Service Relation Ship

8/11/2019 Service Relation Ship

1/28

INTRODUCTION

In service organizations, the maintenance of lastingand exclusive relationships with customers is a priorityand there are many tools available to this end: loyaltycards, customer relationship management software,call centers, eCRM (e-mailing and websites), sales

force automation systems, quality management,satisfaction surveys, etc. Nonetheless, relationshipsbetween organizations and their customers do not

necessarily seem to improve over time: customerresistance and revolt movements are on the increase allover the world (boycotts, Internet revenge, conflictsand court cases, etc.); many managers lament theircustomers growing volatility, how difficult it is topersuade them to enter into exclusive relationships,their customers frequent lack of cooperation and

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 25, n 1/2010

Discovering the Dark Side of Service Relationships... or Why Long-lasting

and Exclusive Relationships are Self-destructing

Gilles NGoala

ProfessorUniversity of Savoy Institute of Management (IMUS)

Institute for Management and Economic Research (IREGE)

The author would like to thank the reviewers as well as the chief editor of this journal, professor Jean-Louis Chandon, for their invaluable assis-tance in the preparation of this article.He can be contacted at the following email address: [email protected]

RESEARCH

ABSTRACT

This article deals with the respective roles of the two facets of relationship commitment (affective and calculative) and inter-personal trust (reliability and benevolence) in building a relational exchange of different types of customer (mono- vs. multi-loyal,longstanding vs. new). The study, conducted in retail banking (N = 1,999), shows that: 1) calculative commitment, whichgrows over time, prevents relational exchange; 2) in the long term, customer trust generally has a decreasing role while affectivecommitment becomes critical in the relational exchange; 3) contact persons benevolence encourages via a reciprocal effect

higher customer benevolence, especially when their vulnerability is high; 4) inversely, contact persons reliability generatescontrast effects and sways monogamous customers toward negative intentions. Implications for customer relationship manage-ment (longstanding/new, mono/multi) are highlighted.

Key words: Dark side, relationship marketing, relational behaviors, relational selling, trust, affective commitment, financialservices.


2/28

even aggression, negative word-of-mouth and theirown customers lack of loyalty, etc. Finally, lastingrelationships are not necessarily profitable (Reinartzand Kumar, 2000; Aurier and NGoala, 2010). How

do we explain this paradox? As suggested byGrayson and Ambler (1999), can we say that there is adark side to long-term relationships? Do exclusiveand lasting relationships contain the seeds of theirown destruction?

Grayson and Ambler (1999) suggest that overtime, service relationships run out of steam, relatio-nal constructs such as trust and relationship commit-ment lose their influence, customer expectations riseand both parties seem more and more opportunistic.Once the honeymoon period is over, exchangesbetween suppliers and their customers tend to dete-

riorate. However, empirical studies on such negativedynamics are rare and only apply to business-to-busi-ness relationships (Moorman, Zaltman andDeshpande, 1992; Grayson and Ambler, 1999;Hibbard, Kumar and Stern, 2001; Pressey andTzokas, 2004; Anderson and Jap, 2005). There is noempirical study which has confirmed or denied thesehypotheses in a business-to-consumer setting.Indeed, as noted by Grayson and Ambler (1999, p.139), if the sustainable competitive advantageenjoyed by long-term relationships carries the seeds of

its own destruction, then it is important to understandwhy, so that managerial strategies can be developedspecifically to fend off this tendency.

The aim of this study is therefore to highlight thedark side of service relationships. Five points distin-guish this research from previous studies:

1) The distinction between the two key facets of acustomers confidence in the salesperson:trust is measured on an interpersonal level andmay be defined as the customers belief in thesalespersons ability (perceived reliability)

and willingness (perceived benevolence) tomeet their expectations (Ganesan and Hess,1997). Trust is a multi-dimensional and dyna-mic construct and its two key dimensions canhave different effects according to the phaseof the service relationship (Lewicki andBunker, 1995).

2) The distinction between the two key relation-ship commitment facets: customer commit-ment in the service relationship can depend ona sense of affiliation and identification with

the organization (affective commitment,according to Garbarino and Johnson, 1999)but also on a calculation of the costs poten-tially associated with a change of supplier

(calculative commitment, according toVerhoef, Franses and Hoekstra, 2002). In thelong term, service relationships often result incustomers accumulating non-redeployableinvestments and acts of engagement (signinga long-term contract, for example) which thenprohibit them from easily terminating the ser-vice relationship.

3) Taking into account the moderating influenceof service relationship length and exclusivity:the role of trust can vary according to the levelof familiarity (new vs. long-standing custo-mers) and customer vulnerability (mono- vs.multi-loyal customers).

4) Concern about the deterioration of exchangesbetween customers and suppliers: in the longterm, relationships can become fragile, espe-cially when customers are faced with offersfrom competitors and dissatisfaction episodeswhich inevitably occur in customers lives.Establishing a relational exchange with a cus-tomer can permit these incidents to be over-come (long-term orientation, cooperation and

fairness). However, when the service relation-ship deteriorates, clients become disengaged,the nature of the exchange alters and becomesmore transactional in nature (short-termorientation, conflicts, opportunism) (Dwyer,Schurr and Oh, 1987). In this study, we areinterested in customers relational vs. transac-tional tendencies and intentions which arisewhen a critical incident occurs (competitionand/or dissatisfaction). As indicated byAnderson and Jap (2005, p. 75), relation-

ships that appear to be doing well are oftenthe most vulnerable to the forces of destruc-tion that are quietly building beneath the sur-face of the relationship.

5) An empirical study of personal banking ser-vices (N = 1,999): banking relationships areparticularly characterized by significant exitbarriers (long expiry dates, contractualclauses, transfer fees, lengthy administrativeprocedures, etc.) but also by the crucial role ofthe confidence bond established between

Gilles NGoala4


3/28

financial advisors and their customers. Thesebanking relationships are certainly long-las-ting (retention rates above 95%) but notnecessarily profitable (Coyles and Gokey,

2002). Measuring customer relational vs. tran-sactional tendencies helps us understand whatis happening below the surface of these ser-vice relationships which can often be lifelongrelationships for these clients.

This article therefore examines to what extent thetwo facets of relationship commitment to a serviceorganization (affective vs. calculative) and confi-dence in salespersons (reliability vs. benevolence)may reduce or increase the risks of service relationshipdeterioration (relational vs. transactional exchange).

In particular, we will see whether these factorscontribute to the maintenance of a relationalexchange with customers and whether their rolesvary according to the length (longstanding vs. newcustomers) and exclusivity of the service relationship(mono- vs. multi-loyal customers). Once we havepresented our model and our literature review (Part1), we will describe our methodology and discuss themain results of this study (Part 2).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Based on the relationship marketing literature, wewill define: 1) the components of customer relatio-nal/transactional behavior (dependent variables),then we will examine some hypotheses relating to theroles of 2) calculative and affective commitment, 3) the

salespersons perceived reliability and benevolence,then 4) the length and exclusivity of the service rela-tionship. The research model (Figure 1) is thereforebased on a theoretical chain (Trust Relationshipcommitment Relational behavior) described in theliterature (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Bendapudi andBerry, 1997; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999) and takesinto account the potential moderating influences oflength and exclusivity on the relationship.

Customersrelational behavior intentions

The idea of relational exchange is not limited tocustomer retention, repeat purchase and positive

word-of-mouth (Fournier and Yao, 1997; Fournier,1998). It also refers to the idea that in a critical situa-tion, organizations and their clients will: (1) value theachievement of long-term objectives over short-termtransactions, (2) prefer mutual cooperation to compe-tition and conflict and (3) prioritize fairness overopportunism (Macneil, 1978; Gundlach and Murphy,1993; NGoala, 1998 and 2000). According toGustafsson, Johnson and Roos (2005), two importantscenarios are likely to upset the service relationship:dissatisfaction with a service experience and anattractive offer from a competitor.

Long-term orientation and acceptance of short-term sacrifices: Relational exchange leads to a willin-gness to make sacrifices in the short term in order toachieve long-term gains: familiarity with and proxi-mity to the supplier, reduced transaction-related risksor special treatment by the organization (Gwinner,Gremler and Bitner, 1998). Two facets are examined:

(a) Tolerance of dissatisfaction refers to custo-mers acceptance of short-term sacrifices evenwhen the service is not as expected. This facet

refers to the notion of loyalty (inaction) exa-mined by Hirschman (1970). As noted byPing (2007), relatively few empirical studiesexplain why customers remain passive whenfaced with episodes of dissatisfaction.

(b) Resistance to counter-persuasion refers tocustomers acceptance of opportunity costseven when a competitor may be making asuperior offer (a product which performs betteror is cheaper). This facet relates to resistance tochange (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Dick and

Basu, 1994; Moulins, 1998) which is oftenrelated to quality and satisfaction (Zeithaml,Berry and Parasuraman, 1996; Fornell et al.,1996; Ganesh, Arnold and Reynolds, 2000;Reynolds and Arnold, 2000) but not to calcula-tive commitment and trust.

Cooperation with the service provider: Coope-rating with customers in order to achieve a win-winexchange is one of relationship marketings keyobjectives (Grnroos, 1990; Eiglier, 2004). Mutual

Discovering the Dark Side of Service Relationships... or Why Long-lasting and Exclusive Relationships are Self-destructing 5


4/28


5/28

cooperation is aimed at a value co-creation processwhereas competition and conflict more often result in avalue distribution between parties (Sheth andPavatiyar, 1995). Problem-solving mechanisms

implemented by customers during a critical incidentcan thus have a cooperative (acceptable compromise)or competitive (submission by one party) nature(Jolibert and Velazquez, 1989). Therefore, two com-ponents are considered:

(c) Constructive complaint refers to a custo-mers willingness to reach an acceptable com-promise for each party as a result of a com-plaint process. It is true that several articleshave dealt with complaints (Day, 1980; Tax,Brown and Chandrashekaran, 1998), but little

attention has been paid to the cooperative vs.competitive nature of the process (Ping, 1993and 2007). Yet, it is in the service organiza-tions interest for this consumer complaintprocess to be cooperative in nature (value co-creation), even friendly (Prim and Pras,1999), rather than conflicting (value distribu-tion).

(d) Cooperative negotiation refers to a custo-mers willingness to reach an acceptable com-promise for each party as a result of a negotia-

tion process. Not a great deal of marketingresearch attention has been focused on consu-mers negotiation behavior (Bazerman, 2001).However, numerous exchanges are still nego-tiated, such as, for example in banking, realestate, tourism and related services.

Customer fairness with the service provider:Relationship marketing aspires to the development ofbusiness affairs which favor reciprocity, equity, res-pect for engagements and promises, virtue or evenprofessional codes of ethics (Gundlach and Murphy,

1993; Gruen, 1995). Numerous studies have focusedon the organizations fairness with its customers(Singh and Sirdeshmukh, 2000; Sirdeshmukh, Singhand Sabol, 2002; Agustin and Singh, 2005), but fewempirical studies have analyzed customer fairnesswith the service organization, in other words theirtendency to be faithful to their engagements andshow proof of consistency, honesty and integrity totheir service provider. What is more, it is importantfor organizations to also be able to instill confidence intheir customers. Two facets are examined:

(e) A customers benevolence is characterizedby his or her willingness not to make negativecomments about the organization to thosearound them (friends, family, others) even

when dissatisfied. This is a kind of consis-tency of affections and feelings as well as awillingness not to betray the other party inspite of the circumstances. Thus, customerswould rather keep any negative comments tothemselves than prejudice the organization(Singh, 1990).

(f) Customer integrity is demonstrated here bya willingness not to make calculated effortsto mislead, distort, disguise, obfuscate, orotherwise confuse his or her service provider

(Williamson, 1985, p. 47). This is about beha-vior which conforms to the laws of moralsand duty and can be considered the oppositeof opportunism.

Studies have often examined opportunism in aninter-organizational context (Wathne and Heide,2000) but very rarely in the consumer field (VanHenhove, De Wulf and Steenhaut, 2003). What ismore, consumers may also seek self interest withguile (Williamson, 1985) and be tempted to lieabout or hide certain facts and mistakenly mislead

the service provider: insurance frauds, presenting aninaccurate financial statement to a bank, failure toindicate billing errors, etc. When the exchange isunequal, opportunism becomes a means of retaliationand the customer feels no sense of guilt toward thesupplier (Steenhaut and Van Kenhove, 2005).

The differing roles of affective and calculative

commitment

Maintenance of long-term relationships relies ontwo forms of customer commitment:

Affective commitment: a customers degree ofidentification and affiliation with the supplierand their involvement in the service relation-ship (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). This isgenerally closely linked to service relation-ship maintenance (Verhoef, 2003; Gustafsson,Johnson and Roos, 2005), resistance tochange (Pritchart, Havitz and Howard, 1999),



6/28

positive word-of-mouth (Hennig-Thurau,Gwinner and Gremler, 2002), cooperation(Bendapudi and Berry, 1997), participation inthe production and delivery of the service

(Kelley, Donnelly and Skinner, 1990:Bettencourt, 1997), rejection of opportunism(Steenhaut and Van Kenhove, 2005) and avoi-dance of negative word-of-mouth (Jones etal., 2007).

Calculative commitment: the individualsconsideration of the costs associated withbreaking ties with a service provider (Verhoef,Franses and Hoekstra, 2002). This refers tothe individual calculating the costs related tothe transaction (expenses necessary to start a

new relationship and/or end one), learning(investment in time and effort to understandthe new supplier and their products) and/orcontracts (break fee clauses) they would have totake on if they were to break the business rela-tionship (Klemperer, 1987; Jones,Mothersbaugh and Beatty, 2000; Burnham,Frels and Mahajan, 2003). Calculative com-mitment may also be the product of organiza-tional practices (exit barriers) or the simpleprocess of customers developing a relation-ship and making non-redeployable purchasesand investments (signing multiple contractsfor example). Research has shown that calcula-tive commitment favors retention (Bansal,Irving and Taylor, 2004) but does notinfluence cross-buying or positive word-of-mouth (Verhoef, Franses and Hoekstra, 2002).On the other hand, few empirical studies haveexamined the potentially negative effects ofcalculative commitment on customers relatio-nal behavior intentions. We would suggestthat calculative commitment is accompanied

by less relational behaviors, i.e.:

reduced acceptance of short-term sacrifices:in 1997 Bendapudi and Berry described therisks associated with a constraint-based rela-tionship and estimated that in these situations,customers need to make an effort to regaintheir freedom by any means possible(Brehms reactance theory, 1996) and becomeless dependent on the main supplier (Pfefferand Salanciks resource dependence theory,

1978). Customers particularly need to paygreater attention to other potential suppliers(Darpy and Prim, 2006), be more receptive totheir offers and even restrict their spending

with a focal service provider (Patterson andSmith, 2003, p. 116). When a service incidentarises, customers constrained by switchingcosts have trouble ending service relation-ships. However, they do not need to be com-pletely passive and wait for the situation toimprove by itself. In particular, they need tomake an effort to obtain compensation for theloss experienced in order to redress thebalance.

Reduced cooperation with the service provi-

der: in a B-2-B context, McAlister, Bazermanand Fader (1986) demonstrated that negotia-tion becomes distributive and conflictualwhen the powers of both parties becomeasymmetrical. The more dependent partyfears being exploited and ending up with anunfavorable solution. So they engage in a dis-tributive problem-solving process (value dis-tribution), enter into a conflict with the otherparty and attempt to limit the damage. On theother hand, if a customer feels they are in asymmetrical relationship and are free tomove, they ought to prefer a constructiveproblem resolution procedure (value co-crea-tion) (Sividas and Dwyer, 2000).

Reduced fairness with the service provider:according to Jones et al. (2007), calculativecommitment is accompanied by negativeemotions and can lead to negative word-of-mouth. Consumers find themselves in depen-dent situations which lead them to react moreaggressively when experiencing an episode of

dissatisfaction. The effects of calculative com-mitment on customer integrity vs. opportu-nism have not yet been studied in the consumerfield (Van Kenhove, De Wulf and Steenhaut,2003, p. 347). Nevertheless, in an intra-organi-zational context, Ping (2007) suggests thatopportunism is a means for individuals(employees) to return to an equitable situationand obtain a greater balance between the rela-tionship costs and its benefits. Calculativecommitment should therefore limit departures

Gilles NGoala8


7/28

by individuals but those who feel they are in aninequitable situation should seek their self-interest with guile.

Thus, the literature suggests, without empirical

evidence, that calculative and affective commitmentshould have opposing influences on relational behaviorintentions. We will therefore test the following twohypotheses:

H1 a ,b , c , d , e , f : The more a customer is characteri-zed by strong affective commitment, the more he orshe will tend to adopt relational behavior in criticalsituations (dissatisfaction or competition).1

H2 a ,b , c , d , e , f : The more a customer is characteri-zed by strong calculative commitment, the less he or

she will tend to adopt relational behavior in criticalsituations (dissatisfaction or competition).

Differing roles of salespersonsreliability

and benevolence

Trust refers to faith and, like faith, has an activemeaning to instill confidence (to have faith, thefaith we place in the word of others) and a passivemeaning to inspire confidence (to have faith, to beworthy of faith, good faith, the right intention directsconfidence toward us and has a moral credit value).The first facet, faith belief, refers to proof and reasonwhereas the second, faith fairness, alludes more torespect of the law and has moral significance (ethicalrules, universal moral laws). In marketing, even ifthere is no consensus as to the number of dimensionsthe concept has, many studies present benevolence(fairness of others with us) and reliability (personalbelief in the word of others) as two of the key compo-nents of trust (Frisou, 2000; Gurviez and Korchia,2002; Sireix and Dubois, 1999). Ganesan (1994, p. 3)

explains that reliability refers to the belief that theother party has the expertise required for a task to berealized efficiently and reliably, whereas benevolenceis based on the belief that the other party has intentionsand motives which would be beneficial in new situa-tions. Trust is implied indirectly through affectivecommitment in the maintenance of a service rela-

tionship: clients are reluctant to enter into a servicerelationship and identify themselves to their provider ifthey do not have confidence in that provider(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). We propose here that a

salespersons perceived benevolence, not his/herreliability, should also directly influence a customersrelational behavior intentions in a reciprocal manner.

Benevolence refers to the notion of reciprocalloyalty between consumer and organization.In this situation, the consumers decide whe-ther the provider is willing to continuouslysatisfy their expectations and avoid any poten-tially unfavorable opportunistic behavior(Ganesan and Hess, 1997). This results inreciprocity between the parties (Guibert,

1999; Coulter and Coulter, 2003). If theconsumer feels the service provider is notopportunistic, is fair with them and will doeverything possible to resolve their problems,they should in turn feel benevolent toward theservice provider. According to Agustin andSingh (2005), loyalty is the result of the appli-cation of a reciprocal rule: thus, customerswill reward organizations that show proof oftheir fairness with them. For Palmatier et al.(2009), they engage in a relational exchangeout of gratitude, i.e., to thank the provider fortheir intentional benevolence.

Conversely, reliability accorded by the consu-mers refers to the belief that their provider hasthe aptitude, know-how, expertise and compe-tence necessary for them to regularly achievetheir goals. According to Agustin and Singh(2005), this instrumental facet of trust is lin-ked to the exchange object (service) andshould only affect the client indirectly. Thesuppliers ability to deliver the expected ser-

vice seems to be a prerequisite, essential forrelationship commitment, but not sufficient topromote customer over-investment in the ser-vice relationship (short-term sacrifices,cooperation and fairness). For this facet oftrust, there is no reciprocal rule: the organiza-tion must have the ability and know-hownecessary to deliver the core service it haspromised to provide. More recently, Bove etal. (2009) demonstrated that, contrary to per-ceived reliability, perceived benevolence of


1. a: tolerance of dissatisfaction, b: resistance to counter persua-sion, c: constructive complaint, d: cooperative negotiation, e: custo-mer benevolence, f: customer integrity.


8/28


9/28

individuals main objective (Agustin and Singh,2005). If a problem arises which severely affects theservice, this should produce a powerful contrast bet-ween what the individuals thought of the competi-

tion, the know-how and abilities of their service pro-vider and the inadequate delivery of the servicewhich they eventually observe (anti-selection risk inagency theory). Mono-loyal customers should bemore affected than multi-loyal customers by theseincidents, since they cannot diversify the risks andturn easily to an alternative service provider. Theyare thus in a quasi-captive situation which ought topromote greater reactance.

Indeed, assimilation-contrast theory suggests thatbeliefs about a person or an organization are an inter-nal frame of reference which tends to affect the per-

ception of new information (Sherif and Hovland,1961). The individual establishes a scale of referencewith an anchor point, a margin of acceptance and amargin of rejection. We propose here that belief inthe good faith of the provider will cause the margin ofacceptance to be extended (assimilation effect). Onthe other hand, perceived reliability will cause thismargin to be limited and therefore to rejection andcontrast effects. Thus, we propose the followinghypotheses:

H7 a, b, c, d, e, f : For mono-loyal customers, the

salespersons perceived reliability has a negativeinfluence on relational behavior intentions.

H8 a, b, c, d, e, f : For mono-loyal customers, thesalespersons perceived benevolence is more closelylinked to relational behavior intentions than formulti-loyal customers.

Finally, Figure 1 illustrates our hypotheses andsuggests: 1) unlike affective commitment, calculativecommitment limits the possibilities for relationalexchange development (H1 and H2); 2) contrary to

perceived reliability (H4), perceived benevolence has adirect and positive effect on relational behaviorintentions (H3) and this effect is even stronger if therelationship is long-standing (high level of familia-rity) (H6) and exclusive (high level of vulnerability)(H8); 3) salespersons reliability supports affectivecommitment to the organization, even more so if therelationship is new (H5). On the other hand, salesper-sons perceived reliability has a direct negative effecton relational behavior intentions when the customer isin a highly vulnerable situation (mono-loyalty) (H7).

EMPIRICAL STUDY IN THE RETAIL BANKING SECTOR

These hypotheses were tested in the retail ban-king sector.

Methodology

First, we generated a group of items based onqualitative interviews with consumers (15) and pre-existing scales (NGoala, 2000). The objective of oursemi-directive interviews was to see how individuals,different in terms of profession, age and sex, 1) saw

their relationship with their bank(s) and 2) how theyreacted to isolated episodes of dissatisfaction or com-petitors offers. A total break in the commercial bondwas never envisaged for these respondents. The role ofconfidence in the salesperson (financial advisor) wasalso a constant in the interviews, whereas confidencein the organization was a more vague and abstractnotion for them. At the next stage, a questionnairewas designed and given to a convenience samplecomposed of 200 students. An initial measurementpurification phase was thus carried out (Cronbachsalpha, factorial analysis). At the third stage, 30,000questionnaires were posted to a sample compiledfrom a customer base of individuals. In order torepresent the different banks and customer bases, thesample was taken from an address database acquiredfrom a lending organization. A total of 1,999 ques-tionnaires were returned.

Customers were invited to answer questionsabout their main bank, defined here in terms ofvolume of business. To estimate the length of thisrelationship, at the end of the questionnaire we askedhow long they had been a customer of this bank (1 to

68 years). To determine this relationships level ofexclusivity, we then asked respondents if they werecustomers of other banks, and if so, which one: theythen had to choose from 12 options (Crdit Agricole,Banque Populaire, etc.) and enter any other banknames into an empty box provided for this purpose.The total number of banks mentioned by respondentswas scaled from 1 (no other bank) to 10. The degree ofexclusivity corresponds to the inverse of the totalnumber of banks. Appendix A1 shows the characte-ristics of the final sample: more than 12 main banks



10/28

considered, average length 22 years (11% less than 5years), more than 80% multi-banking customers.

At the beginning of the questionnaire, having indi-cated their bank of choice, the respondents had to

indicate their level of commitment in the service rela-tionship as well as their level of confidence in theirfinancial advisor. The measurement scales used areshown in Appendix A2. Anglo-Saxon measurementscales of affective commitment (Garbarino andJohnson, 1999; Gruen, Summers and Acito, 2000),calculative commitment (Verhoef, Franses andHoekstra, 2002) and trust (Ganesan, 1994; Ganesanand Hess, 1997) were translated into French andadapted to banking relationships. Benevolence andreliability were determined at an interpersonal level,which is crucial in the banking sector (Barnes, 1997;

Benamour, 2000; Gatfaoui, 2005). During the secondstage, we measured customers relational behaviorintentions. First, we determined customers tolerance,constructive complaint and benevolence intentions(avoidance of negative word-of-mouth) in a situationwhere service delivery was below their expectations(Imagine what you would do if, over the next month,you noticed that a product or service provided byyour bank was not of the standard you had initiallyexpected). Then, we noted the resistance, negotiationand integrity (rejection of opportunism) intentions of

customers in a scenario where a competitor madethem an attractive offer (What would you do if, overthe next month, another bank made you an attractiveoffer?). Respondents had to choose on a scale of 1 to 5the level of likelihood which best fitted their intention(from 1 definitely to 5 very probably). Then, inthe final phase, we asked questions about the respon-dents themselves (age, sex, etc.).

Convergent and discriminant validity and reliability

of the constructs

Principal component analysis after oblique rota-tion leads clearly to a structure with 12 componentsand high levels of saturation (N = 1,999, direct obliminrotation, cf. A2). Thus, principal component analysisrenders more than 75% of variance. Each componentis then measured by at least three items. The measure-ment scales show the psychometric qualities to beadequate even though the items were mixed in thequestionnaire so as not to artificially increase thevalidity of the measures.

Confirmatory factor analysis, using the structuralequations method (AMOS software), proves the psy-chometric quality of the constructs to be satisfactory.They present a high level of reliability: the index is

between 0.76 and 0.90. Convergent validity is alsoestablished such that the AVE (Average VarianceExtracted) is greater than 0.50, which means thevariance of each construct is better explained by itsmeasures than by error (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).Finally, when the construct is better correlated to itsmeasures (manifest variables) than to otherconstructs (latent variables), discriminant validity isrecognized. In this case, the Root AVE index(

AV E) may be used as a criterion. This corres-ponds to the average correlation of the latent variablewith its manifest variables. The Root AVE index of

each construct must then be superior to any othercorrelation with the other latent variables, which isclearly the case here for all constructs (See Table 2).Both facets of trust are strongly correlated (r = 0.79)but more so with their own measures (Root AVE of0.84 for reliability and 0.83 for benevolence). Inaddition, if the two facets are assembled into onecomponent, the models fit with the data becomesunacceptable (RMSEA = 0.19), whereas it is satis-factory in a two-dimensional model (RMSEA =0.03). We therefore consider reliability and benevo-

lence to be two separate facets of trust.Analysis of the correlations already reveals severalresults (See Table 2): 1) length and exclusivity of theservice relationship are not correlated; 2) affectiveand calculative commitment increase over time(closely correlated with length, respectively r = 0.22and r = 0.25); 3) cooperative intentions are not linkedto length and exclusivity of the service relationship.

The structural equations method was then used tosimultaneously test all the relationships in the modeland our eight groups of hypotheses (Figure 1, N =1,999). Global fit of the model is satisfactory: the fit

indexes (CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, CFI) are greater than 0.98and the RMSEA rises to 0.04, which conforms withthe standards established in the literature (Sharma etal., 2005).2 The results are presented in Table 3. The

Gilles NGoala12

2. Note that as per Morgan and Hunt (1994), we tested an alternativemodel in which not only calculative and affective commitment butalso benevolence and reliability affect relational behavior compo-nents in a direct and parallel manner. Thus, the models fit with thedata decreases significantly: the chi2 changes from 2,126 to 2,689( = 563) for only 2 degrees of freedom less. Hereafter, therefore,the alternative model must be rejected.


11/28

variances explained for relational behavior intentionsare scaled between 19% for customer integrity (rejectionof opportunism) and 27% for customer benevolence(avoidance of negative word-of-mouth).

The roles of commitment to the service organization(affective vs. calculated) and trust in salespersons

(benevolence vs. reliability)

We can highlight two results:

Calculative commitment can potentially gene-rate a reactance phenomenon: affective com-mitment contributes significantly to the crea-tion of relational exchange with customers:hypotheses H1a, H1b H1c, H1d, H1e and H1fare validated. Conversely, calculative commit-

ment tends to have the opposite effect: admit-tedly, calculative commitment has the advan-tage of leading the customer to tolerateisolated episodes of dissatisfaction ( = 0.13).Thus, customers are led to experience the

situation as an isolated incident and chooseinaction in the hope that services will improvein the future, which can be inherent to thebanking sector (Levesque and McDougall,1996; Panther and Farquhar, 2004). However,calculative commitment has no significant

impact on resistance to counter-persuasionand even has a negative effect on the avoi-dance of negative word-of-mouth andconstructive complaint at a 10% risk level.Worse still, calculative commitment limits acustomers willingness to cooperate in thecase of an offer from a competitor and favorsthe adoption of opportunistic behavior (5%risk level). Finally, captive customers are notmore sensitive to a competitors offer, but ifthey do seize these opportunities, they do somore opportunistically and are less likely to

give their own bank a second chance.Hypotheses H2d and H2f are thus confirmed.In a competitive environment, the develop-ment of cooperative and transparentexchanges with customers is primarily charac-terized by the creation of an affective link andnot by the development of captive situa-tions.

Salespersons benevolence with regard to theircustomers has a positive direct influence on


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Tolerance of dissatisfaction 0.73**

2 Resistance tocounter-persuasion 0.35 0.873 Constructive complaint 0.48 0.19 0.784 Cooperative negotiation 0.26 0.11 0.46 0.825 Customer benevolence 0.52 0.44 0.34 0.28 0.816 Customer integrity 0.17 0.37 0.29 0.43 0.34 0.837 Affective commitment 0.48 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.51 0.26 0.758 Calculative commitment 0.26 0.15 0.07 ns 0.11 0.05 0.35 0.729 Salespersons perceivedreliability 0.36 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.39 0.25 0.52 0.09 0.8410 Salespersons perceivedbenevolence 0.41 0.30 0.46 0.39 0.42 0.29 0.55 0.07 0.79 0.83

11 Length of relationship3 0.06 0.16 ns ns 0.12 ns 0.25 0.22 ns 0.07 12 Exclusivity of relationship 0.07 0.18 ns ns 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.07 ns

Table 2. Construct correlations (standardized coefficients, p < 0.05)

* Correlations significant at level p < 0.05; ** Root AVE Indices (

AV E)

3. The length (1 to 68 years) and exclusivity indicators (1 to 10banks) were recoded before being related to the other constructs(Kline, 2005, pp. 123-124). Rescaling was achieved by dividingthe length indicator by 10 to obtain a variance comparable withthat of the other measurement scales.


12/28

Gilles NGoala14

Hypotheses

Antecedents

Consequences

Standard

H

ypothesis

Weighting

Status

(p

Documents

Service Relation Ship