The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
by Eager_Beaver_PhD2021. 9. 9.
Morgan & Hunt (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing
그동안 박사 자격시험을 준비하면서 정리한 내용을 하나씩 풀고 있습니다. 주로 유명한 마케팅 논문들이 업로드될 예정입니다. Marketing Strategy 중에서도 Relationship and B2B marketing에 해당되는 첫 번째 논문 "핵심 요약"입니다.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 20-38.
1. Nature of relationship marketing and suggest how this construct should be conceptualized
Definition
Relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges.
Ten discrete forms of relationship marketing
Supplier Partnership
Goods Suppliers
(1) the partnering involved in relational exchanges between manufacturers and their goods' suppliers, as in "just-in-time" procurement and "total quality management" (Frazier, Spekman, and O'Neal 1988; O'Neal 1989);
Service providers
(2) relational exchanges involving service providers, as between advertising or marketing research agencies and their respective clients (Beltramini and Pitta 1991; Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande 1992);
Lateral Partnerships
Competitors
(3) strategic alliances between firms and their competitors, as in technology alliances (Nueno and Oosterveld 1988); co-marketing alliances (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993); and global strategic alliances (Ohmae 1989);
Nonprofit Organizations
(4) alliances between a firm and nonprofit organizations, as in public purpose partnerships (Steckel and Simons 1992);
Government
(5) partnerships for joint research and development, as between firms and local, state, or national governments (Comer, O'Keefe, and Chilenskas 1980);
Buyer Partnerships
Ultimate Customers
(6) long-term exchanges between firms and ultimate customers, as particularly recommended in the services marketing area (Berry 1983);
Intermediate Customers 유통
(7) relational exchanges of working partnerships, as in channels of distribution (Anderson and Narus 1990);
Internal Partnerships
Functional Departments
(8) exchanges involving functional departments (Ruekert and Walker 1987);
Employees
(9) exchanges between a firm and its employees, as in internal marketing (Arndt 1983; Berry and Parasuraman 1991); and
Business Units
(10) within-firm relational exchanges involving such business units as subsidiaries, divisions, or strategic business units (Porter 1987).
2. Successful relationship marketing requires relationship commitment and trust.
The Commitment-Trust Theory
We theorize that the presence of relationship commitment and trust is central to successful relationship marketing, not power and its ability to "condition others"
commitment and trust → relational marketing success
When both commitment and trust — not just one or the other — are present, they produce outcomes that promote efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness. In short, commitment and trust lead directly to cooperative behaviors that are conducive to relationship marketing success.
3. Model — key mediating variables.
Key mediating variable (KMV) model of relationship marketing
focuses on one party in the relational exchange and that party's relationship commitment and trust
Relationship commitment and trust are mediating variables between
acquiescence, propensity to leave, cooperation, functional conflict, and decision-making uncertainty
Relational Commitment
Definition
We define relationship commitment as an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; 다른 사람과 지속적인 관계를 유지하는 데 최대한의 노력을 기울여야 할만큼 중요합니다.
that is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely.
Why Key?
Parties identify commitment among exchange partners as the key to achieving valuable outcomes for themselves, and they endeavor to develop and maintain this precious attribute in their relationships.
Therefore, we theorize that commitment is central to all the relational exchanges between
Trust
Definition
We conceptualize trust as existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity.
Why Key?
Because relationships characterized by trust are so highly valued that parties will desire to commit themselves to such relationships (Hrebiniak 1974).
Precursors of Relationship Commitment and Trust
Relationship Termination Costs
Relationship Benefits
Shared Values
Communication
Opportunistic Behavior
Outcomes of Relationship Commitment and Trust
Acquiescence and Propensity to Leave
acquiescence — the degree to which a partner accepts or adheres to another's specific requests or policies 묵인
Propensity to leave — the perceived likelihood that a partner will terminate the relationship in the (reasonably) near future (Bluedor 1982).
Cooperation
Functional Conflict 우호적인 갈등
When disputes are resolved amicably, such disagreements can be referred to as "functional conflict," because they prevent stagnation(침체), stimulate interest and curiosity, and provide a "medium through which problems can be aired and solutions arrived at"
Uncertainty
Test data from automobile tire retailers.
Hypotheses
Correlation analysis supported all 13 hypotheses and structural equation modeling, a more powerful test, supports 12 of the 13 hypotheses.
Not only do our hypothesized antecedents explain over half the variance in relationship commitment and trust, they also explain a substantial amount of the variances in five outcomes, including almost half of the variance of the crucial variable, cooperation. If cooperative relationships are required for relationship marketing success, our results suggest that commitment and trust are, indeed, key.
This model vs. rival — which does not allow relationship commitment and trust to function as mediating variables.
Recognizing that our model is both parsimonious (13 paths) and extreme (only indirect paths are allowed from the five exogenous to the five outcome variables), we compare it with a rival that is non-parsimonious (29 paths), but equally extreme (no indirect paths are allowed).
Although customary goodness of fit measures show acceptable fit for both models, parsimony clearly favors the key mediating variable view. Even though the rival has over twice the paths (29 versus 13), the extra 16 paths from the "independent" variables explain only a marginal amount of additional variance. Examining the paths not supported in the rival also suggests that the KMV model best represents reality. Surprisingly, not a single antecedent in the rival is significantly related to more than two outcomes — even though all these antecedent variables have been widely recognized as important in exchange relationships. The KMV model explains this surprising finding by showing that the antecedents do affect these outcomes significantly, but only through the key mediating variables of relationship commitment and trust. Indeed, all 18 of the indirect effects of the antecedents on the outcomes are supported (p < .01). Finally, when corrected for parsimony, the overall fit of the rival model is less than half that of the KMV model. Philosophically, parsimony is a characteristic of theories that science has cherished since at least the 14th century when William of Ockham developed the principle now known as Ockham's razor. Philosophers of science long have argued that the objective of science is not only to explain, predict, and understand the world in which we live, but to do so in as efficient a manner as possible. Lambert and Brittan (1970, p. 69), discuss the reasons that parsimony, or "simplicity," has been so important in science: "Certainly of two hypotheses equally satisfactory in other respects, we habitually choose the simpler. Reasons are not hard to find. The simpler hypothesis is usually the more elegant, more convenient to work with, more easily understood, remembered, and communicated." The emphasis on parsimony in the structural equations modeling literature is fully in ac- cord with the philosophy of science (Bentler and Mooijaart 1989). Therefore, if the job of marketing science is, whenever possible, to explain marketing phenomena parsimoniously, our results clearly support the theory that commitment and trust are key mediating variables that contribute to relationship marketing success.
댓글