Customers Motivations for Maintaining

Relationships With Service Providers

NEELI BENDAPUDI
OhiostateUnivenity
LEONARD

1. BERRY

Texas A&M University

Understanding why customers are receptive to relationships with service providers is (I key issue in
relationship marketing. This paper suggests thatfour brood drivers-environmentul
vtrriubles, partner
variables, customer variables, and interaction variables-affect
customers receptivity to relationship
maintenance. Customers may maintain relationships either because of constraints (they have to stay
in the relationship) or because of dedication (they want to stay in the relationship). The potentially
differential effects of these dual motivations on customers subsequent relationship attitudes and
behaviors are examined. A model of relationship muintenance is developed and propositions are presented regarding the ctntecedents and consequences
of customers
relationship maintenance.
Theoretical and practiccrl implications of the paper ore discussed.

INTRODUCTION
Relationship Marketing (RM)-the
establishment of long-term marketing relationshipshas profoundly influenced marketing theory and practice. Marketing authors hail RM as a
paradigm shift (Gronroos, 1991; Kotler, 1991; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995) and remark
upon its effects in changing the rules of competition (McKenna, 1991; Vavra, 1995).
Corresponding
to its growing influence, relationship
marketing has also expanded
beyond its initial conceptualization
as a firms efforts to attract, maintain, and enhance relationships with its customers (Berry, 1983). Today, RM may be used to describe a plethora
of marketing relationships, such as those between a firm and its buyers, suppliers, employees, and regulators (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
This expanded scope of RM is not without controversy (Iacobucci, 1994). However, as
Cravens (1995) points out, whatever the debate regarding the merits of including other relationships, the customer continues to be at the center of all conceptualizations
of RM. There

Neeli Bendapudi is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Ohio State University. Leonard L. Berry is JC Penny Chair
of Retailing Studies, Professor of Marketing, and Director, Center for Retailing Studies, Texas A&M University.
Journal of Retailing, Volume 73(l), pp. 1537, ISSN: 0022-4359
Copyright 0 1997 by New York University. All rights of reproduction

15

in any form reserved.

It7

Journal

of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

is a consensus that the relationship between the firm and its customers is critical to the
firms survival and success.
Such relationships with customers may be especially important and applicable in the case
of services, given the unique characteristics of both relationships and of services (Gronroos, 1990; Czepiel, 1990; Iacabucci, 1994). A relationship exists when an individual
exchange is assessed not in isolation but, as a continuation of past exchanges likely to continue into the future (Czepiel, 1990, p. 1.5). In contrast, the costs and benefits of discrete
transactions are evaluated individually,
without any reference to those that have gone
before or to those transactions that are yet to come. This emphasis on historical context and
consequences for the future is central to definitions of relationships (Dwyer, Schurr, and
Oh, 1987).
The management of customer relationships is critical in services marketing for three reasons. First, as Lovelock (1983) points out, many services by their very nature require ongoing membership (e.g., insurance, cable television). Second, even when membership is
not required, customers may seek on-going relationships with service providers to reduce
the perceived risk in evaluating services characterized by intangibility and credence properties. Third, customers are more likely to form relationships with individuals and with the
organizations they represent than with goods (Berry, 1995). Because services are performances (Bitner, 1995) where the employee plays a major role in shaping the service experience, the service setting is especially conducive to customers forming relationships with
individual service providers. Consequently, there have been calls for greater attention to the
role of relationships in services (Gronroos, 1990; Gummesson, 1987; Sheaves and Barnes,
1996).
Despite these calls, several important issues remain unaddressed. In this article, we
examine two unaddressed questions concerning customers relationships with service providers.
1.
2.

Are all customers equally receptive to maintaining service relationships? and

What are the consequences of different customer motivations for maintaining
vice relationships?

Customer

Receptivity

to Relationship

ser-

Maintenance

Current conceptualizations
in RM have ignored the issue of whether some customers will
be more receptive to maintaining service relationships than others (Barnes, 1994; Sheaves
and Barnes, 1996). Clearly, not all the customers of a service firm will have or even desire
long-term relationships with it or with its employees. The types of relationships that customers seek vary across service providers, and even across different service situations. Yet,
given the lack of research in this area, it is currently not possible to segment customers on
the basis of their receptivity to relationship maintenance (Lovelock, 1983; Oldano, 1987).
Because the process of building and maintaining customer relationships involves both
investment and opportunity costs, service firms can benefit from identifying those customers who are most receptive to maintaining relationships. Investment costs in relationship

Customers

Motivation with Service Providers

17

building include the costs of prospecting, identifying customers needs, modifying offerings to meet these needs, and monitoring performance. Given these costs, fums must make
choices concerning which customer groups to target for RM. These choices result in opportunity costs of foregone relationships with other customers. Moreover, resources spent on
customers who resist the firms RM efforts-or
defect early in the process-are
wasted.
The payoff to the firm comes only when relationships endure. As Beckers (1960) side bet
theory suggests, relationships are profitable only when they last long enough for the firm
to recoup its costs and reap the benefits. Consequently, a firm should focus on identifying
those customers who are most likely to remain in long-term relationships with the firm. In
response to this need, we propose a model of relationship maintenance from the customers
perspective and offer propositions regarding the conditions under which customers are
more receptive to maintaining service relationships.

The Consequences

of Differing

Motivations

for Relationship

Maintenance

Current research in relationship marketing has not adequately addressed customers

motivations for maintaining relationships. Yet, different motivations for maintaining relationships may well lead to relationship outcomes that are quite different.
The literature on interpersonal relationships suggests that individuals are motivated to
maintain relationships either because they genuinely want to or because they believe they
have no other option. The former is referred to as dedication-based
relationship maintenance and the latter as constraint-based
relationship maintenance (Stanley and Markman,
1992). Similar distinctions
are noted in the employee-firm
attachment literature. An
employee may continue to work for a firm either due to preference or because leaving is
not considered a realistic option (Iverson and Roy, 1994). It is recognized in these literatures that both sets of motivations must be studied to develop a full understanding of why
relationships are maintained.
Within marketing, however, conceptualizations
of relationship maintenance with customers focus either on the desire to continue the relationship (dedication-based
relationship
maintenance) or on the dependency in the relationship (constraint-based
relationship maintenance). Focusing on only one set of motivations (instead of examining both in tandem),
runs the risk of perpetuating a schism in our understanding of relationships. This schism
may be a reflection of the different disciplinary roots of relationship maintenance.
The economic perspective (e.g., Becker, 1964; Williamson, 1975) explains continuance
in terms of the costs and benefits of staying in the relationship versus leaving it. This literature therefore emphasizes switching costs, dependence on the relationship partner, and
attractiveness of alternative partners. Much of the literature on long-term relationship orientation (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1989) has emphasized such
dependence-mediated
relationship
maintenance,
that is, constraint-based
relationship
maintenance.
The psychological perspective (e.g., Hinde, 1979; Duck, 1994) focuses on the affective
responses of a party to a relationship. This approach suggests that affective responses such
as satisfaction, identification with the partner, and attitudinal commitment influence rela-

18

Journal

of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

tionship partners to stay in or leave the relationship. An example of this approach is Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpandes (1992) definition of commitment as an enduring desire to
maintain a valued relationship. This perspective emphasizes the continuance of a relationship because the customer actively desires it.
Recognizing the incompleteness of such an approach, scholars such as Ganesan (1994)
suggest that both the desire for a relationship to continue as well as constraints that keep it
intact must be considered in understanding
relationships. Morgan and Hunt (1994) also
suggest that just as healthy and sick individuals must be studied to understand a particular
pathology, so too must future research address both positive and negative motivations for
relationship maintenance to fully understand the phenomenon.
In response to such calls, in this article, we incorporate both sets of motivations for relationship maintenance and explore their potentially differential effects on customers attitudinal and behavioral responses in relationships.
Broadly speaking, we propose that
constraints will only determine the stability of the relationship (will it persist?) whereas
dedication determines the quality of the relationship (will it grow?).
To further understanding of these constructs, we next explore the antecedents and consequences of relationship maintenance from the customers perspective.

CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

OF RElATIONSHIP

MAINTENANCE

Figure 1 depicts the proposed antecedents, mediators, and consequences of dedicationbased and constraint-based
relationship maintenance from the customers perspective. The
antecedents are grouped into four sets of variables: environmental,
partner, customer, and
interaction. The effects of these antecedent variables on constraint-based
relationship
maintenance are mediated by dependence on the relationship partner. Dependence and
trust in the relationship partner mediate the antecedent variables effects on dedicationbased relationship maintenance. These two motivations for relationship-maintenance
lead
to different outcomes such as customer interest in alternative partners, relationship identity, and advocacy.

Dependence

and Constraint-based

Relationship

Maintenance

Constraint-based
relationship maintenance occurs when one party to the relationship
believes it cannot exit the relationship due to economic, social, or psychological costs
(Johnson, 1982). The strength of the constraints is a function of the partys perceived
dependence on the relationship partner. Thus, in a relationship between A and B, maintenance of As constraint-based
relationship is a function of As dependence on B (Dwyer et
al., 1987).
Within a marriage for instance, the greater the perceived dependence on the spouse to
achieve relationship benefits, the greater the constraints against dissolving the marriage
(Levinger, 1965). Employees tenure in organizations is also positively related to their

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

RELATIONSHIP

Customer

Termination Costs

figure I.

Model of Relationship

Maintenance

from the Customers

Perspective

dependence on the firm for achieving desired outcomes (Javanovic, 1979). Within the
channels literature, the dependence of a retailer on a vendor was found to have a positive
effect on the retailers long-term orientation towards the vendor (Ganesan, 1994). Indeed,
it has been claimed that dependence is a critical foundation for the stability of relationships
(Skinner, Gassenheimer, and Kelley, 1992). This suggests that when a customer perceives
a greater dependence on the partner to achieve relational outcomes, (s)he would feel constrained to maintain the relationship.
What accounts for a customers dependence on a relationship partner? Thibaut and
Kelley (1959) suggest that Party As dependence on a partner is a function of whether A
believes the outcomes from the relationship are valuable in general, and in comparison to
outcomes available from alternative relationship partners. The customer may be dependent
on a service provider because the partnership yields some valued outcomes (Levinger,
1979). That is, the relational outcomes may surpass the customers own subjective standard
of performance. Alternatively,
the customer may be dependent on the service provider
because the relational outcomes-while
not satisfying-are
still better than perceived alternatives (Anderson and Nat-us, 1990). This suggests that dependence on the relationship
partner is affected by the perceived cost-benefit ratios of the service provider relative to
competitors.

20

Dependence

Journal

and Dedication-based

Relationship

of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

Maintenance

As just discussed, the dependent party may perceive constraints against dissolving the
relationship. Dependence may also serve to enhance the dependent partys dedication to the
relationship. The dependent party in a relationship is generally wary of exploitation by the
partner. If the partner is nonexploitative
and fair, dedication to the partner should grow
because of the absence of opportunistic behavior. The dependent party may thus begin to
experience genuine appreciation for the relationship.
Dependence may also lead to dedication when customers engage in post-commitment
rationalization.
The literature on escalating commitments
suggests that parties may
increase commitment to a course of action because of self-justification
motives (Bobocel
and Meyer, 1994). Parties that are dependent on others may try to justify this dependence
to themselves. They may rationalize that their commitment is not driven by dependence but
instead by their own volition, for instance, by dedication. Consequently, professing dedication to the relationship allows customers to portray the relationship to themselves in a
more positive light.

Trust and Dedication-based

Relationship

Maintenance

While customers in constraint-based relationships preserve the relationship because they

believe they have no other choice, customers in dedication-based relationships desire continuance. Trust in the relationship partner is a principal influence (Berry, 1995). Moorman
et al. (1992) propose that trust is the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom
one has confidence. Morgan and Hunt (1994) define trust in similar terms, suggesting that
trust is the confidence in an exchange partners reliability and integrity.
Why does trust lead to dedication to maintain the relationship? Transaction cost analysis
(Williamson, 1981) suggests that individuals enter into on-going or nondiscrete exchange
arrangements (such as long-term relationships) in order to minimize their transaction costs.
If a customer interacts with a seller through discrete transactions, each interaction will
involve significant transaction costs of negotiating, writing, and implementing a contract
for the sale. By switching to a long-term relationship, these costs can be reduced. However,
under a long-term relationship, bounded rationality and the costs involved would hamper
the development of a comprehensive contract that covers all possible contingencies. Consequently, exchange partners must trust one another to behave fairly when unforeseen
events arise. Trust can thus reduce the costs of negotiating agreements because each party
is more willing to accept incomplete contracts (that is, contracts that do not cover all contingencies). Trust should also lessen the fear of opportunistic behavior by the other partner,
lowering transaction costs by reducing the need for monitoring procedures and safeguards.
The effect of trust on building dedication-based
relationships has been noted for buyerseller relationships (Schurr and Ozanne, 1985; Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Berry, 1995)
and strategic alliance relationships (Sherman, 1992). Based on the above discussion, we
propose:

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

Pl:

A customers dependence on the relationship partner will lead to

greater perceived constraints against dissolving the relationship.

P2:

A customers dependence on the relationship partner will lead to

greater dedication to maintaining the relationship when the partner
is perceived as nonopportunistic.

P3:

A customers trust in a relationship partner will lead to greater dedication to maintaining the relationship.

Antecedents

Environmental

of Dependence

21

and Trust

Variables

The role of the environment in affecting relationship maintenance is well-established

across a variety of contexts (e.g., employee-firm relationships, Iverson and Roy, 1994; strategic alliances, Oliver, 1990; and interpersonal relationships, Duck, 1994). Three environmental variables that have received considerable attention in the business literature are
dynamism, munificence, and complexity. We investigate the impact of these variables on
customers receptivity to relationship marketing.
Environmental
dynamism refers to the unpredictability
of environmental
change (Dess
and Beard, 1984). A dynamic environment from a customers perspective is turbulent, making the prediction of trends and outcomes difficult. The uncertainty of dynamic environments makes the negotiation,
writing, and implementation
of complete contracts
forbiddingly expensive (Williamson, 1981). An adaptive response to environmental uncertainty is the development and maintenance of a relationship with a specific partner (Aldrich,
1979; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Williamson,
1985). The customer may thus come to
depend upon the relationship with the partner as a way to cope with uncertainty. This dependence on relationships to reduce uncertainty has been demonstrated in several empirical
studies in the context of inter-organizational
linkages (Webster, 1992). Assuming a similar
mechanism for customers relationships with organizations, the greater the dynamism in the
environment, the greater the customers dependence on the relationship partner.
Services that operate within dynamic environments may find it advantageous to remind
customers of the rapid changes underway and of their own role in helping customers cope
with these changes. For example, the advertising messages of Gemini Consulting, a firm
that provides solutions to integrated information systems, reminds clients of the incessant
advances in information technology and software packages. By positioning itself as a
resource that can track these advances and offer timely solutions, Gemini attempts to foster
dependence in its customers.
Environmental munificence (Dess and Beard, 1984) refers to the capacity of the environment to support sustained growth. In the business strategy literature, munificence is measured as the extent to which the environment
can provide the organization with key
resources to ensure its success and survival. From the customers perspective, a key
resource in the environment is the availability of appropriate relationship partners (Cook,

22

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

1977). When there are few competing alternatives available in the environment,
customers
are more dependent on their current relationship partner (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). The
more munificent the environment is in terms of potential partners, the less critical any one
partner is to the customer, and the lower the dependency.
Environmental
complexity refers to the heterogeneity and range of activities in which an
entity engages (Dess and Beard, 1984). For organizations, a more complex environment
implies greater heterogeneity of inputs and/or outputs. Customers with heterogeneous
product needs require a diverse set of solutions in a given consumption area (e.g., the need
for various kinds of insurance). These customers often seek a single partner that can satisfy
multiple needs. This is because negotiating, writing, and implementing a relational contract
with a single relationship partner should result in lower transactional costs than dealing
with separate partners for each need. Hence, the more complex the set of needs satisfied by
a relational partner, the greater the dependence on the partner. It is important to note that
these variables are defined from the customers perspective. Because it is the customers
perception of the environment
that matters, different customers may have different
responses to relationship maintenance, based on their idiosyncratic perceptions. A novice
investor may find the financial services arena highly complex and feel dependent on the
services of an expert whereas a more experienced investor may deem it less so and experience less need for outside assistance.
Based on the above discussion, we propose:

P4:

The greater the dynamism of the environment,

tomer s dependence on the partner.

the greater the cus-

P5:

The greater the munificence of the environment in terms of available

relational partners, the lower the customers dependence on the
partner.

P6:

The greater the complexity of the environment,

tomers dependence on the partner.

the greater the cus-

Partner Variables
Perceptions of the partner may be expected to have a significant impact on the customers
receptivity to relationship maintenance. In this section, we discuss the effects of the partners relationship specific investments, similarity, and expertise on the customer.
The partners relationship specific investments (RSI) are investments the partner makes
in the relationship that are not easily portable to other relationships (Williamson,
1981).
These include investments in people, equipment, and processes. Because the investing
party is exposed to potential exploitation and opportunistic behavior by the noninvesting
party, the act of investing communicates a strong message of commitment to the relationship. Consequently,
such investments should increase the customers trust in the partner
(Ganesan, 1994).
What are the effects of the partners investments on the customers dependence? Transaction cost analysis and the analysis of relative dependencies of partners in a relationship

Customers

Motivation

with

Service Providers

23

suggests that if RSIs make the partner more dependent, they make the customer relatively
less dependent (Emerson, 1962; Ganesan, 1994). This conclusion is consistent with the
focus of transaction cost analysis (Williamson, 1975) on the costs of the investments to the
investing party. However, the sole reliance on this theoretical perspective appears too
restrictive in the relationship marketing paradigm (Weitz and Jap, 1995). Transaction cost
analysis does not take into account, for instance, the interdependencies
created between
partners in relationships. For example, Berry and Parasuraman (1991) argue that effective
relationship specific investments by the partner increase customer dependency because
they raise the costs of switching to competitors. By switching to a competitor, the customer
would lose benefits from the relationship-specific
investments not readily available from
the competitor. Ganesan (1994) reports support for this relationship.
The expertise of the partner may be another important influence on customers receptivity to relationship-maintenance.
Expertise has been associated with successful influence
attempts (e.g., Busch and Wilson, 1976; Taylor and Woodside, 1981). Because expertise
reflects the mastery of relevant competencies in service delivery, customers are more likely
to trust a partner who is perceived as possessing greater expertise. Empirical research confirms this positive effect of expertise on trust in a salesperson (Busch and Wilson, 1976;
Swan, Trawick, and Silva, 1985) and on selling effectiveness and perceived relationship
quality (Crosby et al., 1990).
The perceived expertise of the partner may also increase the customers dependence on
the relationship partner. The expertise that the partner brings to the relationship can be valuable to the customer. To the extent that this resource is rare or difficult to substitute with
competitors, it should act as a constraint against dissolving the relationship. While empirical tests of this proposition have not been reported, researchers hypothesize such a relationship (Bitner, 1995). Expertise appears to positively affect both trust and dependence.
Harolds, a Houston, Texas clothing store that grows more than ten0 percent a year, uses
expertise to foster customer trust and dependence. All of Harolds salespeople are career
employees, who are highly knowledgeable about the top-of-the-line clothing they sell. As
one longtime Harolds customer states: I get kidded by friends who say I can get the same
thing for half the price. But I tell them I cant get the same thing. I cant get the service, the
confidence that its the right color, the relationship (Berry, 1995, p. 13).
An interesting issue for service firms concerns managing their own expertise relative to
that of the customer. For example, it is not known whether successive increases in the partners expertise will generate corresponding increases in customers trust and dependence,
or whether there may be diminishing returns. It is possible that if the discrepancy between
the customers expertise and the expertise of the partner is too great, the customer may
begin to feel vulnerable, rather than reassured.
A third partner variable expected to affect customer receptivity to relationship maintenance is the partners perceived similarity
to the customer. A large body of literature in
interpersonal relationships has established that similar others are more attractive, liked better, and more trusted compared to dissimilar others. Within the sales force literature, comparable positive effects of salesperson similarity have been found for selling effectiveness
(Wiener and Mowen, 1985; Crosby et al., 1990). Researchers have suggested that there
may even be an evolutionary basis for helping similar others or for trusting them more than
dissimilar others (Samuelson, 1993). Evolution-based
explanations of the effects of simi-

24

Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

larity are restricted to physical similarity alone. Studies also suggests that attitudinal and
value similarity promote trust toward the other (Dwyer et al., 1987). While the focus in this
paper is on relationships with individual service providers, value similarity can play a critical role in extending perceptions of similarity from an individual service provider to the
service firm. Customers who patronize (or boycott) an organization for supporting (or
opposing) a favored cause are responding to the perceived value similarity of the firm. In a
relationship, similar partners are proposed to signal their greater likelihood of facilitating
the other partys goals (Johnson and Johnson, 1972). That is, similarity is expected to signal
goal-compatibility
and consequently
generate greater trust in the relationship partner
(Heider, 1958; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Based on the above, we propose:
P7:

The greater the partners relationship-specific

investments,
greater the customers dependence on and trust in the partner.

P8:

The greater the partners expertise, the greater the customers dependence on and trust in the partner.

P9:

The greater the partners similarity

customers trust in the partner.

to the customer,

the

the greater the

Customer Variables

Whether a customer is receptive to relationship maintenance may be a function of his or

her own idiosyncratic characteristics. The study of the effects of customer characteristics
on choice and decision processes follows an established tradition in consumer behavior. In
this paper, we examine the effects of three customer variables-relationship
specific
investments, expertise, and social bonding-on
receptivity to relationship maintenance.
As noted earlier, relationship specific investments are customized investments in a relationship that cannot be easily transferred to an alternative relationship (Williamson, 1981).
The party that makes such investments therefore stands to lose when the relationship is
dissolved because the investments have no external market value. Consequently, relationship specific investments (RSI) complicate the exchange relationship for the investing
party by increasing the dependence on the partner and serving as a barrier to exit (Heide
and John, 198X).
In the context of services, customers make relationship specific investments of time and
effort to identify service providers and develop relationships with them. These investments
range from informing a hairdresser about ones personal style and preferences (and then
providing reminders on subsequent visits) to gathering financial records and participating
in a series of in-depth discussions to educate a personal financial planner. Customers also
make financial investments to secure coveted rewards for patronage (e.g., accumulating
frequent flyer miles) which may not be transferable. Relationship specific investments
increase the customers dependency on the relationship partner.
Customer expertise is a key variable in investigations of consumer choice and decisionmaking behaviors (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Experts should find it easier to evaluate

Customers

Motivation

with Service Providers

25

the offerings of various competitors than novice customers. Customer expertise is particularly important in the evaluation of services which are intangible and heterogeneous and
thus difficult to evaluate prior to purchase and sometimes even after purchase (Zeithaml,
1981). The difference in the ease with which experts and novices can evaluate competitive
offerings may have important effects on customers receptivity to relationship maintenance
as well. Customers with less expertise have been shown to reduce their greater perceived
risk of purchases by developing loyalty to a particular brand or service provider (Locander
and Hermann, 1979). Once a service provider is identified and a productive ongoing relationship is established, the risk hurdle has been cleared. Customers with lower expertise
may be loath to change partners because to do so is to reestablish risk. The costs of switching may easily outweigh the marginal benefits of establishing a new relationship. Thus, the
lack of expertise increases customer dependence on the service provider.
Social bonding
with the service provider constitutes a third influence on customers
receptivity to relationship maintenance. Social bonding may take two forms. The first is the
customers interaction with a service provider which can be intra- or extra-role. Intra-role
social interactions occur within set relationship roles, for example, Crosby et al.s (1990)
discussion of insurance relational selling behaviors such as providing cards and gifts.
Extra-role interactions involve social bonds that a customer may develop with the service
provider outside the business relationship, for example, the customer and insurance agent
interacting at Rotary Club meetings.
The second form of social bonding concerns the customers indirect social interaction
with the service provider through the providers ties with individuals or institutions that are
important to the customer. This form of bonding derives strength from the providers ties
with the customers family and friends (e.g., a doctor that has treated a family over the years
or a child care provider patronized by a group of friends), or with institutions that the customer identifies with (e.g., the customers church, or favorite charity). The influence of
family, friends, and reference groups on purchase behavior is well-documented
in the consumer behavior literature (Childers and Rao, 1992). These ties have been proposed to be a
key influence on customers relationship maintenance as well (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).
Social bonding may have two effects. First, it can increase perceived dependence on the
service provider who possesses a unique set of ties and linkages that a new partner would
lack (Cross and Smith, 1995). Second, social bonds may affect the customers trust in the
service provider. A key deterrent to trust is the fear of opportunistic behavior by the relationship partner (Moorman et al., 1992). Social bonding can reduce or eliminate this fear.
Future research may find that different types of social bonds will have different degrees of
influence on customers dependence and trust. For example, intra-role social bonds (e.g.,
gifts of desk calendars embossed with an insurance agents name) may be more predictable
and hence, less influential than extra-role social bonds (e.g., the customer and the agent
working as volunteers for a common cause).
Fletcher Music Centers, a thriving retail chain that sells home organs to retirees, illustrates the impact of customers relationship-specific
investments,
expertise and social
bonding on relationship maintenance. The centerpiece of Fletchers relationship marketing
strategy is its offer of free lifetime group music lessons to each organ buyer. Thus, customers who have never played a musical instrument can feel confident they will learn to play.
The customers lack of expertise in buying and playing an organ creates dependency on

26

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

Fletcher, which has expertise. The customers investment of time and energy in taking
organ lessons also creates dependency. In addition, many customers develop strong social
bonds with their classmates and instructor which increases trust. As customers develop
their skills, they trade up to a more advanced organ. The typical Fletcher customer buys
three organs from the company over time (Music Trades, 1995).
Based on the above discussion, we propose:
PlO:

The greater the customers relationship-specific

investments,
greater the dependence on the relationship partner.

Pll:

The greater the customers expertise, the lower the dependence on the
relationship partner.

P12:

The greater the customers social bonds with the partner, the greater
the dependence on and trust in the relationship partner.

interaction

the

Variables

Every interaction between the customer and the service-provider

has the potential to
strengthen, weaken or even destroy the relationship between them. Here, we explore the
effects of the frequency of interaction, termination costs, performance ambiguity, and satisfaction on the customers receptivity to relationship maintenance.
Services vary in thefrequency of interaction between the customer and the service provider. For example, lawn maintenance requires more frequent encounters than a roofing
service. Greater frequency of contact typically implies greater transaction costs when each
encounter is handled as a discrete transaction (e.g., hiring a new service provider every couple of weeks for lawn maintenance). Consequently, a relationship with a single provider is
generally more desirable for a customer (Ridley and Avery, 1979). Frequency of contact
can thus increase customers dependence on the relationship partner, assuming the contacts
are perceived as inter-related and as affecting one another. Hinde (1979) suggests that a
customer may speak to the same telephone operator on a fairly frequent basis. However, if
the customer does not recognize the operator, each interaction will occur as if it were a discrete exchange. There is no dependence on the service provider because the transaction
costs are not reduced at all.
Frequency of interactions may also affect trust in the relationship partner. Frequent interactions may create greater trust in two ways. First, the more the customer interactsbith
the
partner, the more opportunities (s)he has to evaluate the service. To the extent that these
interactions are satisfactory, frequency should lead to greater trust. Second, more frequent
interactions can strengthen social bonds with the partner. Person-perception
literature
shows, for example, that when individuals expect repeated interactions with others, they are
more attuned to them and make a greater effort to know them than when they believe the
interaction to be a one-time encounter (Neuberg and Fiske, 1987).
Termination costs refer to the costs incurred in severing current relationships and perhaps
establishing new ones (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Termination costs are a form of switching
costs that specifically concern short-term burdens-inconvenience,
out-of-pocket costs,

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

27

psychological upset-that
accompany severing a set relationship. Often when a customer
severs a relationship with a partner, (s)he seeks a replacement. For example, a customer that
closes bank accounts due to poor service typically would open new accounts with another
financial institution. The time, effort, and money required to identify an alternative supplier
and establish new accounts illustrate relationship termination costs. Thus, customers perceived termination costs act as barriers that promote dependence on the current relationship
partner (Heide and John, 1988).
Perjormance ambiguity refers to the difficulty of evaluating the interaction outcomes.2
Transaction cost analysis suggests that performance ambiguity is a key determinant of nonmarket-based, long-term relationship maintenance (Williamson, 1975; Bowen and Jones,
1986). When an encounter can be easily evaluated, separate service providers can be objectively monitored for compliance with agreed-upon performance specifications. Because the
transaction costs for monitoring performance are low, such situations are most likely to produce market-based discrete transactions.
Conversely, when performance ambiguity exists (that is, performance cannot be easily
evaluated), the customer is more likely to favor the maintenance of a long-term relationship. This is because the costs of negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing performance will
be greater when performance ambiguity is present. Under such conditions, reliance on a
single partner will result in lower transaction costs than relying on different partners for different exchanges (Bowen and Jones, 1986).
Services have been proposed to be higher in performance ambiguity than goods given
their intangibility (Shostack 1977), credence properties (Darby and Kami, 1973), and their
heterogeneity (Zeithaml, 1981). Even within services, some are clearly higher in performance ambiguity than others (e.g., mental therapy or automobile repair will generally be
more difficult to evaluate than lawn maintenance or carpet cleaning. For the reasons discussed above, higher performance ambiguity should lead to greater dependence on the relationship partner (Bowen and Jones, 1986).
Satisfaction with past interactions is intuitively a key variable in customers receptivity
to relationship maintenance. The greater the satisfaction with past experiences, the greater
should be the customers trust in the service provider. Trust in the partner is built on the
basis of promises that have been kept (Bitner, 1995).
Satisfaction with past interactions with the service provider can also increase perceived
dependence on the provider. Customers will have higher switching costs when terminating
a relationship with a provider that has satisfied them because the risk is greater that available
alternative partners will provide less satisfaction. Accordingly, satisfaction with past experiences can be expected to affect customers stay-or-leave decisions (Levitt, 1981). Toyota
found that interest to repurchase a Toyota automobile increased from a base of 37% to 45%
with a positive sales experience, from 37 % to 79% with a positive service experience, and
from 37% to 91% with both positive sales and service experiences (McLaughlin, 1993).
Based on this discussion, we propose:
P13:

The greater the frequency of contact required by the service, the

greater the customers dependence on the relationship partner. Zf satisfactory, the greater the frequency of contact, the greater the custamer s trust in the relationship partner.

28

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

P14:

The greater the customers perceived termination

the dependence on the relationship partner.

costs, the greater

P15:

The greater the performance ambiguity of the service interaction, the

greater the customers dependence on the relationship partner.

PM:

The greater the customers satisfaction with past service interactions,

the greater the dependence on and trust in the relationship partner.

Thus far, we have discussed the antecedents of constraint-based

and dedication-based
relationship maintenance. We now turn our attention to the consequences of these orientations.

Outcomes

of Constraint-based

and Dedication-based

Relationship

Maintenance

As proposed earlier, customers may remain in relationships with service providers either
because they desire the relationship or because they perceive no alternative. Clearly, both
lead to relationship maintenance. However, we may expect the relationship to be qualitatively different based on why the customer maintains it. For example, the literature on interpersonal relationships emphasizes that one cannot infer a partners satisfaction with a
marriage from its longevity. As Hinde (1979) points out, many unhappy marriages remain
intact because of constraints that prevent their dissolution. While marriages based on dedication and constraints both persist, they do not lead to the same outcomes. In a similar vein,
we expect differential outcomes for commercial relationships and explore these potential
differences below by examining the effects on interest in alternatives, acquiescence, cooperation, enhancement, identity, and advocacy.

Merest

in Alternatives

When customers stay in relationships because of the constraints against leaving, the relationship tends to last only as long as the constraints do. When the constraints no longer
apply, the customer feels no compelling reason to continue in the relationship. A significant
constraint to relationship dissolution is the lack of available substitutes (Stanley and Markman, 1992). Research suggests that individuals in constrained situations attempt to restore
their freedom to choose (Brehm, 1966). Customers may thus attempt to break free from
constrained relationships by identifying alternative service providers. Resource dependence theory supports such a proposition: parties that are dependent on one source for
scarce resources attempt to develop substitute sources to reduce the dependence (Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1978). By extension, we expect constraint-based
relationship maintenance to
lead to greater environmental monitoring for alternative service providers. Constraints may
also have another effect. They may render customers more receptive to relationship offers
initiated by competitors. Consider a customer who feels economically constrained to shop
at a supermarket that offers double coupons. If the coupons are the only basis for maintain-

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

29

ing the relationship, the customer may actively investigate whether other stores have similar programs and may be quick to defect to a competitor that offers better or even similar
terms.
In contrast, dedication-based
relationship maintenance is likely to lessen interest in alternative relationship partners. Customers dedicated to relationships will not be blind to alternatives; however, they are less likely to search for them. Further, these customers may also
be more immune to the marketing efforts of competitors. Indeed, a major reason for developing customer dedication to the relationship is to protect the customer base from the forays
of competitors (Cross and Smith, 1995).

Acquiescence

Acquiescence is the degree to which a partner accepts or adheres to anothers specific

requests or policies (Steers, 1977; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Acquiescence corresponds to
compliance with the partners request (Kumar, Stem, and Achrol, 1992). Morgan and Hunt
(1994) suggest that acquiescence is passive agreement with the partner in order to maintain
the relationship. Whether based on constraints or dedication, customers in a relationship are
unlikely to jeopardize it without an alternative in mind. Therefore, both constraint-based
and dedication-based
relationship maintenance may lead to customers acquiescence with
the partners requests.

Cooperation

Unlike acquiescence, cooperation requires an active participation in the relationship to

achieve mutual benefits (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Cooperation is defined as working
together to achieve mutual goals (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Such active, noncompetitive
behavior is unlikely to occur in a constraint-based
relationship. When the customer maintains the relationship because of constraints, there is little incentive to proactively enhance
the partners benefits. In contrast, cooperation is a natural outcome of dedication-based
relationship maintenance.
Research suggests that cooperation requires trust (Deutsch,
1960). The trust fostered in dedication-based
relationship maintenance
is conducive to
coordinated, cooperative behaviors (Pruitt, 1981).

Relationship

Enhancement.

Relationship enhancement refers to broadening and deepening the relational bonds with
the service provider (Cross and Smith, 1995). That is, the customer makes investments in
the relationship to enhance it beyond the status quo. These investments might include buying additional services, providing capital, information, manpower or other resources, or
participating in company events. Customers willingness to undertake such investments
may depend upon the basis on which they maintain their relationships with service providers. Under constraint-based relationship maintenance, the customer is likely to view further

30

Journal

of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

investments unfavorably as they would raise the barriers to exit. Conversely, dedication to
the relationship should make the customers more willing to raise the intensity of the relationship for there is no desire to exit. The study of interpersonal relationships reveals precisely such a pattern. Individuals who feel constrained to stay in relationships are reluctant
to make investments that will create additional ties. Individuals who are dedicated to the
relationships willingly undertake such investments (Duck, 1994).
Identity

Closely related to enhancement is relationship identity, the extent to which the customer
thinks of the relationship partnership as a team (Stanley and Markman, 1992), and considers the partner in proprietorial terms (e.g., my plumber, my advisor). Such identification
requires trust in the partner and dedication to the maintenance of the relationship. It is
unlikely to occur in a constraint-based
relationship in which the customer may be actively
seeking an alternative partner.
In June 1994, General Motors Saturn Division attracted more than 20,000 Saturn owners
to a homecoming
event at its factory in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Owners traveled from
throughout the United States and beyond to be entertained, visit craft fairs, and tour the Saturn factory. Saturn dealers are known for their relationship-building
efforts. Sales staffs
give buyers a send-off cheer when they take delivery of their new car and invite them to
weekend barbecues and car clinics (Business Week, 1994). The bond that develops between
Saturn and many of its customers illustrates how a dedication-based
relationship can lead
to relationship enhancement and identity.
Advocacy

The ultimate test of the customers relationship with the service may be whether the customer is willing to become an advocate for the service, promoting the service to others, and
even defending it against detractors (Cross and Smith, 1995). Service firms are especially
likely to benefit from customer advocacy, because word-of-mouth and personal sources of
information have been shown to be more critical for customers of services than for goods
(Murray, 1991).
Many services rely on their customer advocates to provide referrals and bring in new customers. However, services differ in the degree to which they have formalized advocacy
programs in place. Programs range from highly structured schemes such as MCIs Friends
and Family (a scheme where customers nominate others to this long distance carrier) to
informal requests to current customers to spread the word about the service. Some services
even provide incentives to customers to act as advocates, giving discounts based on the
number of referrals, and so forth. However, services may need to use caution in using such
schemes. Paying customers to be advocates may erode on their loyalty to the service. The
findings on cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1959) demonstrate that providing external
rewards to individuals for doing something they already believe in is counter-productive.
This means that providing financial incentives to customers to act as advocates may not

31

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

enhance customers advocacy and may even hamper it. Clearly, firms would like to encourage their loyal customer advocates. More research may be needed on how best to do this.
Based on the above discussion, we propose:
P17:

Constraint-based
relationship maintenance
interest in alternative partners.

is positively

related to

P18:

Both constraint-based
and dedication-based
relationship maintenance are positively related to acquiescence with the partner.

P19:

Dedication-based
relationship maintenance is positively related to
cooperation, relationship enhancement,
relationship identity, and
relationship advocacy.

DISCUSSION

This article proposes that service providers should adopt a contingency orientation in their
RM efforts geared to customers. A contingency approach to RM involves understanding
when and why customers are most receptive to relationship maintenance. We posit that
environmental, partner, customer, and interaction variables all affect customers receptivity
to maintaining a stable relationship with a service supplier.
We also suggest that the manifest relationship may stem from either constraints against
dissolution or from dedication to the relationship. By integrating both sets of motivations,
we seek to provide a more comprehensive picture of relationship maintenance. We propose
that constraint-based
relationship maintenance leads at best to preservation while dedication-based relationship maintenance facilitates expansion and enhancement of the relationship. It is therefore more desirable for service providers to build relationships based on
dedication rather than on constraints when practical to do so. The potentially different
effects of these two paths on customers attitudinal and behavioral responses were explored
in the last section.
The distinction we draw between constraint- and dedication-based maintenance does not
mean that they are mutually exclusive. A customer may maintain a relationship with a service provider both because of perceived constraints and dedication to the relationship. A
customers long-term relationship with a physician may stem both from the doctors membership in the customers health-insurance
plan and because of trust developed from satisfactory past exchanges. However, even in relationships
where both motivations
are
operative, it is still important to make the distinction and identify the primary motivation
for relationship maintenance. As shown in Table 1, identifying the particular combination
of motivations (high or low constraints and high or low dedication) can yield valuable
insights into RM strategy.
Tests of the propositions enumerated in this article may reveal causal linkages between
constraint-based
and dedication-based
relationship maintenance. As Weitz and Jap (1995)
point out, cross-sectional tests of structural relationships preclude the study of changes in
variables over time (e.g., is trust only an antecedent of dedication or can it also be an out-

32

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

TABLE1

Implications

of Constraints

and Dedication

for Relationship

Marketing

Level of Dedication
High

Low
Level of

Low

Constraints

High dedication

Because this relationship lacks both

strong constraints and dedication,

cus-

tomers are unlikely to perceive the need

for stable relationships.

However,

a low constraint level indicates there is

no strong exit barrier to block an aggres-

for service firms under these conditions is

sive competitor.

to promote feelings of both dependence

improve relationship

and trust in customers, thereby making

ing in structural solutions to customer

them more amenable

needs, thereby increasing dependency.

Objective:

High

The challenge

indicates good prospects

for relationship enhancement.

to relationships.

Relationship Formation

Objective:

The service firm may

stability by invest-

Relationship Stability

The relationship may persist because the

This relationship should be especially

customer perceives no practical alterna-

strong and durable, with excellent pros-

tives. However,

this condition may

change, leading to relationship dissolution.

Moreover,

low customer dedica-

tion makes relationship enhancement

unlikely.

Strengthening the quality of the

relationship through trust-building is

pects for further development.

The high

constraints contribute to stability and the

high dedication

increases the potential

for creating broader and deeper ties.

Preserving the high constraints and dedication levels is essential.

probably indicated.
Objective:

Relationship Enhancement

Objective:

Relationship Nurturing

come of it?). We expect that dedication at time tt will positively affect perceived constraints at time t2. That is, todays dedication can add to tomorrows constraint (Stanley and
Markman, 1992). Dedication at time tt should lead to more willingness to build the relationship and to less inclination to explore alternative partners. The additional investments
that customers make into the relationship, and the greater interdependencies
that they create, can then become constraints against dissolving the relationship at time t2.
Service firms that seek to cultivate dedication must do so with full awareness of the
expectations this creates in the customer. The greater the dedication of the customer, the
greater the identification with the service provider, and the greater the sense of ownership.
This means that-as
owners-customers
with dedication-based
relationships may be
more aware of, and perhaps more critical of service failures. A recent study reports that customers who were more involved with a service firm were far more critical of failure and
reported greater dissatisfaction than customers who were less involved with the service
(Goodman et al., 1995). Consequently, building close relationships with customers may be
a double-edged sword for firms.
The impact of dedication and constraint-based
relationship maintenance
may have
important implications for managing relationship dissolution as well. Increasingly, it is
being suggested that firms fire unprofitable customers. In doing so, firms may have to take
into account the basis of the customers relationship with the service. If a firm severs a rela-

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

33

tionship where the customer is dedicated, customer ill-will and consequent negative repercussions may be greater than for a severed constraint-based
relationship. This too is a
subject for future research.
The focus of this article has been on exploring customer receptivity or willingness to
maintain relationships. Of course, to fully understand what makes for successful relationships, both willingness and ability to maintain relationships must be investigated. In fact,
Schneider and Bowen (1995) propose that firms screen customers for their abilities to be
effective relationship partners, much as they screen prospective employees or suppliers.
This screening may be especially important in relationship marketing contexts which place
far greater demands on customers than discrete exchanges do. Future research should
address this issue of customer ability to maintain relationships.
Acknowledgment:
The authors are grateful to Mary Jo Bitner and the anonymous
their helpful comments.

reviewers

for

NOTES
1. The friendships need not precede the relationship to create interdependencies.
Interestingly,
social bonds formed because of service patronage may later turn into bonds that strengthen the relationship. Consider a customer that develops social bonds with fellow users of Digital Equipment
Corporation products through a users group such as DECUS (Digital Equipment Corporation Users
Group). The strong bonds that develop with other customers may then act as deterrents to dissolving
the relationship with the service (Cross and Smith, 1995, p. 149).
2. We recognize that performance ambiguity is also a function of customer expertise. Experts
will experience less ambiguity about the service than novices. However, our focus in this section is
on services that,in general, will be more or less complex to evaluate.

REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, Jnurnnl of
Consumer Research, 13(4): 41 l-454.
Aldrich, Howard. (1979). Organizntions and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Anderson, James C. and J. A. Narus. (1990). A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm
Working Partnerships, Journal of Marketing, 54(January): 42-58.
Anderson, James C. and Barton Weitz. (1989). Determinants of Continuity in Conventional
Industrial Channel Dyads, Marketing Science, S(Fal1): 3 10-323.
Barnes, James G. (1994). The Issue of Establishing Relationships with Customers in Service
Companies: When are Relationships Feasible and What Form Should They Take? Presented at
the third annual Frontiers in Services Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, October 6-8.
Barney, Jay B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of
Management, 17(March): 99- 120.

34

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

Becker, Gary. (1964). Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the Concept of Commitment, American Journal of Sociology, 66:
32-40.
Berry, Leonard L. (1983). Relationship Marketing. Pp. 25-38 in L.L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, and
G.D. Upah (eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Service Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
. (1995). On Great Service. Lexington, MA: Free Press.
_(1995b). Relationship Marketing of Services-Growing
Interest, Emerging Perspectives,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236-245.
Berry, Leonard L. and A. Parasuraman. (1991). Marketing Services. Competing Through Quality.
Lexington, MA: Free Press/Lexington Books.
Bitner, Mary Jo.(1995). Building Service Relationships: Its All About Promises, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4): 246-251.
Bobocel, D. Ramona and John P. Meyer. (1994). Escalating Commitment to a Failing Course of
Action: Separating the Roles of Choice and Justification, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3):
360-363.
Bowen, David E. and Gareth Jones. (1986). Transaction Cost Analysis of Service OrganizationCustomer Exchange, Academy of Management Review, ll(2): 428-441.
Brehm, Jack W. (1966). A Thenry of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Busch, Paul and David T. Wilson. (1976). An Experimental Analysis of a Salesmans Expert and
Referent Bases of Social Power in Buyer-Seller Dyad, Journal of Marketing Research,
13(February): 3-l 1.
Business Week. (1994). Forget Woodstock-These
Folks are Heading to Spring Hill, June 27: 36.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao. (1992). Influence of Familial and Peer-Based Reference
Groups on Consumer Decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(September): 198-211.
Cook, M. (1977). The Social Skill Model and Interpersonal Attraction. In S. Duck (ed.), Theory
and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction. London: Academic Press.
Cravens, David W. (1995). Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23(4): 235.
Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles. (1990). Relationship Quality in
Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective, Journal of Marketing, 52 (July): 21-34.
Cross, Richard and Janet Smith. (1995). Customer Bonding. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.
Czepiel, J. A. (1990). Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research,
Journal af Business Reserach, 20: 13-21.
Darby, M.R. and E. Kami. (1973). Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud, Journal of
Law and Economics, 16: 67-86.
Dess, G.G. and Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions
of Organizational
Task Environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 52-73.
Deutch, Morton. (1960). The Effect of Motivational Orientation on Trust and Suspicion, Human
Relations, 13: 123-139.
Duck, Steve. (1994). Dynamics ofRelationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dwyer, F Robert, Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh. (1987), Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,
Journal of Marketing, 51 (2): 1 l-27.
Emerson, Richard M. (1962). Power-Dependence
Relations, American Sociological Review, 27
(February): 32-33.
Festinger, Leon. (1959). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Frazier, Gary, James Gill, and Sudhir Kale. (1989). Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal
Action in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country, Journal of Marketing, 53 (January):
50-69.

Customers

Motivation

with Service Providers

35

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

Journal of Marketing, 58 (April): l-1 9.
Goodman, Paul S., Mark Fichman, F. Javier Lerch, and Pamela R. Snyder. (1995). Customer-Firm
Relationships, Involvement, and Customer Satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 38
(5): 1310-1324.

Gronroos, Christian. (1990). Relationship

Approach to Marketing in Service Contexts: The
Marketing and Organizational Behavior Interface, Journal of Business Research, 20: 3- 11.
(1991). The Marketing Strategy Continuum: A Marketing Concept for the 1990s,
-.
Marketing Decision, 29 (1): 7- 13.
(1994). From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift in
-.
Marketing, Management Decision, 32 (2): 4-20.
Gummesson, Evert. (1987). The New Marketing-Developing
Long-Term Interactive Relationship,
Long Range Planning, 20 (4): 10-20.
Heide, Jan B. (1994), Interorganizational
Governance in Marketing Channels, Journal of
Marketing, 58 (January): 71-85.
Heide, Jan B. and George John. (1988). The Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding
Transaction-Specific
Assets in Conventional Channels, Journal of Marketing, 52 (January): 2035.
Heider, F. (1958). Psychology of Interpersonal
Relations. New York: John Wiley.
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Toward Understanding Relutianships. London: Academic Press.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Robert M. Morgan. (1995). The Comparative Advantage Theory of
Competition, Journal ofWzrketing, 59 (April): I-15.
Iacabucci, Dawn. (1994) Toward Defining Relationship Marketing, In J. N. Sheth and A.
Parvatiyar (eds.), Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Proceedings of the
1994 Research Conference, Center for Relationship Marketing, Emory University, Atlanta, June
11-13.
Iverson, Roderick D. and Parimal Roy. (1994). A Causal Model of Behavioral Commitment:
Evidence from a Study of Australian Blue-Collar Employees, Journal ofMunagement,
20 (1): 15
41.
Javonovic, B. (1979). Firm-Specific
Capital and Turnover, Journal of Political Economy, 87:
1246-1260.

Johnson, D. W. and S. Johnson. (1972). The Effects of Attitude Similarity, Expectation of Goal
Facilitation and Actual Goal Facilitation on Interpersonal Attraction, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 8: 197-206.
Johnson, M. P. (1982). The Social and Cognitive Features of the Dissolution of Commitment to
Relationships.
Pp. 51-73 in S. Duck (ed.), Personal Relationships:
Dissolving Personal
Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
Kalwani, Manohar U. and Narakesari Narayandas. (1995). Long-term Manufacturer-Supplier
Relationships: Do They Pay Off for Supplier Firms? Journal ofMarketing, 59 (January): l-16.
Kotler, Philip. (1991). Philip Kotler Explores the New Marketing Paradigm, Review, Marketing
Science Institute Newsletter. Cambridge, MA (Spring): 1,4-5.
Kumar, Nirmalya, Louis W. Stem, and Ravi S. Achrol. (1992). Assessing Reseller Performance
from the Perspective of the Supplier, Journal ofMarketing Research, 29 (May): 238-253.
Levinger, George. (1965). Marital Cohesiveness and Dissolution: An Integrative Review, Journal
of Marriage and Family, 27: 19-28.
(1979). Marital Cohesiveness at the Brink: The Fate of Applications for Divorce, Pp. 99120 in T. L. Huston (ed.), Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences.
New
York: Academic Press.

36

Journal of Retailing

Vol. 73, No. 1 1997

Levitt, Theodore. (1981). Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles, Harvard
Business Review, 59 (May-June): 95-102.
Locander, William B. and Peter W. Hermann. (1979). The Effect of Self-Confidence and Anxiety
on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction, Journal ofMarketing Research, 16 (May):
268-274.
Lovelock, Christopher. (1983). Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights, Journal
ofMurketing, 47 (Summer): 9-20.
McKenna, Regis. (1991). Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies for the Age of the Customer.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McLaughlin, John P. (1993). Ensuring Customer Satisfaction is a Strategic Issue, Not Just an
Operational One, Presentation at the AIC Customer Satisfaction Measurement Conference,
December, Chicago, IL.
Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman, and Rohit Deshpande. (1992). Relationships
Between
Providers and Users of Marketing Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between
Organizations, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August): 3 14-329.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt. (1994). The Commitment-Trust
Theory of Relationship
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July): 20-38.
Murray, Keith B. (1991). A Test of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer Information Acquisition
Activities, Journal of Marketing, 55 (January): 10-25.
Music Trudes. (1995). Fletcher Bets Demographics Will Spur Organ Sales, July: 134-140.
Neuberg, Steven L. and Susan T. Fiske. (1987). Motivational Influences on Impression Formation:
Outcome Dependency, Accuracy-Driven
Attention, and Individuating Processes, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 43 l-444.
Oldano, T. L. (1987). Relationship
Segmentation:
Enhancing the Service Provider/Client
Connection. Pp. 143-146 in C. Suprenant (ed.), Add Value to Your Service: The Key to Success,
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Services Marketing Conference, American Marketing Association,
San Diego, September 27-30.
Oliver, Christine. (1990). Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future
Directions, Academy of Management Review, 15 (2): 241-265.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald Salancik. (1978). The External Control of Orgnnizations: A Resource
Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Pruitt, Dean G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Ridley, Carl A. and Arthur W. Avery. (1979). Social Network Influence on the Dyadic
Relationship.
Pp. 223-246 in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in
Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press.
Sameulson, Paul A. (1993). Altruism as a Problem Involving Group versus Individual Selection in
Economics and Biology, American Economic Review, 83 (2): 143-148.
Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen. (1995). Winning the Service Game. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schurr, Paul H. and Julie L. Ozanne. (1985). Influence on Exchange Processes: Buyers
Preconceptions of a Sellers Trustworthiness and Bargaining Toughness, Joumul of Consumer
Research, 11 (March): 939-953.
Sheaves, Daphne E. and James G. Barnes. (1996). The Fundamentals of Relationships:
An
Exploration of the Concept to Guide Marketing Implementation, Advunces in Services Marketing
and Management, 5: 215-245.
Sherman, Stratford. (1992). Are Strategic Alliances Working? Fortune, September: 77-78.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Atul Parvatiyar. (1995). Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets:
Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of the Academy of Murketing Science, 23 (4): 255-27 1.

Customers Motivation with Service Providers

37

Shostack, Lynn. (1987). Service Positioning Through Structural Change, Journal of Marketing, 51
(January): 34-43.
Skinner, Steven J., Jule B. Gassenheimer, and Scott W. Kelley. (1992). Cooperation in SupplierDealer Relations, Journal of Retailing, 68 (Summer): 174-193.
Stanley, Scott M. and Howard J. Markman. (1992). Assessing Commitment
in Personal
Relationships, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (August): 595-608.
Steers, Richard M. (1977). Antecedents
and Outcomes of Organizational
Commitment,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (March): 46-56.
Swan, J. E., I. F. Trawick, and D. W. Silva. (1985). How Industrial Salespeople
Gain
CustomerTrust, Industrail Marketing Management, 14 (3): 203-231.
Taylor, J. L. and A. G. Woodside. (198 1). Exchange Behavior Among Salesmen and Customers in
Natural Settings. In P. H. Reingen and A. G. Woodside (eds.), Buyer-Seller Interactions:
Empirical Research and Normative Issues. Chicago: American
Marketing Association,
Proceedings Series.
Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelley. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John
Wiley.
Vavra, Terry. (1995). Aftermarketing: How to Keep Customers for Life through Relationship
Marketing. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Webster, Jr. F. E. (1992). Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation, Journal of Marketing,
56 (October): 1-17.
Weiner J. L. and J. C. Mowen. (1985). Source Credibility: On the Independent Effects of Trust and
Expertise When Attractiveness
is Held Constant, Working Paper 85-3, Oklahoma State
University.
Weitz, Barton A. and Sandy D. Jap. (1995). Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4): 305-320.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
(1981). The Economics of Organizations: The Transaction Cost Approach, American
-.
Journal of Sociology, 87 (3): 548-77.
. (1985). Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Zeithaml, Valerie A. (1981). How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ Between Goods and
Services. Pp. 186-190 in J. H. Donnelly and W. R. George (eds.), Marketing of Services. Chicago,
IL: American Marketing Association.