational linkage, is considered a key element in long-term
buyer – seller relationship (Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995). It refers to the extent to
which a customer desires to continue the relationship with the service provider
(Ramasamy, Goh, & Yeung, 2006).

2.4. Relationship strength

Relationship strength refers to the ability of the relationship between buyers and sellers to
resist the internal and/or external challenges (Shi, Shi, Chan, & Wang, 2009). This relates
to the strength of the relationship based on customer assessment of maintaining the
exchange relationship with a service firm. While previous literature suggests various
bonds that ensure relationship longevity (Lin, Weng, & Hsieh, 2003; Sashi, 2012), this
study considers relationship strength from a cognitive perspective. Thus, in this study
relationship strength relates to the strength of the economic ties between the buyer and
seller in an exchange relationship.

3. Model development and hypotheses

The research model of this study is presented in Figure 1. This model states that
relationship value as perceived by customers leads to greater relationship quality,
relationship strength, and CCB. Relationship quality, in turn, leads to greater CCB and
relationship strength. Furthermore, gender has been hypothesized to moderate the effects
of relationship quality on relationship strength and CCB.

3.1. Relationship value and relationship quality

Relationship value is considered pivotal in attracting and retaining customers (Wang &
Head, 2007). Extant literature indicates that relationship value might be related to
relationship quality. Ulaga and Eggert (2006) in their study found that relationship value
positively impacts satisfaction, trust, and commitment. In another study, Moliner (2009)
 226 M.S. Balaji

Customer
Citizenship
Behavior
H2
H4

Relationship H1 Relationship
Value Quality H6

H5
H3
Relationship
H7-8 Strength
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

Gender

Figure 1. Research model of the study.

found that perceived value of a hospital directly influences satisfaction and trust.
Athanasopoulou (2009) argued that customers evaluate different aspects of value in a
relationship, and this value leads to increase in communication quality, trust, and
commitment between the partners. Customers who receive higher value on economic and
noneconomic aspects from their exchange partners relative to competitors might realize
that the firm is working hard on its behalf. This leads to greater confidence in the firm and a
sense of relationship harmony, eliciting a feeling of contentment and satisfaction in the
nature of relationship with the service provider.
According to Gummesson (1987), relationship quality can be construed in terms of
accumulated value. It is argued that during the initial stages of relationship, customers
consider the value of a transaction as pivotal in evaluation of service provider. However, in
later stages of the relationship it is quality of the relationship that matters (Ravald &
Grönross, 1996). Furthermore, while perception of value can occur at different stages of
the relationship process, the evaluation of relationship quality, especially satisfaction and
commitment, occurs post-purchase and post-consumption (Moliner, Sánchez, Rodrı́guez,
& Callarisa, 2007). Therefore, relationship value is considered as an antecedent of
relationship quality. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Relationship value is positively related to relationship quality.

3.2. Relationship value and customer citizenship behavior

Customers form beliefs regarding the extent to which a firm provides value in an exchange
relationship (Ulaga & Chacour, 2001). Such beliefs underlie customer inferences about a
firm’s commitment to the relationship. A high level of these beliefs creates a feeling of
reciprocity and obligations among the customers who not only engage in desired behaviors
that support the firm but also exhibit extra-role behavior toward the firm. For example,
Olaru, Purchase, and Peterson (2008) provide empirical support for the relationship
between value and CCB. In a survey of Australian customers of a research and
development service organization, the authors found that customers are willing to
repurchase and recommend to others if they perceive value in a service offering. Similarly,
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 227

in a B2B relationship context Hutchinson, Wellington, Saad, and Cox (2011) show that
relationship value has a relevant impact on behavioral intentions represented by
repurchasing from the supplier and providing positive word-of-mouth comments for the
supplier. It is argued that this transactional pathway is stronger in new B2B relationships
or with customers who switched from other suppliers. Based on the above discussion, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: Relationship value is positively related to CCB.

3.3. Relationship value and relationship strength

Relationship marketing is concerned with maintaining a strong relationship with the
customers. According to the relationship exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the meaning
ascribed to the relationship by the exchange partner is determined by the assessment of the
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

benefits and costs of the buyer – seller relationship. Thus, it is argued that customers
receiving superior benefits at lower costs compared to competitors will be more committed
to the relationship. Shi et al. (2009) included relationship value in their study as an
antecedent of relationship strength. They found that relationship value is positively related
to both cognitive and conative dimensions of relationship strength. Similarly, Bhagat and
Williams (2008) found that relationship value included as part of structural bonds
positively affected relationship strength.
When customers rationalize that benefits outweigh sacrifices in a relationship
exchange, they decide to continue their relationship with the service provider. Barry, Dion,
and Johnson (2008) suggest that ‘customers often look for lifecycle cost savings and don’t
necessarily care about relationships’ (p. 120). In other words, value perceived by
customers is a key economic antecedent to maintaining and strengthening their
relationship with the service provider. Based on the above discussion, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Relationship value is positively related to relationship strength.

3.4. Relationship quality, customer citizenship behavior, and relationship strength

Prior research studies show that satisfaction, trust, and commitment are related to
citizenship behavior. For instance, Bettencourt (1997) found that customer satisfaction
and commitment are positively related to CCB. Furthermore, satisfied customers were
found to engage in citizenship behaviors such as recommendations, helping customers,
and providing feedback (Groth, 2005). Yi and Gong (2006) explored the linkages between
commitment and citizenship behaviors. Using a sample of customers visiting a sports
center, they found a positive and significant effect of commitment on CCB. In a recent
study, Bove et al. (2009) found that the credibility dimension of trust was positively
related to the citizenship behavior. It has been argued that the quality of the buyer – seller
relationship may influence the extent to which customers exhibit citizenship behaviors.
Customers who favorably evaluate the exchange relationship are more likely to engage in
citizenship behavior, as this enhances their social outlook and makes them feel good
(Garma & Bove, 2011).
Previous literature often views relationship quality as synonymous with relationship
strength (Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009; Liang, Ho, Li, & Turban, 2011). However,
Barry et al. (2008) in their study empirically show that customers consider both social
 228 M.S. Balaji

factors (as measured by relationship quality) and economic factors (as measured by
perceived value) when deciding to stay with the supplier. Furthermore, relationship quality
was found to mediate the relationship between perceived value and relationship strength.
Thus, relationship quality is considered as key antecedent of customer –firm relationship
strength. In another study, Dagger, Danaher, and Gibbs (2009) examined the role of
relationship quality in customer-reported relationship strength. Analysis of the data
collected from nine service types shows that satisfaction, trust, and commitment
significantly affect customer-reported relationship strength. In a B2B context, Herington,
Johnson, and Scott (2009) found that trust is an important indicator dimension of firm –
employee relationship strength.
Relationship strength varies depending on the extent of relationship between buyers
and sellers (Patterson & Smith, 2001). When the buyer – seller relationships are
exceptionally managed, it deepens the bonds and increases the commitment of the
customer toward the firm. Garbarino and Johnson (1999) found that overall satisfaction
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

and commitment were related to the future intentions of customers in the relationship. In
another study, Čater, Žabkar, and Čater (2011) found that affective commitment is
strongly related to both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Furthermore, when the feeling
of attachment is stronger, customers are more predisposed to engage in reciprocity
behavior and feel responsible for the firm and other’s welfare (Bove et al., 2009). Based on
the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4: Relationship quality is positively related to CCB.
Hypothesis 5: Relationship quality is positively related to relationship strength.
Hypothesis 6: Relationship strength is positively related to CCB.

3.5. Moderating role of gender

Extant literature suggests that individual differences exist in the buyer – seller
relationships. In relation to gender, research studies have shown that men are motivated
by achievement needs and exhibit individualistic and task-oriented traits (Venkatesh &
Morris, 2000). Conversely, women tend to be expressive, interdependent, and empathetic.
They are more concerned about the feelings of others and tend to have a relational and
communal outlook (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). Based on self-efficacy,
Sanchez-Franco et al. (2009) proposed that the relationship between commitment and
loyalty is influenced by gender. Their study on Internet service providers shows that the
influence of commitment on loyalty is greater for women than men. Similarly, Bhagat and
Williams (2008) found that gender had a moderating role in affecting relationship strength.
They found that women exhibit higher levels of interpersonal commitment than men in
their relationship with the service provider. Based on the above discussion, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 7: Relationship quality has a greater influence on relationship strength
among women than among men.
There is some evidence to suggest that the linkage between relationship quality and
CCB may vary across the customer gender. Fournier (1998) found that women exhibit
strong interpersonal relationships and brand involvement than men. Furthermore, women
and men detect and feel differently when they are exposed to the service provider’s
attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, when they perceive the buyer – seller relationship
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 229

as satisfying, they reciprocate by engaging in extra-role behaviors (Peloza & Hassay,

2006). Thus, it has been argued that citizenship behavior may be disposed to the influence
of customer gender roles. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
Hypothesis 8: Relationship quality has a greater influence on CCB among women than
among men.

4. Methodology
In this study, we tested the hypothesized model by surveying actual bank customers across
a wide range of public, private, and international banks in India. For the purpose of this
study, survey participants were asked to respond to the questions on the basis of their most
important bank relationship (primary bank).
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

4.1. Sample and data collection procedure

The study sample consisted of actual retail banking users in India. The retail banking
industry was selected in this study for two reasons. First, the advancement in Indian
economy and continuous deregulation has transformed the Indian banking industry from a
bureaucratized system into an effective market-driven and competitive industry (Gupta,
2012). Second, it was argued that banking services are often designed and delivered
without understanding customer value creation (Lähteenmäki & Nätti, 2013).
Consequently, this study on relationship value and CCB is all more important and urgent
in the retail banking context.
Following the pretest of the questionnaire with a group of students and faculty
members, the final version of the questionnaire was administered using two modes (web
and pen and paper) to a purposive sample of approximately 800 banking customers. Over a
four-week data collection period, a total of 347 usable responses were obtained.
The sample consisted of 196 (56.4%) males and 151 (43.6%) females. The respondents
were predominantly in the 21 – 35 years age group (69.7%), had postgraduate
education (52.7%), and employed in the private sector (45.8%). About 182 respondents
(52.4%) indicated a public bank (e.g. State Bank of India) as their primary bank. Of the
remaining respondents, 146 (42.1%) listed a private bank (e.g. ICICI bank) as their
primary bank.

4.2. Measures
All measurement items for this study were adapted from existing studies in the literature.
The measurement items were reworded to enhance understanding in the retail banking
context. All constructs were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale anchored from
1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ¼ ‘strongly agree’. The measure of relationship value
consisted of three latent constructs based on research by Liu (2006), which were (1) value
of the bank’s core services, (2) value of the bank’s support services, and (3) economic
value. The measure of relationship quality was composed of three latent constructs as
proposed by Skarmeas, Katsikeas, Spyropoulou, and Salehi-Sangari (2008), which were
(1) relationship satisfaction, (2) trust, and (3) commitment. Relationship strength was
evaluated using two items measuring cognitive strength as developed by Shi et al. (2009).
CCB was measured using six items adapted from Yi and Gong’s (2008) study.
 230 M.S. Balaji

4.3. Common method bias

As suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff (2003), common method bias
was assessed using both procedural and statistical approaches. Regarding the procedural
approaches, common method variance was minimized by assuring the respondents of
anonymity in their responses and informing them there are no right or wrong answers.
Additionally, respondents were encouraged to answer the questions as honestly as
possible. Well-established measures were used in this study to reduce ambiguity and
improve the validity of the measurement items.
In terms of statistical approach, Harman’s one-factor test was carried out to address the
potential concerns of common method bias arising from the measurement method. The
model fit statistics of the one-factor model are: chi-square (x 2) ¼ 2086.66, degrees of
freedom (df) ¼ 434, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.711, Tucker – Lewis index (TLI)
¼ 0.691, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.105. The results
suggest that the one-factor model was not acceptable, and that common method bias is not
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

a problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We used another approach proposed by
Lindell and Whitney (2001) to validate the above findings. The second smallest correlation
of 0.178 between behaves in a trustworthy manner (TRU2) and best value for money
(EV1) provides further support that common method bias did not pose a series threat to
interpretation of the subsequent analysis.

5. Results
5.1. Measurement model
A two-step approach was used in this study, in which the measurement model and
structural model were estimated separately (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Confirmatory
factor analysis conducted on relationship value and relationship quality supports the
second-order conceptualization of the constructs. Consequently, global measures of
relationship value and quality were used in this study. Confirmatory factor analysis using
AMOS 20.0 on the second-order relationship value (with three latent constructs of
economic value, value of bank’s core services, and value of bank’s support services),
second-order relationship quality (with three latent constructs of satisfaction, trust and
commitment), relationship strength, and CCB was carried out. The goodness of fit
statistics for the measurement model are: x 2 ¼ 678.29, df ¼ 415, CFI ¼ 0.954, TLI
¼ 0.948, and RMSEA ¼ 0.043. These results indicate good fit between the hypothesized
model and the data.

5.1.1. Reliability
The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The reliability of the constructs was
assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. All latent constructs with the exception of relationship
strength have Cronbach’s alpha of more than 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &
Tatham, 2006). Furthermore, the composite reliability which is considered as a better
measure of internal consistency (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) was greater than or equal to 0.7 for
all constructs. These results indicate that all constructs demonstrated acceptable reliability.

5.1.2. Convergent validity

Convergent validity was assessed from the measurement model by determining whether
the standardized factor loadings of the measurement items on its hypothesized underlying
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 231

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the constructs.

Mean SD RV RQ RS CCB
Relationship value (RV) 3.68 0.50 1
Relationship quality (RQ) 3.67 0.55 0.53* 1
Relationship strength (RS) 3.61 0.72 0.49* 0.54* 1
Customer citizenship behavior (CCB) 3.57 0.70 0.56* 0.43* 0.52* 1

*p , 0.05.

construct were significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As shown in Table 2, all
standardized factor loadings were statistically significant. This demonstrates the
convergent validity of the constructs.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

5.1.3. Discriminant validity

x difference test was used to assess the discriminant validity. Table 3 presents the results
2

of the x 2 tests. The findings showed significant differences between the unconstrained
model and the constrained model, providing support of discriminant validity among the
constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

5.2. Structural model and testing of hypotheses

The proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling with maximum
likelihood estimations using AMOS 20.0. Table 4 presents the results of the path analysis.
H1, which proposes the association between relationship value and relationship quality,
was supported (b ¼ 0.63, p , 0.01). H2 proposed a positive linkage between relationship
value and CCB. This hypothesis was not supported ( p ¼ 0.11). For H3, the findings
revealed that relationship value was not related to relationship strength ( p ¼ 0.51).
Supporting H4, relationship quality was found to predict CCB (b ¼ 0.53, p , 0.01). H5
examined the relationship between relationship quality and relationship strength. As
expected, the results supported this hypothesis (b ¼ 0.51, p , 0.01), suggesting that
greater perceived quality of the firm’s relationship efforts strengthens the relational bonds
with the bank. CCB was examined as a consequence of relationship strength in H6. The
hypothesis was supported (b ¼ 0.28, p , 0.01). The positive effect of relationship
strength on citizenship behavior indicates the importance of economic bonds for
customers to perform extra-role behaviors.
Post hoc analysis showed that relationship value has a positive and significant effect on
relationship strength (b ¼ 0.49, p , 0.01). However, this direct effect was not significant
when relationship satisfaction was included as a mediating variable ( p ¼ 0.16). This
provides support for the direct mediation effect of relationship quality. Similarly,
relationship quality was found to mediate the linkage between relationship value and CCB
as the direct effect of relationship value on CCB (b ¼ 0.56, p , 0.01) became non-
significant when relationship quality was included in the analysis (b ¼ 0.07, p ¼ 0.22).
These results indicate that relationship quality plays a key mediating role in the linkages
between relationship value, CCB, and relationship strength.
The interaction of gender and relationship quality on relationship strength was not
significant (interaction term b ¼ 2 0.08, p ¼ 0.21). This does not provide support for H7.
H8 proposed that the linkage between relationship quality and CCB will vary as a function
 232 M.S. Balaji

Table 2. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct SL CA CR AVE
Relationship value
Compared with other banks, this bank . . .
1. Economic value 0.78a 0.79 0.81 0.51
EV1: Provides the best value 0.75
EV2: Provides better value for money 0.73
EV3: Provides high quality services 0.69
EV4: Provides reasonable services for the price 0.70
2. Value of bank’s core services 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.50
VBC1: Provides competent services 0.79
VBC2: Provides prompt services 0.70
VBC3: Provides services as promised 0.63
VBC4: Employees’ have better attitude toward the job 0.71
3. Value of bank’s support services 0.88 0.79 0.81 0.52
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

VBS1: Responds to my service needs 0.66

VBS2: Keeps me better informed of new developments 0.76
VBS3: Gives me individual attention 0.76
VBS4: Has better working relationship with me 0.70
Relationship quality
1. Relationship satisfaction 0.91 0.82 0.82 0.53
RS1: Satisfied/dissatisfied 0.75
RS2: Pleased/annoyed 0.72
RS3: Favorable/unfavorable 0.65
RS4: Good/bad 0.78
2. Trust 0.62 0.82 0.83 0.61
TRU1: Trust this bank 0.77
TRU2: Behaves in a trustworthy manner 0.81
TRU3: Confidence in honesty of the bank 0.77
3. Commitment 0.79 0.89 0.90 0.69
COM1: Committed 0.88
COM2: Obligated 0.87
COM3: Attached 0.79
COM4: Sense of duty toward the relationship 0.77
Customer citizenship behavior
CCB1: I would say positive things about this bank to others 0.79 0.90 0.90 0.58
CCB2: I would give constructive suggestions to this bank on 0.77
how to improve its services
CCB3: When I have a useful idea on how to improve service, 0.79
I would communicate it to someone in this bank
CCB4: When I experience a problem at this bank, I would let 0.75
someone know so that they can improve the service
CCB5: I would do things that make the employee’s job easier 0.74
CCB6: I would carefully observe the rules and policies 0.75
of this bank
Relationship strength
RS1: Continuation of relationship with the bank is important 0.73 0.68 0.70 0.51
to me
RS2: From an economic perspective, the relationship with the 0.74
bank deserves my maximum efforts to maintain
Note: SL, standardized loading; CA, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance
extracted.
a
Second-order standardized estimates.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 233

Table 3. Results of the x 2 tests for discriminant validity.

Correlations x 2 (df) D x 2 for df (1)a

Unconstrained model 678.3 (415)
Relationship value and relationship quality constructs 780.7 (416) 102.4
constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Relationship value and customer citizenship behavior 792.7 (416) 114.4
constructs constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Relationship value and relationship strength constructs 789.5 (416) 111.2
constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Relationship quality and customer citizenship behavior 763.3 (416) 85.0
constructs constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Relationship quality and relationship strength constructs 768.2 (416) 89.9
constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Customer citizenship behavior and relationship strength 778.9 (416) 100.6
constructs constrained with correlation ¼ 1
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

a
All differences are significant for 1 degree of freedom at p , 0.01 level.

Table 4. Results of the study.

Hypothesis Supported /not supported
H1: Relationship value is positively related to relationship quality. Supported
H2: Relationship value is positively related to customer citizenship Not supported
behavior.
H3: Relationship value is positively related to relationship strength. Not supported
H4: Relationship quality is positively related to customer citizenship Supported
behavior.
H5: Relationship quality is positively related to relationship strength. Supported
H6: Relationship strength is positively related Supported
to customer citizenship behavior.
H7: Relationship quality has a greater influence on relationship Not supported
strength among women than among men.
H8: Relationship quality has a greater influence on customer Supported
citizenship behavior among women than among men.

of gender such that relationship quality will be more strongly related to CCB for women
than for men. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis using mean centered
variables showed that gender significantly impacted the association between relationship
quality and CCB (interaction term b ¼ 2 0.16, p , 0.05). The findings indicate that at
higher levels of relationship quality, women exhibited greater citizenship behavior
compared to men. Figure 2 presents the interaction of gender and relationship quality on
citizenship behavior. This provides support for H7.

6. Research implications, limitations, and future research directions

Although CCB is critical for success of a firm, little is known about its antecedents in
consumer markets context. To address this gap, this study examines a research model that
integrates two research streams of relationship marketing and citizenship behavior.
The results provide support for previously untested, but suggested linkages between
relationship value and relationship quality (Payne & Holt, 1999), relationship quality and
 234 M.S. Balaji

Figure 2. Interaction of gender and relationship quality on citizenship behavior.

Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

CCB (Yi & Gong, 2008), relationship quality and relationship strength (Shi et al., 2009),
and moderating role of gender (Farrell & Finkelstein, 2007).

6.1. Theoretical implications

This study makes important contributions to the relationship marketing literature by
providing insights into the role of key relationship constructs in influencing CCB.
Furthermore, the results allow us to conclude that men and women perform citizenship
behaviors differently. The study findings add to the existing literature in several ways.
First, despite growing interest in citizenship behavior (Bove et al., 2009; Yi & Gong,
2008), few studies have explored the antecedents for customers to engage in citizenship
behavior in consumer markets context. As relationship marketing is concerned with
maintaining and enhancing relationships with customers, this study proposes that
citizenship behavior will be related to relationship strategies. By empirically examining
the linkages between relationship value, relationship quality, relationship strength, and
citizenship behaviors, this study extends the current knowledge in the area of relationship
marketing.
Second, this study considers a performance-based measure such as relationship value
within the context of business-to-customer markets. In this study, relationship value
conceptualized as a second-order construct consisting of three components as proposed by
Lui (2006) was found to be positively related to relationship quality. This finding confirms
Gummesson’s (1987) argument that value represents an important antecedent of
relationship quality.
Third, most relationship marketing studies emphasize the role of customer loyalty as
an outcome of relationship quality (Roy & Eshghi, 2013). This study focuses on CCB as an
expression of relationship value and relationship quality. The results show that
relationship quality is positively related to CCB. This finding confirms the social exchange
(Blau, 1964) underpinning that customers who positively evaluate the relationship and
hold favorable attitude toward the firm reciprocate through extra-role behaviors such as
providing constructive suggestions and saying positive things to others.
Fourth, relationship strength was used in this study as a consequence of relationship
quality. While prior studies acknowledge that firms use different types of bonds to
maintain the relationship with the customer (Storbacka et al., 1994), the current study
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 235

operationalizes relationship strength as an economic outcome of the relationship and finds

it positively related to relationship quality. This provides support for the argument that if
customers believe that ongoing relationships are important from an economic perspective,
they will try to maintain and enhance said relationships.
Finally, the results show that men and women carry out citizenship behaviors
differently. While prior studies indicate that individual differences influence customer
behaviors, the present study finds that the influence of relationship quality on citizenship
behavior is greater for women than men. This could be explained by the fact that women
are more concerned about interdependence and consensus (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999), and
feel that relationships are more important than task completion (Costa et al., 2001). Thus,
at higher levels of relationship quality, women perform greater citizenship behavior than
men.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

6.2. Managerial implications

The current study has three important managerial implications. This study shows that
relationship value is crucial within the firm – customer relationships. This underlies the
importance of offering superior value in developing and enhancing the relationship with
the customers (Tamošiūniene & Jasilioniene, 2007). Thus, evaluation of a firm’s
relationship activities and efforts can be enhanced by focusing on the perceived value
components of economic value, core offering, and support services. As relationship value
provides cost savings through switching costs and cost advantages (Barry & Terry, 2008),
it improves customer ties with the firm.
This study shows that relationship quality is critical in strengthening the relationship
and for customers to perform citizenship behavior. Furthermore, relationship value does
not impact CCB and relationship strength unless it translates into higher relationship
quality. Thus, offering superior value to customers is a necessary condition, but is not
sufficient for customers to perform extra-role behaviors. For customers to perform
citizenship behaviors, managers must implement marketing activities that enhance the
quality perceptions of the relationship with the firm. Enhanced quality perceptions along
with superior offer value influence customers to engage in citizenship behaviors.
The most important implication is that managers, in order to maintain and enhance the
relationship with customers, should take into account the gender of the customers for
allocation of the relationship marketing activities. As women are socialized into
communal behaviors, they perceive the relationship with the firm differently than men in
performing the citizenship behavior. Thus, consideration of gender has potentially large
impact on the effectiveness of the relationship marketing strategy for increasing consumer
propensity to engage in citizenship behavior.

6.3. Limitations and future research directions

The present study should not be interpreted without taking into account study limitations.
Moreover, this research study generates a set of research questions which may be
addressed in the future research studies. First, this study focused on relationship value in
affecting the quality of firm – customer relationship. To build a more complete picture,
future research can broaden the research scope by including the antecedents of relationship
value such as relationship learning (Cheung, Myers, & Mentzer, 2010) and relationship
investment (de Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, & Iacobucci, 2001) in examining customer
behaviors. Second, this study focused on a single service sector of banking services in a
 236 M.S. Balaji

single country. Future research projects should examine the hypotheses across different
service industries or countries to provide generalizability and relevance of the model.
Third, this study has the limitation of the cross-sectional design. Future research studies
can examine how the associations between value, quality, and citizenship behaviors may
vary across the different stages of the relationship (Reinartz, Krafft, & Hoyer, 2004).
Fourth, this study examined the antecedents of CCB from relationship perspective. Future
studies should integrate financial measures such as profitability (Kumar, Pozza, Petersen,
& Shah, 2009) or customer lifetime value (Hogan, Lemon, & Rust, 2002) to understand the
impact of such behaviors on the firm performance. Finally, this study considers gender in
examining the differences between relationship quality and citizenship behavior. Future
research studies can broaden the understanding of this relationship by considering other
individual and subjective factors such as consumption rituals, culture, and justice
perceptions.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer –
company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 574– 585.
Anaza, N. A., & Zhao, J. (2013). Encounter-based antecedents of e-customer citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Services Marketing, 27, 130– 140.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. E-s. (2003). satisfaction and e-loyalty: A contingency
framework. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 123– 138.
Arnold, K. A., & Bianchi, C. (2001). Relationship marketing, gender and culture: Implications for
consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 100– 105.
Athanasopoulou, P. (2009). Relationship quality: A critical literature review and research agenda.
European Journal of Marketing, 43, 583– 610.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty in
financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83, 359– 370.
Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2011). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and
behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management.
doi:10.1177/0149206311413922, first published on July 7, 2011.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74 – 94.
Barry, J. M., Dion, P., & Johnson, W. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of relationship strength in
B2B services. Journal of Services Marketing, 22, 114– 135.
Barry, J., & Terry, T. S. (2008). Empirical study of relationship value in industrial services. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23, 228– 241.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service
delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73, 383– 406.
Bhagat, P. S., & Williams, J. D. (2008). Understanding gender differences in professional service
relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 16 – 22.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (13th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Bove, L. L., Pervan, S. J., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62, 698– 705.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M., & Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity model.
Journal of Business Research, 62, 390– 397.
Čater, B., Žabkar, V., & Čater, T. (2011). Commitment in marketing research services: Two
alternative models. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 12, 603– 628.
Cheung, M. S., Myers, M. B., & Mentzer, J. T. (2010). Does relationship learning lead to relationship
value? A cross-national supply chain investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 28,
472– 487.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 237

Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of
personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 1140 –1166.
Costa, P. Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
322– 331.
Dagger, T. S., Danaher, P. J., & Gibbs, B. J. (2009). How often versus how long: The interplay of
contact frequency and relationship duration in customer-reported service relationship strength.
Journal of Service Research, 11, 371– 388.
de Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer
relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65, 33 – 50.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer – seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51, 11 –27.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s
Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241–253.
Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior and gender:
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

Expectations and attributions for performance. North American Journal of Psychology,

9, 81 – 95.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343– 353.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there ‘his’ and ‘hers’ types of interdependence? The
implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect,
behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642– 655.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer– seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 58, 1 –19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70 – 87.
Garma, R., & Bove, L. L. (2011). Contributing to well-being: Customer citizenship behaviors
directed to service personnel. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 633– 649.
Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of economic value, social value,
and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 322– 337.
Gilde, C., Pace, S., Pervan, S. J., & Strong, C. (2011). Examining the boundary conditions of
customer citizenship behaviour: A focus on consumption ritual. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
19, 619– 631.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The
effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of
Marketing, 73, 18 –32.
Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service
deliveries. Journal of Management, 31, 7– 27.
Gummesson, E. (1987). The new marketing—Developing long-term interactive relationships. Long
Range Planning, 20, 10 – 20.
Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange.
Journal of Marketing, 59, 78 –92.
Gupta, V. (2012). Flexible strategic framework for managing forces of continuity and change in
retail banking business processes in India. Business Process Management Journal, 18, 553–575.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C. J., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Heinonen, K., & Strandvik, T. (2009). Monitoring value-in-use of e-service. Journal of Service
Management, 20, 33 – 51.
Herington, C., Johnson, L. W., & Scott, D. (2009). Firm-employee relationship strength—A
conceptual model. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1096–1107.
Hogan, J. E., Lemon, K. N., & Rust, R. T. (2002). Customer equity management charting new
directions for the future of marketing. Journal of Service Research, 5, 4– 12.
Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W. J., Saad, M., & Cox, P. (2011). Refining value-based differentiation
in business relationships: A study of the higher order relationship building blocks that influence
behavioural intentions. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 465 –478.
 238 M.S. Balaji

Jap, S. D., Manolis, C., & Weitz, B. A. (1999). Relationship quality and buyer – seller interactions in
channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research, 46, 303– 313.
Kumar, V., Pozza, I. D., Petersen, J. A., & Shah, D. (2009). Reversing the logic: The path to
profitability through relationship marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 147– 156.
Lähteenmäki, I., & Nätti, S. (2013). Obstacles to upgrading customer value-in-use in retail banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31, 334– 347.
Liang, T. P., Ho, Y. T., Li, Y. W., & Turban, E. (2011). What drives social commerce: The role of
social support and relationship quality. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16,
69 – 90.
Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1993). Estimating zones of tolerance in perceived service quality and
perceived service value. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4, 6 – 28.
Lin, N., Weng, J. C., & Hsieh, Y. (2003). Relational bonds and customer’s trust and commitment - A
study on the moderating effects of web site usage. Service Industries Journal, 23, 103– 124.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Liu, A. H. (2006). Customer value and switching costs in business services: Developing exit barriers
through strategic value management. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21, 30 – 37.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

Liu, C., Guo, Y. M., & Lee, C. (2011). The effects of relationship quality and switching barriers on
customer loyalty. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 71 – 79.
Moliner, M. A. (2009). Loyalty, perceived value and relationship quality in healthcare service.
Journal of Service Management, 20, 76 – 97.
Moliner, M. A., Sánchez, J., Rodrı́guez, R. M., & Callarisa, L. (2007). Perceived relationship quality
and post-purchase perceived value: An integrative framework. European Journal of Marketing,
41, 1392– 1422.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 845– 855.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57, 81 – 101.
Naudé, P., & Buttle, F. (2000). Assessing relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management,
29, 351– 361.
Ndubisi, N. O. (2006). Effect of gender on customer loyalty: A relationship marketing approach.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24, 48 – 61.
Odekerken-Schröder, G., de Wulf, K., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Strengthening outcomes of retailer-
consumer relationships: The dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer
personality. Journal of Business Research, 56, 177–190.
Olaru, D., Purchase, S., & Peterson, N. (2008). From customer value to repurchase intentions and
recommendations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23, 554– 565.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136– 153.
Patterson, P. G., & Smith, T. (2001). Relationship benefits in service industries: A replication in a
Southeast Asian context. Journal of Services Marketing, 15, 425– 443.
Payne, A., & Holt, S. (1999). A review of the ‘value’ literature and implications for relationship
marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 7, 41 – 51.
Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and
good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 357– 379.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513– 563.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903.
Ramasamy, B., Goh, K. W., & Yeung, M. C. (2006). Is Guanxi (relationship) a bridge to knowledge
transfer? Journal of Business Research, 59, 130– 139.
Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K. E. (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty.
Journal of Business Research, 60, 21 –31.
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal
of Marketing, 30, 19 –30.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 239

Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management process:
Its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 293– 305.
Roberts, K., Varki, S., & Brodie, R. (2003). Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer
services: An empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 169– 196.
Roy, S. K., & Eshghi, A. (2013). Does relationship quality matter in service relationships? Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 21, 443– 458.
Sanchez-Franco, M. J., Ramos, A. F. V., & Velicia, F. A. M. (2009). The moderating effect of gender
on relationship quality and loyalty toward Internet service providers. Information &
Management, 46, 196– 202.
Sashi, C. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer– seller relationships, and social media. Management
Decision, 50, 253– 272.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness and service
quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services. Journal of Services
Marketing, 13, 151– 170.
Shi, G., Shi, Y., Chan, A. K. K., & Wang, Y. (2009). Relationship strength in service industries: A
measurement model. International Journal of Market Research, 51, 659– 685.
Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C. S., Spyropoulou, S., & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2008). Market and supplier
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 12:52 05 December 2014

characteristics driving distributor relationship quality in international marketing channels of

industrial products. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 23 – 36.
Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T., & Grönroos, C. (1994). Managing customer relationships for profit:
The dynamics of relationship quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
5, 21 – 38.
Tamošiūniene, R., & Jasilioniene, R. (2007). Customer relationship management as business
strategy appliance: Theoretical and practical dimensions. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 8, 69 – 78.
Ulaga, W., & Chacour, S. (2001). Measuring customer-perceived value in business markets: A
prerequisite for marketing strategy development and implementation. Industrial Marketing
Management, 30, 525– 540.
Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2005). Relationship value in business markets: The construct and its
dimensions. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12, 73 – 99.
Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Relationship value and relationship quality: Broadening the
nomological network of business-to-business relationships. European Journal of Marketing,
40, 311– 327.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly,
24, 115– 139.
Wang, F., & Head, M. (2007). How can the web help build customer relationships? An empirical
study on e-tailing. Information & Management, 44, 115– 129.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 139– 153.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of service customer citizenship and
badness behavior. Seoul Journal of Business, 12, 145– 176.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2008). The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer
citizenship behavior and customer dysfunctional behavior. Industrial Marketing Management,
37, 767– 783.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., & Lee, H. (2013). The impact of other customers on customer citizenship behavior.
Psychology & Marketing, 30, 341– 356.
Yoon, M. H., & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as external
effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research, 56, 597– 611.