See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267993238

The Influence of Seller Relationship Orientation and Buyer Relationship

Proneness on Trust, Commitment, and Behavioral Loyalty in a Consumer
Environment

Article  in  Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour · April 2012

CITATIONS READS

50 838

2 authors, including:

Gaby Odekerken
Maastricht University
96 PUBLICATIONS   8,696 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Service Design for Innovation View project

Experienced quality of care in nursing homes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gaby Odekerken on 08 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Influence of Seller Relationship Orientation and
Buyer Relationship Proneness on Trust, Commitment,
and Behavioral Loyalty in a Consumer Environment

Kristof De Wulf 1
Research and Teaching Associate

Gaby Odekerken-Schröder 2
Research and Teaching Associate

ABSTRACT

The authors define the constructs of seller relationship orientation and buyer relationship
proneness and develop and validate corresponding measurement scales. They propose and
empirically test a conceptual model relating the two constructs to relationship effectiveness
measured as trust, commitment, and behavioral loyalty in a consumer environment.

INTRODUCTION

Given the widespread attention of both academics as well as practitioners for the relationship
marketing domain (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Nevin 1995), one would expect it to have a rich
tradition of theory development, scale development, and empirical research. While this is
mainly true with respect to industrial and channel relationships, consumer relationships have
been explored to a much lesser extent (Beatty et al. 1996; Iacobucci and Ostrom 1996;
Webster 1994).

Mainly due to the rapid development of information and communication technologies in

marketing, practitioners are showing an increased interest in building and sustaining
individual relationships with consumers (Gruen 1995; Jüttner and Wehrli 1994). Recently,
scholars are starting to equally recognize the relevance of the relationship marketing
framework for consumer environments (Iacobucci and Ostrom 1996; Sheth and Parvatiyar
1995). However, theoretically-driven research on long-term consumer relationships is still in
its early stages (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). First, the majority of past research on consumer
relationships is of a conceptual nature. Second, empirical research on consumer relationships
has mainly focused on relationship benefits to the seller as opposed to relationship benefits to
the buyer (Bitner 1995; Reichheld 1993; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Since most definitions
of relationship marketing stress the existence of advantages for both parties in a relationship,
this is somewhat surprising (Berry 1995; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Grönroos 1990; Shani
1
Kristof De Wulf is Research and Teaching Associate at the University of Ghent, Faculty of Economics and
Applied Economics, Department of Marketing (Belgium). Address: Hoveniersberg 4, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
E-mail: mailto:kristo.dewulf@rug.ac.be, telephone (32) 9/210.98.63, fax (32) 9/210.98.75.
2
Gaby Odekerken-Schröder is Research and Teaching Associate at the University of Maastricht, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing and Market Research (the Netherlands).
Address: P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. E-mail: mailto:g.schroder@mw.unimaas.nl,
telephone (31) 43/388.36.18, fax (31) 43/321.02.65.
 2

and Chalasani 1993). As a result, several scholars are claiming that more research is needed
in order to understand factors that lead buyers to seek and maintain relationships with sellers
(Barnes 1994; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Webster 1992).

The main objective of this study is to generate empirical evidence with respect to the
influences of seller relationship orientation as well as buyer relationship proneness on the
effectiveness of the buyer-seller relationship in a business-to-consumer context. The study has
been designed to (1) provide precise and directive definitions of seller relationship orientation
and buyer relationship proneness, (2) propose a conceptual model relating relationship
orientation and proneness to relationship effectiveness, (3) develop and validate scales for
these constructs, and (4) empirically validate the conceptual model. All constructs are
formulated from a buyer’s point of view. The empirical research was conducted in a
consumer retail setting.

BACKGROUND

Theoretical knowledge concerning buyer-seller relationships mainly originated from

conceptual and empirical work in industrial and channel contexts (Fischer and Bristor 1994;
Gwinner, Gremler and Bitner 1998; Peterson 1995; Wilson 1995). Recently, the applicability
of relationship marketing concepts has been extended from business-to-business to business-
to-consumer environments (Iacobucci and Ostrom 1996). However, this broadened scope has
raised some questions with respect to the generalizability of traditional relationship concepts
to new domains of interest.

Whereas some scholars are convinced of the existence of one overall relationship marketing
theory, others argue that relationship marketing concepts are context-specific. Proponents of a
general relationship marketing theory claim that both businesses as well as consumers engage
in relationships in order to optimize expected equity (trade-off between exchange costs and
benefits) and to increase the predictability of exchange outcomes (Christy, Oliver and Penn
1996; Parker and Funkhouser 1997; Peterson 1995). Academics in favor of context-specific
relationship marketing theories stress that business-to-business and business-to-consumer
relationships are clearly based on different underlying assumptions (Fischer and Bristor 1997;
Wilson 1995). Möller and Halinen-Kaila (1998) explicitly state that it is misleading to talk
about relationship marketing without any reference to the distinction between consumer and
interorganizational relationship marketing. According to them, both modes of relationship
marketing pose very different challenges for customer relationship management.

This discussion seems to illustrate that both lines of thought can potentially contribute to our
understanding of consumer relationships. In line with Gruen (1995), we believe that the study
of consumer relationships can benefit from a conceptual model that incorporates relationship
constructs which are unique to business-to-consumer markets as well as those which are
shared with business-to-business markets. The strong tradition of studying many relational
constructs in business-to-business environments provides a rich source of knowledge which
can, at least partially, be applied successfully to consumer marketing situations (Iacobucci
and Ostrom 1996). While some business-to-business constructs can easily be translated to
consumer contexts, others seem to be appropriate for business markets only.

Typically, business-to-business markets differ from business-to-consumer markets in the

sense that they are characterized by relatively fewer customers, higher levels of idiosyncratic
 3

investments, longer purchasing time frames, more complex buying centers and processes,
more contractual agreements, and more industry standard regulations (Gruen 1995; Selnes
1998; Smith and Barclay 1997). Several of the constructs mentioned in relationship marketing
literature seem to be directly related to these specific features of business-to-business
markets. Consequently, these constructs are less likely to aid in explaining consumer
relationships. Examples of constructs which appear nearly exclusively in business-to-business
literature are cooperation, mutual goals, dependence, power, performance satisfaction,
comparison level of alternatives, adaptation, nonretrievable investments, and switching costs
(Anderson and Weitz 1989; Doney and Cannon 1997; Heide and Weiss 1995; Wilson 1995).
These relational constructs are not considered irrelevant in a consumer context, but are rather
thought to play a less substantial role in explaining consumer relationships. As a result, these
constructs are not included in this study.

The focal constructs in our study are seller relationship orientation, buyer relationship
proneness, trust, commitment, and behavioral loyalty. First, the rationale for including the
seller relationship orientation and buyer relationship proneness constructs stems from the
assumption that relationship effectiveness is determined by a seller’s relationship efforts as
well as by a buyer’s willingness to engage in a relationship (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987;
Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Second, Morgan and Hunt (1994) have stated that both trust and
commitment are key constructs relevant for any type of relational exchange, thereby
implicitly recognizing their importance in consumer markets. Third, behavioral loyalty was
included as a construct of interest given the fact that relationship outcomes can be of a
psychological as well as of a behavioral nature (Gruen 1995). This is in line with the
commonly held view on customer loyalty as a combination of behavioral and attitudinal
factors (Asseal 1992; Dick and Basu 1994; Jacoby and Chestnut 1978; Krapfel, Salmond and
Spekman 1991). In the following sections, the main literature with respect to each of the focal
constructs in this study is discussed.

Relationship orientation of the seller

Sellers who are long-term oriented aim at building long-term customer relationships of
mutual advantage by achieving future goals and by evaluating both current and future
outcomes (Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne 1994; Fischer and Bristor 1994; Ganesan 1994;
Saxe and Weitz 1982). Ganesan (1994) explicitly states that a seller’s long-term orientation
differs from the longevity of a relationship and goes beyond mere probability. It differs from
relationship longevity because the mere length of a relationship can result from other factors
than the long-term orientation of a seller (e.g. inertia or lack of alternatives) (Ganesan 1994;
Kelley 1983). It goes beyond mere probability because a seller’s long-term orientation
requires planned relationship efforts on behalf of the seller resulting in relationship utility for
the buyer. The extent to which a seller is long-term oriented varies with the extent to which
this seller is able to provide relationship utility to the buyer (Angeles 1992; Bagozzi 1995;
Ganesan 1994).

In this study, long-term orientation and relationship orientation will be regarded as

equivalents. We define the relationship orientation of a seller as “a buyer’s perception of the
extent to which a seller makes relationship efforts”. This conceptualization of relationship
orientation assumes that a buyer is able to perceive and evaluate a seller’s relationship efforts.
Since this may be difficult for a buyer during the first stages of his relationship life cycle with
a seller, we only focus upon relationship efforts in the maintenance and enhancement stages
 4

of the relationship life cycle (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987). A relationship effort is defined as
“any effort which is actively made by a seller and which is aimed at maintaining and
enhancing a relationship with a buyer”. Both definitions take into account the remarks
suggested by Ganesan (1994). The concept of seller relationship orientation goes beyond
mere probability because relationship efforts are at the core of its definition. Moreover, it
differs from relationship longevity because relationship efforts are defined to be actively
made by the seller and, as a consequence, the resulting relationship utility is no automatic
product of the mere existence of a continuous interaction between the buyer and the seller.
For example, convenience utility resulting from the fact that a consumer gradually learns
where products are located in a supermarket is not regarded as relationship utility because the
supermarket has no active role in its development.

Until now, only partial attempts have been made to classify different types of relationship
efforts (Bagozzi 1995). Seven broad categories of relationship efforts can be distinguished in
marketing literature: belonging, communication, customization, differentiation,
personalization, rewarding, and security and convenience.
Belonging. Being part of a relationship can be an end in itself for particular buyers. Buyers
can engage in a relationship with a seller without actively seeking tangible relationship
benefits (Bagozzi 1995; Bitner 1995; Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996). Belonging is therefore
defined as “the extent to which a seller fulfills a buyer’s intrinsic need to be part of a
relationship”.
Communication. Communication is often considered as a necessary condition for the
existence of a relationship (Bendapudi and Berry 1997; Crosby and Stephens 1987; Duncan
and Moriarty 1998). Duncan and Moriarty (1998, p.2) regard communication as a “human
activity that links people together and creates relationships”. In an industrial marketing
environment, it is suggested that relationship effectiveness varies directly with the extent of
buyer-seller communication (Crosby and Stephens 1987; Håkanson 1982). We define the
communication dimension of seller relationship orientation as “the extent to which a seller
initiates the exchange of written information with a buyer”. (waarom alleen written?)
Customization. Today’s interactive information technology enables sellers to capture an
increasing amount of information on preferences, buying behavior, and other characteristics
of individual buyers (Berry and Gresham 1986; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). This rich source
of buyer knowledge can consequently be used to tailor offerings and to match buyer needs
more precisely (Beatty et al. 1996; Berry 1995; Bitner 1995; Treacy and Wiersema 1993). In
this study, customization is defined as “the extent to which a seller uses knowledge about a
buyer in order to tailor his offerings to the buyer”.
Differentiation. Differentiating between loyal and non-loyal buyers enables a seller to address
the basic human need to feel important (Barlow 1992). Buyers can perceive a seller’s true
concerns for them as a special treatment privilege (Bitner 1995; Crosby and Stephens 1987;
Peterson 1995; Ping 1993). We define differentiation as “the extent to which a seller treats
and serves loyal buyers differently than non-loyal buyers”.
Personalization. Mittal and Lassar (1996) define personalization as the social content of
interaction between a seller and a buyer. As such, personalization can be regarded as a means
to show recognition for the other party. One of the suggested ways of valuing a buyer’s
uniqueness as an individual is referring to his name (Barlow 1992; Howard, Gengler and Jain
1995; Mittal and Lassar 1996). We define personalization as “the extent to which a seller
demonstrates his appreciation for a buyer as a person”.
Rewarding. Rewarding does not refer to short-term promotional give-aways, but to planned
and implemented parts of a larger loyalty management strategy (O’Brien and Jones 1995). In
 5

general, a distinction is made between tangible and intangible rewards (Barlow 1992; Berry
and Gresham 1986; Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996). Since intangible rewards are the subject
of the other relationship efforts mentioned in this section, we define rewarding as “the extent
to which a seller offers tangible reward benefits such as pricing or gift incentives to a buyer
in return for his loyalty”.
Security and convenience. It is recognized that buyers generally apply two strategies to
reduce perceived risk: (1) engage in external search for information and (2) become loyal to a
brand, product, store, or marketer (Dowling and Staelin 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995).
One of the suggested ways for a seller to reduce buyer risk and stress is making security and
convenience efforts (Berry 1995; Bitner 1995). We define the security and convenience
dimension of a seller’s relationship orientation as “the extent to which a seller’s efforts lead to
buyer risk reduction, time savings, and hassle-free buying”.

Relationship proneness of the buyer

Since not all buyers are expected to desire long-term relationships with a seller, buyers’
willingness and their ability to maintain and enhance relationships are believed to affect the
success of relationship marketing strategies (Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996; Sheth and
Parvatiyar 1995). The basic idea of the willingness of buyers to maintain and enhance
relationships (further referred to as buyer relationship proneness) has been referred to in
literature as ‘relationship motivation’ (Beatty et al. 1996), ‘receptivity to relationships’
(Bendapudi and Berry 1997), ‘relationship friendliness’ (Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996),
‘motivational investment in a relationship’ (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987), ‘relationship
seeking behavior’ (Ellis 1995), ‘sociability’ (Ellis 1995), and ‘loyalty proneness’ (Goldman
1977-1978).

The relationship proneness of a buyer is viewed as “the behavioral tendency of a buyer to

actively maintain and enhance a relationship with one particular seller”. First, the construct
of relationship proneness is defined as a behavioral tendency in order to make a clear
distinction between relationship proneness and relationship commitment. In line with the
efforts that a seller undertakes in order to maintain or enhance a relationship with a buyer,
buyer relationship proneness refers to the efforts that a buyer makes in order to maintain or
enhance a relationship with a seller. Second, relationship proneness is considered to be an
active tendency of a buyer. This corresponds with the notion of ‘an effort which is actively
made’ mentioned in the definition of seller relationship orientation. In other words, the
concept of relationship proneness implies more than just a positive reaction on behalf of the
buyer to relationship efforts made by the seller. Third, relationship proneness is defined as a
seller-specific construct. As a result, this point of view shows consideration for the possibility
that buyer relationship proneness might be related to certain product(s) (categories) or
seller(s) (categories) only (Goldman 1977-1978).

Relationship effectiveness

In relationship marketing literature, often cited indicators of relationship effectiveness are

trust, commitment, and behavioral loyalty (Dick and Basu 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994).

Trust
 6

Trust is a widely accepted construct in industrial literature (Wilson 1995), channel literature
(Anderson and Weitz 1989), and services literature (Bitner 1995). Recently, the concept of
trust is being applied to consumer markets as well (Beatty et al. 1996). Although most
definitions of trust were developed in a business-to-business environment, the majority of the
ideas included can easily be translated to a business-to-consumer situation. A commonly
agreed upon definition of trust is “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one
has confidence” (Moorman, Zaltman and Desphandé 1992, p. 315). Most definitions of trust
involve a belief that a relationship partner acts in the best interests of the other partner
(Anderson and Weitz 1989; Geyskens, Steenkamp and Scheer 1996; Morgan and Hunt 1994;
Wilson 1995).

Trust is considered to be important in relationships because it discloses possibilities for action

which would not have been pursued without trust (Andaleeb 1996). Morgan and Hunt (1994)
state that trust is one of the central concepts related to the field of relationship marketing.
Every encounter between a seller and a buyer presents an opportunity to build or destroy trust
(Bitner 1995). Since trust is more a product of interpersonal than of individual factors, it is
generally viewed as the result of a relationship between parties and not as a personality treat
of either party (Moorman, Deshpandé and Zaltman 1993). Trust may cause the buyer to
accept short-term mistakes and to stay in a relationship despite the existence of competitors
providing attractive alternatives (Bitner 1995; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987).

Relationship commitment

Relationship commitment is a fairly new construct in business-to-consumer relationship

studies. Its conceptualization in marketing is based on social exchange, organizational
behavior, and consumer behavior theories (Venetis 1997). In romantic relationships,
relationship commitment is defined as “an individual’s intent to maintain and feel
psychologically attached to a relationship” (Fehr 1988; Sprecher 1988, p. 318). Morgan and
Hunt (1994, p.23) define relationship commitment in a business-to-business context as “an
exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to
warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it”. Most definitions of relationship commitment
have in common that it is referred to as an enduring construct and that it reflects a positive
valuation of a relationship (Beatty, Homer and Kahle 1988; Geyskens, Steenkamp and Scheer
1996; Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpandé 1992). Crosby and Taylor (1983) additionally focus
on the dynamic aspect of relationship commitment expressed as the tendency to resist change.
This implies that buyers look beyond short-term pleasures potentially offered by competitors
and develop an allegiance to the seller (Ulrich 1989).

Morgan and Hunt (1994) consider the concept of relationship commitment to be central to
relationship marketing not only because the construct is strongly related to buyer trust, but
also because it can lead to important relationship outcomes. One of the outcomes of
relationship commitment which is frequently mentioned in literature is behavioral loyalty.

Behavioral loyalty

According to Gruen (1995), relationship outcomes can be of a psychological as well as of a

behavioral nature. The loyalty literature contains a plethora of behavioral measures including
proportion of purchase, purchase sequence, and probability of purchase (Denison and Knox
1993; Dick and Basu 1994). While some measures were originally developed for assessing
 7

brand loyalty, others have been specifically tailored to store behavior. Denison and Knox
(1993) have classified behavioral store loyalty measures into four categories: patronage ratios,
switching ratios, budget ratios, and composite measures.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Figure 1 about here

Buyer trust is generally considered to result from a seller’s expertise, reliability, and
intentionality (Ganesan 1994). The willingness of a seller to make relationship efforts
provides evidence to the buyer that the seller can be believed, cares for the relationship, and is
willing to make sacrifices (Doney and Cannon 1997; Ganesan 1994). In literature, several of
the relationship orientation dimensions mentioned in the background section have been
related to the concept of trust. Bejou, Wray and Ingram (1996) state that trust is stimulated by
a salesperson’s level of customer orientation. Moorman, Deshpandé and Zaltman (1993)
discovered that buyer trust is higher when the seller’s offer is customized to the needs and
specifications of the buyer. Tax, Brown and Chandrashekaran (1998) claim that trust is
strengthened if organizations are responsive in ways that acknowledge an individual’s
particular needs. In channel literature, it is stated that the “mutual trust of a relationship is
strongly influenced by the level of communications in the dyad” (Anderson and Weitz 1989,
p. 313; Duncan and Moriarty 1998). As a result, we believe it is justified to formulate
hypothesis 1a.

H1a: A buyer’s level of trust towards a seller is higher when this seller’s relationship
orientation is higher rather than lower.

Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) argue that the effects of a seller’s relationship marketing efforts
can be tempered by a buyer’s motivation to maintain and enhance his relationship with the
seller. They state that the buyer’s willingness and ability to engage in relational marketing can
have an important impact on marketing productivity. It is suggested that customer receptivity
to relationships positively influences outcomes such as identity, advocacy, enhancement, and
cooperation, all of which can be regarded as elements of relationship effectiveness
(Bendapudi and Berry 1997). In other words, buyer relationship proneness can act as a
moderator between seller relationship orientation and trust resulting from the relationship.
Therefore, research hypothesis 1b is suggested.

H1b: The level of a buyer’s relationship proneness moderates the relationship between a
seller’s relationship orientation and buyer trust

Several scholars have concluded that trust influences the level of commitment to a
relationship (Andaleeb 1996; Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Geyskens, Steenkamp and Scheer
1996; Moorman, Deshpandé and Zaltman 1993). In their commitment-trust theory of
relationship marketing, Morgan and Hunt (1994) state that trust and relationship commitment
are the corner stones of all relational exchanges and report a significant positive relationship
between trust and relationship commitment. They state that relationships characterized by
trust are so highly valued that parties will desire to commit themselves to such relationships.
Since commitment entails vulnerability, parties will only seek partners they can trust. Social
exchange theory explains this causal relationship through the principle of generalized
reciprocity, which states that mistrust breeds mistrust and as such would serve to decrease
 8

commitment to the relationship and shift transactions to short-term exchanges (Morgan and
Hunt 1994). From this perspective, hypothesis 2a is formulated.

H2a: A buyer’s level of relationship commitment towards a seller is higher when the level
of trust towards this seller is higher rather than lower.

In general, it is argued that relationships characterized by trust are so highly valued that
parties will desire to commit themselves to such relationships (Morgan and Hunt 1994).
Whereas this point of view seems to assume that any buyer highly values trust in a
relationship, we might expect that individuals differ in their degree of attributing value to
trust. Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpandé (1992) explicitly argue that individual difference
variables can act as moderators between trust and relationship commitment. More
specifically, Beatty et al. (1996) have identified buyer relationship motivation as one of the
facilitators of the assumed relationship between trust and commitment. Consequently, we
suggest hypothesis 2b.

H2b: The level of a buyer’s relationship proneness moderates the relationship between
buyer trust and relationship commitment

Buying behavior is generally considered to be influenced by relationship commitment

(Mathieu and Zajac 1990). Morgan and Hunt (1994) found significant relationships between
the level of a buyer’s relationship commitment and his acquiescence, propensity to leave, and
cooperation, all of which can be regarded as behavioral outcomes of relationships. Oliver
(1997) states that loyalty generally evolves from cognitive loyalty to affective loyalty,
conative loyalty, and action loyalty. Since the first three loyalty stages can be regarded as
different levels of relationship commitment, a positive relationship between relationship
commitment and action loyalty (or behavioral loyalty) is anticipated. Consequently,
hypothesis 3a is suggested.

H3a: A buyer’s behavioral loyalty towards a seller is higher when this buyer’s relationship
commitment towards the seller is higher rather than lower.

Bendapudi and Berry (1997) recognize that not all buyers desire long-term relationships with
sellers. Since relationships are only profitable for a firm when they last long enough for the
firm to recoup the costs and reap the benefits from the relationship, they argue that it is useful
to segment the market on the basis of relationship receptivity (Bendapudi and Berry 1997). In
other words, relationship proneness is considered to have an impact on behavioral outcomes
of a relationship. In line with this, we expect that relationship proneness functions as a
moderator between relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty as is suggested in
hypothesis 3b.

H3b: The level of a buyer’s relationship proneness moderates the relationship between
buyer relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty

RESEARCH METHOD

The theoretical evidence presented in the background section supports the potential existence
of relationships between the constructs of seller relationship orientation, buyer relationship
proneness, and relationship effectiveness. In this section, we report the methods used to apply
 9

the conceptual framework to a consumer retailing environment. First, we comment upon the
context in which the study was carried out. Second, we describe the process used to establish
and initially validate the scales for each construct. The procedure we used is based upon
accepted methods of scale development in consumer research (Churchill 1979). Third, we
report the samples and measures used for scale validation and examination of the tenability of
the model. Fourth, we present the main conclusions derived from the principal components
analysis.

Context

Several authors recognize the necessity to take a buyer perspective in order to fully
understand the factors that lead buyers to seek out and value ongoing relationships
(Bendapudi and Berry 1997; Parker and Funkhouser 1997; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995;
Webster 1992). As a result, all constructs in this study are defined from a buyer’s perspective.
This also holds for the construct of seller relationship orientation, which is measured as buyer
perceptions of a seller’s relationship efforts.

Relationship marketing is generally considered to be relevant in consumer markets for

continuously or periodically delivered products or services that are personally relevant, of a
high-involvement nature, variable in quality, and/or complex (Berry 1995; Christy, Oliver and
Penn 1996; Iacobucci and Ostrom 1996). Since the consumer market of casual clothing is
generally characterized by periodic delivery, personal relevance, and high involvement
(Laurent and Kapferer 1985), the model is tested in the context of relationships between
retailers in casual clothing and their customers.

It is widely acknowledged that relationships have to be regarded as dynamic processes

between buyers and sellers (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987). In this study, no explicit reference
is made to the initial development of a relationship, nor to the dissolution of existing
relationships (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987; Perrien, Paradis and Banting 1995). Since our
conceptualization of seller relationship orientation requires that a buyer is able to perceive
and evaluate a seller’s relationship efforts, the focus of this study is on relationship
maintenance and enhancement.

Development of initial set of scale items

No established measurement scales were available for most of the constructs examined in this
study. Even for trust and relationship commitment, available measures tended to be oriented
towards business-to-business settings as opposed to consumer settings. As a result, new
measures had to be developed specifically for this study.

Literature in the domains of marketing, psychology, and sociology provided us with

preliminary constructs and scale items. This desk research was complemented with 4
consumer focus group conversations. The research sample for the focus groups consisted of
customers of a medium-sized European retail clothing chain located in Belgium. The
company disposed of a marketing database which contained detailed information on the
purchasing history of its customers. Customers were split in high- versus low-loyalty groups
on basis of their purchasing pattern during the last five seasons (a season comprised 6
months). High-loyalty customers were characterized by the fact that they did a purchase
during each of the last five seasons. Low-loyalty customers were defined as customers who
 10

only did a purchase during the first two seasons. 30 respondents, which were equally spread
across age, gender, and level of loyalty towards the clothing chain, were recruited by
telephone. Eventually, a total number of 23 respondents participated in 4 focus group
conversations: 7 women disloyal to the retailer, 7 women loyal to the retailer, 5 men disloyal
to the retailer, and 4 men loyal to the retailer. Each participant received a monetary incentive
in return for his cooperation. Relatively more women were recruited (60%) than men (40%)
based upon the assumption that shopping for clothing is primarily a woman’s activity.

The duration of each focus group conversation averaged between 1.5 and 2 hours.
Respondents were asked to (1) talk about their own behavior with respect to shopping for
casual clothing, (2) describe their own feelings towards the relationship orientation of
clothing retailers and their own relationship proneness, (3) give their description of two
hypothetical countries each differing with respect to the presence of relationship-oriented
retailers, and (4) describe the behavior and feelings of people who differ with respect to their
relationship proneness towards retailers on basis of a photo sort. Experienced moderators
probed respondents with respect to their thoughts and feelings about seller relationship
orientation and buyer relationship proneness.

Initial scale validation

The scales which were generated on basis of the desk research and the focus groups were
initially tested in two steps: (1) a test of face and content validity of the scale items by a group
of 7 expert judges composed of both scholars as well as practitioners who were familiar with
the relationship marketing domain and/or the clothing retailing business, (2) a test of
readability and comprehension of the items by a group of 8 consumers who were equally
spread across age and gender. The professional expert judges were asked to evaluate the items
for representativeness of the scale domain and to sort the seller relationship orientation items
into seven groups of relationship efforts (belonging, communication, customization,
differentiation, personalization, rewarding, and security and convenience). In case experts
attributed more than one category of relationship efforts to one item, items were reformulated
or deleted.

Samples

Four samples were drawn from two large European shopping malls located in Belgium and
the Netherlands. The first two samples (Belgium) were used to purify the measures and to
provide an initial examination of the scales’ psychometric properties through principal
components analysis. A third sample (Belgium) was used to validate the measurement and
structural model. A fourth sample was drawn from another country (the Netherlands) in order
to test the stability of the measurement and structural model. The sample collection method
was similar for all studies and occurred as follows.

In each study, 300 visitors were questioned through face-to-face interviews using a structured
questionnaire. Five interviewers were instructed to select respondents which were equally
spread across age, gender, day of interviewing, hour of interviewing, and level of loyalty
towards the store about which the respondent needed to provide information. Across the four
samples, an average of 37% of the persons who were approached in the shopping malls was
willing to participate.
 11

Respondents were first asked to indicate in which stores they had made a purchase of casual
clothing during the last 12 months. Respondents were provided with sufficient time for
accomplishing this task. Second, respondents indicated (1) their share-of-wallet for each store
they listed and (2) the extent to which they felt being a loyal customer of each store.
Respondents were split in two groups according to the store they needed to provide
information about: half of the respondents was asked to fill in the questionnaire for their
highest share-of-wallet store and half of the respondents was asked to fill in the questionnaire
for their lowest share-of-wallet store. In order to make sure that respondents were able to
provide valid and reliable information on the seller relationship orientation items, only those
stores for which respondents expressed a minimal level of loyalty were included (relationship
maintenance and enhancement).

Measures

Items for seller relationship orientation, buyer relationship proneness, trust, and relationship
commitment were measured on 7-point Likert scales and were mixed in order to reduce halo-
effects. A global measure of relationship commitment, a buyer’s intention to continue a
relationship, was used without considering its underlying motivations (Geyskens, Steenkamp
and Scheer 1996). Behavioral loyalty was measured as a composite measure of the budget
ratio (share-of-wallet or proportion of expenditure for casual clothing in one store versus total
expenditure for casual clothing) and the inverse of the number of stores bought from during
the last 12 months.

Principal components analysis

The dimensionality of the set of items was initially explored through calculating item-total
correlations and using principal components analysis. This procedure of reducing the total set
of items in order to provide preliminary scales that can subsequently be tested and refined in a
confirmatory factor analysis is commonly accepted (Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Steenkamp
and van Trijp 1991).

A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was carried out on the responses to
the items included in the first two samples. Only items which minimally loaded 0.65 on the
hypothesized factor and which maximally loaded 0.30 on the other factors were accepted.
Items were removed or adjusted in order to improve factor loadings.

Although the initial seven categories of seller relationship efforts were intended to cover the
domain of the seller relationship orientation construct, the results of the principal components
analysis indicated that there existed a problem with this classification. Some of the categories
were apparently overlapping. Only three constructs proved to be of a distinct nature based
upon the principal components results: communication, rewarding, and differentiation.

RESULTS

First, we present the results of a confirmatory factor analysis exploring the measurement
model. Second, we report the results of the structural equation modeling used to test the
relationships among the constructs. LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993) was used for
generating results for the measurement as well as for the structural model.
 12

Measurement model evaluation

A confirmatory factor analysis for the seven final constructs (communication, differentiation,
rewarding, trust, relationship commitment, behavioral loyalty, and relationship proneness)
and their indicators using maximum likelihood estimation procedures was conducted to
examine the scales’ psychometric properties more closely. We assessed unidimensionality,
within-method convergent validity, item and scale reliability, and discriminant validity of the
measures included in the first sample (Belgium). The stability of the measurement model was
examined on basis of the second sample (the Netherlands). The measurement model results
for both samples can be read from table 1.

Table 1 about here

Unidimensionality
Although the chi-square statistic of the measurement model was statistically significant (χ2
(168) = 249; p < 0.001), this is not unusual with large sample sizes (Babin, Darden and Griffin
1994; Doney and Cannon 1997; Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991). The goodness of fit index
(GFI), comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler 1990), normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit
index (NNFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.93, 0.96, 0.89, 0.95, and 0.96
respectively. The root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root-mean
square residual (RMR) were 0.046 and 0.040 respectively. Less than 5% of the standardized
residuals exceeded the 2.58 level. Given the adequacy of overall goodness of fit indices, no
respecifications of the measurement model were made and it can be concluded that the model
obtained an adequate degree of fit (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Since the overall fit of the model
provides necessary and sufficient information to determine whether a set of items is
unidimensional, we can conclude that unidimensionality for each of the constructs was
obtained (Kumar and Dillon 1987; Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991).

Within-method convergent validity

Convergent validity is supported as a result of the fact that the overall fit of the model was
good, that all factor regression coefficients were highly statistically significant (p < 0.01), and
that the correlation of each item with its hypothesized construct exceeded 0.50 (Hildebrandt
1987; Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991) for all items (except for the construct of relationship
proneness: 0.46). Moreover, results of the exploratory factor analysis showed that each item
loaded highly on its hypothesized factor (> 0.65) with no high cross-loadings (< 0.30).

Reliability
Since a measurement instrument can have an unacceptable within-method convergent validity
and still be reliable, reliability was assessed after having examined the convergent validity of
the constructs (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991). The composite reliabilities for the different
constructs were assessed. All of the measures exceeded Bagozzi and Yi’s (1988) minimum
values of 0.60 (except for the construct of rewarding: 0.593; see table 1, sample 1).

Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity between the different constructs was supported on basis of four
different methods. First, as already indicated, the principal components analysis resulted in
high loadings on hypothesized factors and low cross-loadings. Next, none of the 95%
confidence intervals around the estimates of correlations between the latent constructs
included 1. Third, a series of nested confirmatory factor model comparisons assessed whether
 13

differences existed when correlations between the latent constructs were constrained to 1
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991). Each of the 21 off-diagonal
elements of φ was fixed to 1 and the model was re-estimated each time. χ2 differences were
statistically significant for all 21 model comparisons (p < 0.001). Finally, as a stronger test of
discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the average variance extracted
for each construct should be higher than 0.50, which implies that the variance accounted for
by each of the constructs is greater than the variance accounted for by measurement error
(Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Fornell and Larcker 1981). All constructs met this
criterion, except for the construct of rewarding (see table 1, sample 1). Overall, we can
conclude that all tests provided sufficient evidence of discriminant validity between each pair
of constructs.

Stability

The stability of the measurement model was tested for by presenting the same items to a new
sample. In order to yield sufficient proof of stability, we made an attempt to maximize sample
differences by deliberately drawing the new sample from another country (the Netherlands).
The results of the measurement model for the second sample (the Netherlands) were
comparable to the ones we found for the first sample. Unidimensionality for each of the
constructs was obtained, convergent validity was supported, all of the constructs exceeded
minimum values for composite reliabilities of 0.60, and the average variance extracted for
each of the constructs was higher than 0.50 (except for the constructs of relationship
commitment and rewarding: respectively 0.402 and 0.497), indicating evidence of
discriminant validity (see table 1, sample 2). As a consequence, the stability of the
measurement model across the two samples was supported.

In summary, we can state that, across several analytical procedures, all measures have
demonstrated sound psychometric properties. As a result, progression to hypothesis testing
through interpretation of model path coefficients is justified.

Structural model evaluation

The structural model was assessed by means of LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993). For
both sampels two structural models were estimated in order to evaluate main as well as
interaction effects. Since relationship proneness is considered to be a moderating variable,
this construct was not included in the structural model. In the first model, only the main
effects were tested. In the second model, using the median of the relationship proneness scale,
the sample was split in relatively high and low relationship-prone consumers. Tests to assess
the moderating effects of relationship proneness on relationship effectiveness were conducted
using two-group LISREL analysis. The results are reported for the first sample (Belgium) as
well as for the second sample (the Netherlands).

Main effects

The hypothesized structural model fits the data reasonably well for the first sample as well as
for the second sample. In table 2, we show the unstandardized maximum likelihood estimates
of the relationships among the constructs, the squared multiple correlations for the structural
equations, and the performance measures of both structural models. All but one of the
 14

relationships predicted in the structural model were consistently significant and in the
hypothesized direction.

Table 2 about here

Hypothesis 1a: The main effect of seller relationship orientation on trust

The constructs of rewarding and differentiation were consistently positively related to trust
across the two samples, indicating that buyer trust can be stimulated through rewarding and
differentiation strategies set up by the seller. In neither sample, the communication construct
was significantly related to trust. As a result, hypothesis 1a was partially supported.
Hypothesis 2a: The main effect of trust on relationship commitment
Both structural models show a significant positive relationship between trust and relationship
commitment. As a result, hypothesis 2a is supported.
Hypothesis 3a: The main effect of relationship commitment on behavioral loyalty
As hypothesized, a significant positive relationship between relationship commitment and
behavioral loyalty was detected across the two samples. As a result, hypothesis 3a was
equally supported.

Moderating effects of relationship proneness

In order to verify whether the level of consumer relationship proneness affects the
specifications of the structural model, a two-group LISREL analysis was carried out. Using
the median of the relationship proneness scale, the research sample was split into relatively
high and low relationship-prone consumers. Several nested models were evaluated in order to
assess the impact of buyer relationship proneness:
(1) a model in which all structural paths were set equal across the two groups,
(2) a model in which all structural paths were set free across the two groups, and
(3) three constrained models in which some structural paths were set free across the two
groups.
The significance of the differences in χ2 values between the different nested models was
evaluated in order to determine if one model specification obtained a significantly better fit
than another model specification. The performance of the different models is summarized in
table 3.

Table 3 about here

Hypothesis 4a: The moderating effect of relationship proneness on the relationship between
seller relationship orientation and trust
In both samples, constrained model I did not obtain a significant better fit than the equal
model. The relationship proneness of a consumer did not affect the relationship between
seller relationship orientation and trust. As a result, hypothesis 4a was not supported.
Hypothesis 4b: The moderating effect of relationship proneness on the relationship between
trust and relationship commitment
In both samples, constrained model II did not obtain a significant better fit than the equal
model. As a result, the relationship proneness of a consumer did not affect the relationship
between trust and relationship commitment. As a result, hypothesis 4b was not supported.
Hypothesis 4c: The moderating effect of relationship proneness on the relationship between
relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty
 15

In the first sample, the free model obtained a significantly better fit than the equal model
which indicated that not all of the paths were equal across the two groups. A significant
improvement in overall fit compared to the equal model was obtained by constrained model
III in which the structural path from relationship commitment to behavioral loyalty was set
free. However, the level of relationship proneness only affected the nature of the relationship
between relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty in the first sample. The results show
a more pronounced positive relationship between relationship commitment and behavioral
loyalty in case of low relationship proneness values. The path estimate between relationship
commitment and behavioral loyalty was 0.52 in case of low buyer relationship proneness and
0.11 in case of high buyer relationship proneness. As a result, hypothesis 4c was only
supported for the first sample.

DISCUSSION

Developing trust through relationship orientation

The results of this study indicate that, also in a consumer environment, sellers can influence
buyer trust by making relationship efforts which are directed at rewarding buyers and at
differentiating between loyal and non-loyal buyers. Only the construct of communication as
one of the dimensions of a seller’s relationship orientation did not show a significant
relationship with buyer trust. A potential explanation for this is the fact that the process of
sharing information between buyers and sellers is less ‘private’ and less risky in a business-
to-consumer context as opposed to a business-to-business context. Doney and Cannon (1997,
p. 39) underline the importance of information sharing in a business-to-business environment
as follows: “… because the buyer could disclose confidential information to the supplier’s
competitors, the costs of this information being used improperly can be high”. It is highly
unlikely that this statement equally holds in a consumer environment.

The trust-commitment relationship in a consumer setting

In the first sample, only 7% of a buyer’s relationship commitment level was explained by the
level of trust which the buyer exhibited towards the seller. Since a consumer’s time frame and
buyer center complexity are generally shorter and more simple compared to those of a
business, business-to-consumer relationships are believed to be more simple and less personal
than business-to-business relationships (Gruen 1995). This could be an explanation for the
relatively weak relationship between trust and relationship commitment found in the first
sample. Since consumers generally experience less difficulties in finding alternative
suppliers, the mere existence of trust is no guarantee for a high level of relationship
commitment towards this seller. However, these interpretations are seriously weakened once
we have a look at the path estimate between trust and relationship commitment found in the
second sample: not less than 49% of the variance in relationship commitment could be
attributed to buyer trust. In other words, the results of the second sample reveal an equally
strong relationship between trust and commitment as the one found in business-to-business
environments (Andaleeb 1996; Morgan and Hunt 1994).

Customer loyalty: the relationship between relationship commitment and behavioral

loyalty
 16

A view on customer loyalty as a combination of behavioral and attitudinal factors is most

commonly agreed upon (Dick and Basu 1994; Jacoby and Chestnut 1978; Krapfel, Salmond
and Spekman 1991). According to Schiffman and Kanuk (1987), loyalty implies commitment
and involvement with a product, service, brand, or company. Equally, Day (1969) and Lutz
and Winn (1974) claim that loyalty measurements should be based upon composites of
attitudinal and behavioral measures. With respect to the attitudinal component of customer
loyalty, Strandvik and Liljander (1994) refer to relationship commitment as a variable
measuring the attitudinal element of loyalty. Consequently, it is surprising to observe that
relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty were only marginally related to each other in
this study. The results reveal that for the first and the second sample 18% respectively 8% of
the variation in behavioral loyalty was explained for by relationship commitment. This
outcome could raise some questions with respect to the applicability of Oliver’s (1997) four
consecutive phases of loyalty. Since Oliver (1997) hypothesizes that consumers move from
positive attitudinal loyalty to positive behavioral loyalty, there is an implicit assumption that
there exists a strong positive relationship between both. Since the attitude-behavior
relationship might be weaker than expected, this seems to provide additional support for Dick
and Basu’s (1994) framework of loyalty who distinguish four loyalty types based upon
different combinations of high and low levels of behavioral and attitudinal loyalty.

The moderating effect of consumer relationship proneness on relationship effectiveness

An additional finding of this study is the absence of a moderating role of relationship

proneness on the relationships between (1) seller relationship orientation and trust and
between (2) trust and relationship commitment. Contrary to Sheth and Parvatiyar’s (1995)
proposition, the effectiveness of seller relationship efforts measured as trust is not tempered
nor strengthened by the individual difference variable relationship proneness. This outcome
suggests that trust results from relationship efforts made by a seller irrespective of the level of
buyer relationship proneneness. Even buyers who inherently show no interest in long-term
relationships can grow trust towards a particular seller as a result of this seller’s relationships
efforts. Moreover, the relationship between trust and relationship commitment does not seem
to be affected by the buyer’s willingness to maintain and enhance relationships. Morgan and
Hunt (1994) assume that the concept of trust incorporates both a buyer’s confidence to rely on
a seller as well as his intention to actually rely on this seller. Since trust leads to relationship
commitment irrespective of the degree of buyer relationship proneness, their asumption
seems to be supported. Nevertheless, in the first sample, relationship proneness did moderate
the relationship between relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty. For buyers
exhibiting low relationship proneness, relationship commitment proved to be a more
powerful antecedent of behavioral loyalty. One interpretation of this finding is the following.
One could hypothesize that relationship-prone consumers indicate more easily that they are
committed to a seller, without necessarily translating their commitment into behavior. A one-
way ANOVA analysis indeed shows that relationship-prone consumers are significantly more
commited to their relationship with a seller (p < 0.05), while their level of behavioral loyalty
is not directly affected by their level of relationship proneness. Equally, non-relationship-
prone consumers might indicate to be committed to a seller only if they are ‘truly’ committed,
in which case relationship commitment is more strongly related to buying behavior.
 17

Limitations and further research

First, the external validity of the results is limited to situations of consumer retail purchases of
casual clothing. This implies that the constructs and their underlying items are only relevant
in this context and need to be adjusted for research purposes in other contexts. It would be
interesting to investigate whether the measurement and structural models investigated in this
study also hold in other consumer contexts. A replication of the study in other product or
service environments would provide a clearer picture on the stability of the findings across
contexts. Especially the relationship between trust and relationship commitment needs to be
examined more in detail: both constructs were significantly stronger related in the second
sample (the Netherlands) than in the first sample (Belgium).

Second, the true meaning of behavioral loyalty was only partially captured because the
behavioral measure for loyalty was self-declared by respondents. No retailer database
information could be used as an input for measuring behavioral loyalty in a more objective
way. Based upon more reliable measures of behavioral loyalty, the relationship between
relationship commitment and behavioral loyalty should be investigated more in detail. It
would be particularly interesting to estimate the nature of the curve between attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty and to investigate the influencing factors of the shape of this curve.

Third, by setting up field experiments with sellers, one could determine to which extent actual
relationship efforts of sellers (compared to consumer perceptions of a seller’s relationship
efforts) increase relationship effectiveness. Are sellers who differentiate their service level
between loyal and non-loyal customers capable of moving their customers to higher levels on
the loyalty ladder or does the use of a reward program actually lead to an increase in trust,
commitment, and behavioral loyalty?

Fourth, there are some weaknesses related to the measurement model. First, the behavioral
loyalty measure provides unsatisfactory results, requiring further refinement. This might be
related to the data collection method we used. Since respondents were asked to provide
information from their highest share-of-wallet store or their lowest share-of-wallet store, this
causes the behavioral loyalty scale to be non-normally distributed. Other data collection
methods might resolve this problem. Second, extra items should be added to the two-item
constructs of rewarding and relationship proneness in order to improve their composite
reliabilities and to increase their proportion of explained variance.

Finally, this study did not investigate the impact of individual buyer characteristics such as
values, personalities, lifestyles, involvement, and shopping motivations on buyer relationship
proneness. As a result, more research is needed into the antecedents of relationship proneness.
Based upon the premise of reciprocity, it seems plausible that the relationship orientation of a
seller can influence the level of relationship proneness of a buyer. Future research should
investigate this hypothesis further.
 18

TABLE 1
Measurement model results for sample 1 and 2
% %
composite variance Regression
Construct and accompanying items reliability explained coefficient t-value R2

Sample 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Differentiation 80.8 84.1 51.4 57.7

− This store treats its regular customers 0.70 0.53 12.78 9.05 0.50 0.28
differently than non-regular customers
− This store provides a faster service to its 0.65 0.77 11.56 14.57 0.42 0.60
regular than to non-regular customers
− This store dedicates more efforts to its 0.76 0.87 14.04 17.10 0.57 0.75
regular than to non-regular customers
− This store offers a better service level to 0.75 0.82 13.90 15.87 0.56 0.68
its regular than to non-regular customers
Rewarding 59.3 66.2 42.2 49.7
− This store rewards its regular customers 0.64 0.77 9.54 12.34 0.41 0.60
for their loyalty
− This store thanks its regular customers 0.66 0.63 9.69 10.30 0.43 0.40
for their loyalty by providing them gifts
Communication 79.7 88.0 56.8 71.0
− This store regularly sends folders to its 0.73 0.87 13.28 17.41 0.54 0.75
regular customers
− This store frequently communicates with 0.81 0.91 14.97 18.91 0.66 0.83
its regular customers through brochures
− This store regularly informs its regular 0.71 0.74 12.82 13.96 0.51 0.55
customers on novelties
Trust 80.4 82.1 50.8 53.4
− This store provides its regular customers 0.73 0.76 13.41 13.96 0.53 0.58
with a feeling of trust
− This store leaves a very confident 0.60 0.69 10.59 12.69 0.36 0.48
impression with its regular customers
− This store only wants the best for its 0.77 0.76 14.35 12.30 0.59 0.58
regular customers
− This store gives their regular customers 0.74 0.71 13.78 13.99 0.55 0.50
a feeling they can count on the store
Commitment 80.9 72.7 51.6 40.2
− I consider myself as a regular customer 0.63 0.60 11.19 9.98 0.40 0.36
of this store
− I have a strong feeling of loyalty 0.70 0.55 12.75 8.98 0.49 0.30
towards this store
− Even if this store would be more 0.74 0.64 13.74 10.74 0.55 0.41
difficult to reach, I would still buy from it
− I am prepared to make efforts in order to 0.79 0.73 14.93 12.65 0.63 0.54
keep buying from this store
Behavioral loyalty 71.0 94.4 56.9 92.0
− Which % of your clothing budget do 0.92 1.32 9.13 2.69 0.87 1.73
you spend in this store?
− How many stores did you buy clothing 0.53 0.33 6.94 2.43 0.27 0.11
from during the last 12 months?
Relationship proneness 74.5 64.5 62.5 50.8
− I am looking for personal contact with 1.02 0.92 7.51 8.38 1.04 0.84
the personnel of this store
− I make efforts in order to be treated in a 0.46 0.42 5.77 5.72 0.21 0.17
special way by this store
 19

TABLE 2
Structural model results for sample 1 and 2
Unstandardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates
Model parameter Symbol Sample 1 Sample 2
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.

Rewarding – trust γ11 0.31 0.12 0.48 0.16

Communication – trust γ12 0.09 0.09 - 0.04 0.13
Differentiation – trust γ13 0.33 0.08 0.18 0.07

Trust – commitment β21 0.27 0.07 0.70 0.10

Commitment – behavioral loyalty β32 0.43 0.09 0.28 0.11

Rewarding – communication φ21 0.60 0.07 0.74 0.05

Rewarding – differentiation φ31 0.48 0.07 0.35 0.07
Communication – differentiation φ32 0.44 0.06 0.29 0.06

R2 of trust 0.37 0.29

R2 of commitment 0.07 0.49
R2 of behavioral loyalty 0.18 0.08

2
χ (144) 245.6 242.0
GFI 0.92 0.92
CFI 0.94 0.95
NFI 0.88 0.89
NNFI 0.93 0.94
IFI 0.95 0.95
RMR 0.06 0.06
RMSEA 0.05 0.05
 20

TABLE 3
Structural model comparisons for sample 1 and 2 based upon a two-group analysis

Model Description χ2 value

Sample 1 Sample 2

Equal model All paths are equal χ2 (331) : 514.2 χ2 (331) : 550.0
Free model All paths are free χ2 (326) : 501.4 χ2 (326) : 543.7
Constrained model I Path from relationship orientation to χ2 (328) : 511.4 χ2 (328) : 546.5
trust is free
Constrained model II Path from trust to commitment is free χ2 (330) : 514.0 χ2 (330) : 544.2
Constrained model III Path from commitment to behavioral χ2 (330) : 504.8 χ2 (330) : 547.0
loyalty is free

Model comparisons Result of comparison χ2 difference between models

Sample 1 Sample 2

Equal versus free model
Equal versus constrained model I
Equal versus constrained model II
Equal versus constrained model III
A significant difference exists χ2 (5) : 12.8 b χ2 (5) : 6.3 a
between the χ2 values of the equal
and the free model. This indicates
that not all paths are equal between
the two groups.
No significant difference exists χ2 (3) : 2.8 a χ2 (3) : 3.5 a
between the χ2 values of the equal
and the constrained model I. This
indicates that the path from
relationship orientation to trust is
equal between the two groups.
No significant difference exists χ2 (1) : 0.2 a χ2 (1) : 5.8 a
between the χ2 values of the equal
and the constrained model II. This
indicates that the path from trust to
commitment is equal between the two
groups.
A significant difference exists χ2 (1) : 9.4 b χ2 (1) : 3.0 a
between the χ2 values of the equal
and the constrained model III. This
indicates that the path from
commitment to behavioral loyalty is
different between the two groups.

The sample was split in two groups according to the level of relationship proneness: group 1 contained all
respondents with relationship proneness values below the median value of relationship proneness and group 2
contained all respondents with relationship proneness values above the median value of relationship proneness.

a
p > 0.05
b
p < 0.01
 21

FIGURE 1
Conceptual model

Relationship
Relationship orientation
proneness

Differentiation

Behavioral
Rewarding Trust Commitment
loyalty

Communication
 22

REFERENCES

Andaleeb, Syed 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, Erin and Barton Weitz (1989), “Determinants of Continuity in Conventional

Industrial Channel Dyads,” Marketing Science, 8 (Fall), 310-23.

---- and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.

Angeles, Peter A. (1992), The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy. Second edition, New
York: Harper Collins.

Asseal, Henry (1992), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Fourth edition,
Boston/Massachusets: Kent Publishing.

Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and /or Fun: Measuring
Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 644-
56.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1995), “Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets,”

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 272-77.

---- and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (Spring), 74-94.

Barlow, Richard G. (1992), “Relationship Marketing - The Ultimate in Customer Services,”

Retail Control, (March), 29-37.

Barnes, James G., (1994), “Close to the Customer: but is it Really a Relationship?,” Journal
of Marketing Management, 10, 561-70.

Beatty, Sharon E., Pamela Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (1988), “The Involvement-
Commitment Model: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Retailing, 16 (2), 149-67.

----, James E. Coleman, Kristy Ellis Reynolds and Jungki Lee (1996), “Customer-Sales
Associate Retail Relationships,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (Fall), 223-47.

Bejou, David, Barry Wray and Thomas N. Ingram (1996), “Determinants of Relationship
Quality: An Artificial Neural Network Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 36, 117-36.

Bendapudi, Neeli and Leonard L. Berry (1997), “Customers' Motivations for Maintaining
Relationships With Service Providers,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (Spring), 15-37.

Bentler, Peter M. (1990), “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models,” Psychological

Bulletin, 102 (2), 238-46.
 23

Berry, Leonard L. and Larry G. Gresham (1986), “Relationship Retailing: Transforming

Customers into Clients,” Business Horizons, 29 (November/December), 43-7.

---- (1995), “Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives,”

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 236-45.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1995), “Building Service Relationships: It's All About Promises,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 246-51.

Christopher, Martin, Adrian Payne and David Ballantyne (1994), Relationship marketing.
Bringing quality, customer service and marketing together. Second edition, Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.

Christy, Richard, Gordon Oliver and Joe Penn (1996), “Relationship Marketing in Consumer
Markets,” Journal of Marketing Management, 12, 175-87.

Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing

Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.

Crosby, Lawrence A. and Nancy Stephens (1987), “Effects of Relationship Marketing on

Satisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 24 (November), 404-11.

---- and James R. Taylor (1983), “Psychological Commitment and Its Effects on Post-
Decision Evaluation and Preference Stability Among Voters,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (March), 413-31.

----, Kenneth R. Evans and Deborah L. Cowles (1990), “Relationship Quality in Services
Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68-81.

Day, George S. (1969), “A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of

Advertising Research, 9 (September), 29-35.

Denison, Tim and Simon Knox (1993), Cashing in on loyal customers. The divi and
indemnity for retailers. Institute for Advanced Research in Marketing. Cranfield: Cranfield
School of Management.

Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994), “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Spring), 99-113.

Doney, Patricia M. and Joseph P. Cannon (1997), “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in
Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (April), 35-51.

Dowling, Grahame R. and Richard Staelin (1994), “A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended
Risk-Handling Activity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 119-34.

Duncan, Tom and Sandra E. Moriarty (1998), “A Communication-Based Marketing Model

for Managing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 1-13.
 24

Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr and Sejo Oh (1987), “Developing Buyer-Seller

Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (April), 11-27.

Ellis, Kristy (1995), “The Determinants of the Nature and Types of Customer-Salesperson
Relationships in a Retail Setting: An Empirical Study,” doctoral dissertation, The University
of Alabama.

Fehr, Beverly (1988), “Prototype Analysis of the Concepts of Love and Commitment,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), p. 557-79.

Fischer, Eileen and Julia Bristor (1994), “A Feminist Poststructuralist Analysis of the
Rhetoric of Marketing Relationships,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11,
317-31.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17
(February), 39-50.

Ganesan, Shankar (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller

Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 1-19.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 25, 186-92.

Geyskens, Inge, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp and Lisa K. Scheer (1996), “The effects of
trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (4), 303-17.

Goldman, Arieh (1977-1978), “The Shopping Style Explanation for Store Loyalty,” Journal
of Retailing, 53 (Winter), 33-46.

Grönroos, Christian (1990), “Relationship Approach to Marketing in Service Contexts: The

Marketing and Organizational Behavior Interface,” Journal of Business Research, 20, 3-11.

Gruen, Thomas W. (1995), “The Outcome Set of Relationship Marketing in Consumer

Markets,” International Business Review, 4 (4), 447-69.

Gwinner, Kevin P., Dwayne D. Gremler and Mary Jo Bitner (1998), “Relational Benefits in
Services Industries: The Customer`s Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26 (2), 101-14.

Håkansson, Hakan (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Heide, Jan B. and Allen M. Weiss (1995), “Vendor Consideration and Switching Behavior
for Buyers in High-Technology Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 59, (July), 30-43.
 25

Hildebrandt, L. (1987), “Consumer retail satisfaction in rural areas: a reanalysis of survey

data,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 19-42.

Howard, Daniel J., Charles Gengler and Ambuj Jain (1995), “What’s is a Name? A
Complimentary Means of Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 200-
11.

Iacobucci, Dawn and Amy Ostrom (1996), “Commercial and Interpersonal Relationships:
Using the Structure of Interpersonal Relationships to Understand Individual-to-Individual,
Individual-to-Firm, and Firm-to-Firm Relationships in Commerce,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 13 (February), 53-72.

Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and
Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Jöreskog, Karl and Dag Sörbom (1993), Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Jüttner, Uta and Hans P. Wehrli (1994), “Relationship Marketing from a Value System
Perspective,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (5), 54-73.

Kelley, Harold H. (1983), “Love and Commitment,” in Close Relationships. Harold H. Kelley
et al., eds. New York: W.H. Freeman, 265-314.

Krapfel, Robert E., Deborah Salmond and Robert Spekman (1991), “Managing Buyer-Seller
Relationships,” European Journal of Marketing, 25, 22-37.

Kumar, A. and W.R. Dillon (1987), “Some further remarks on measurement-structure

interaction and the unidimensionality of constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 438-
44.

Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (1), 41-53.

Lutz, Richard J. and Paul R. Winn (1974), “Developing a Bayesian Measure of Brand
Loyalty: A Preliminary Report,” in Combined Proceedings, Ronald C. Curhan, ed. Chicago:
American Marketing Association.

Mathieu, John E. and Dennis M. Zajac (1990), “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,” Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 171-94.

Mittal, Banwari and Walfried M. Lassar (1996), “The Role of Personalization in Service
Encounters,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (1), 95-109.

Möller, Kristian and Aino Halinen-Kaila (1998), “Relationship Marketing: Its Disciplinary
Roots and Future Directions,” in Proceedings of the 27th EMAC Conference, Per Andersson,
ed. Stockholm: European Marketing Academy, 289-310.
 26

Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman and Rohit Deshpandé (1992), “Relationships between
providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between
organizations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 314-28.

Moorman, Christine, Rohit Deshpandé and Gerald Zaltman (1993), “Factors Affecting Trust
in Market Research Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 81-101.

Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of

Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20-38.

Nevin, John R. (1995), “Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels: Exploring

Fundamental Issues,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 327-34.

O’Brien, Louise and Charles Jones (1995), “Do rewards really create loyalty,” Harvard
Business Review, May/June, 75-82.

Oliver, Richard L. (1997), Satisfaction: A behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Parker, Richard and G. Ray Funkhouser (1997), “The Consumer as an Active Member of the
Channel: Implications for Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 5 (Spring), 72-9.

Perrien, Jean, Sylvie Paradis and Peter M. Banting (1995), “Dissolution of a Relationship:
The Salesforce Perception,” Industrial Marketing Management, 24 (August), 317-27.

Peterson, Robert A. (1995), “Relationship Marketing and the Consumer,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 278-81.

Ping, Robert A. (1993), “The Effects of Satisfaction and Structural Constraints on Retailer
Exiting, Voice, Loyalty, Opportunism, and Neglect,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (Fall), 320-52.

Reichheld, Frederick F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management,” Harvard Business Review,

March/April, 64-73.

Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer
Orientation of Salespeople,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343-51.

Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (1987), Consumer Behavior. Englewood
Cliffs/New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Selnes, Fred (1998), “Antecendes and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller
relationships,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3/4), 305-22.

Shani, David and Sujana Chalasani (1993), “Exploiting Niches Using Relationship
Marketing,” Journal of Services Marketing, 6 (4), 43-52.
 27

Sheth, Jagdish N. and Atul Parvatiyar (1995), “Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets:
Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall),
255-71.

Smith, J. Brock and Donald W. Barclay (1997), “The Effects of Organizational Differences
and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Partner Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 61,
(January), 3-21.

Sprecher, Susan (1988), “Investment Model, Equity, and Social Support Determinants of
Relationship Commitment,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (4), 318-28.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans C.M. van Trijp (1991), “The use of LISREL in
validating marketing constructs,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-99.

Strandvik, T. and V. Liljander (1994), “Relationship Strength in Bank Services,” in

Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Jagdish N. Sheth and Atul
Parvatiyar, eds. Atlanta: Emory University.

Tax, Stephen S., Stephen W. Brown and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998), “Customer
Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing,”
Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 60-76.

Treacy, Michael and Fred Wiersema (1993), “Customer Intimacy and Other Value
Disciplines,” Harvard Business Review, January/February, 84-93.

Ulrich, Dave (1989), “Tie the Corporate Knot: Gaining Complete Customer Commitment,”
Sloan Management Review, Summer, 20-7.

Venetis, Karin A. (1997), “Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Professional Business
Service Relationships,” doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.

Webster, Frederick E. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation,” Journal
of Marketing, 56 (October), 1-17.

---- (1994), “Defining the New Marketing Concept,” Marketing Management, 2, 22-31.

Wilson, David T. (1995), “An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Fall), 335-45.

View publication stats