Creating advocates: The roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Creating advocates: The roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment Gordon Fullerton n Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3C3

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords: Advocacy Customer commitment Relationship marketing

a b s t r a c t This paper examines the extent to which advocacy is a consequence of marketing relationships in service organizations. The paper borrows a three-component model of employee commitment from the organizational behaviour literature and applies it in the context of consumer–organization service relationships. The theoretical model has been applied in three service settings. It was found that all three components of commitment have the potential to drive customer willingness to give favorable recommendations about the service provider. Affective commitment is the most significant determinant of customer advocacy, but normative commitment also plays a supporting and positive role. Continuance commitment undermines customer willingness to be an advocate. The conclusion is that the forces that create strong service provider–customer relationships can provide the additional benefit of customer advocacy of the service provider. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Why do people give enthusiastic recommendations about their service providers to their friends, relatives, coworkers and acquaintances? What causes them to be reliable advocates on behalf of service firms? These are important questions that have received considerable attention by marketing scholars over the decades (Anderson, 1998; Engle et al., 1969; Fornell et al., 1996; Haywood, 1989). For the most part, we agree that advocacy is one of the consequences of satisfaction in a consumption experience (Anderson, 1998; Brown et al., 2005; Swan and Oliver, 1989). In an era where relationship marketing is a significant focus of both thought and practice, it is important to have a deeper understanding of the drivers of advocacy. In marketing relationships, satisfaction is only one of a number of relational constructs (e.g. components of commitment, trust) that will affect important consumer behaviours including customer retention, willingness to enhance the relationship, price sensitivity and advocacy (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2005). Services have been viewed as a natural setting for the study of relational phenomena because the nature of services makes it possible and necessary for service providers to think in relational terms (Berry, 1995; Bitner, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to understand the drivers of advocacy from a relationship marketing perspective. This paper will begin with a discussion of advocacy as an element of the broader customer behaviour of positive word of mouth communications. This will be followed by a discussion of

n

Tel.: + 1 902 496 8167; fax: +1 902 420 5112. E-mail address: [email protected]

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.10.003

trust and commitment, which are important antecedents of strong marketing relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). This review of the literature will be used to build a detailed conceptual model of the relational drivers of advocacy for consumer services. It will then describe a methodology to test this model and report on the findings of the study. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the theoretical contributions and managerial implications.

2. The nature of advocacy Word of mouth communications is a well investigated area in the discipline of marketing (Anderson, 1998). Broadly, word of mouth refers to the communication of evaluations of products or services from one party to another (Engle et al., 1969; Singh, 1988; Westbrook, 1987). Prototypical research in this area has focused on the use of word of mouth communication from others by decisionmaking consumers (Arndt, 1967; Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Brown and Reingen, 1987; Duhan et al., 1997; Herr et al., 1991) and/or the act of undertaking word of mouth communication for the purposes of informing or persuading other consumers (Anderson, 1998; Harrison-Walker, 2001). This paper examines the undertaking of word of mouth communication rather than the use of word of mouth communication. Consumers can undertake communication of two types in response to a consumption experience: negative and positive word of mouth communication (Anderson, 1998; Zeithaml et al., 1996). There is a wide body of work on the nature of complaining and negative word of mouth communication in response to a negative consumption experience (Richins, 1983; Zeithaml et al.,1996). While negative word of mouth communication may be an interesting avenue of research in a relational context

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

(Morgan and Hunt, 1994), it is not a focus of research in this paper. Similarly, there is a wide body of literature on the variables that cause a consumer to engage in positive word of mouth communications (Swan and Oliver, 1989). When consumers discuss product or service attributes, describe pleasing service encounters to other consumers or make a formal recommendation, they are engaging in positive word of mouth communication (Anderson, 1998; Swan and Oliver, 1989). This paper is primarily concerned with understanding the relational drivers of advocacy, which is a particular type of positive word of mouth communication (Harrison-Walker, 2001). Advocacy is the willingness of the customer to give strong recommendations and praise to other consumers on behalf of a products or service supplier (Hill et al., 2006; Harrison-Walker, 2001). When consumers enthusiastically provide positive recommendations on products, services or brands, they are acting as advocates on behalf of that object (Anderson, 1998; Fullerton, 2003; White and Schneider, 2000). Managers increasingly measure consumer willingness to give positive recommendations as a consequence of their evaluation of the firm and its performance (Reichheld, 2006). Some have even argued that advocacy is a much stronger indicator of real consumer loyalty than repeat purchase behaviour because consumers will only enthusiastically endorse products, services, brands and firms when they have strong feelings about the entity in question (Mazzarol et al., 2007; Reichheld, 2003). Advocates and willing recommenders are sometimes called reference customers by both academicians and writers in the more popular business press (Moore, 1999; Palmatier et al., 2006). Advocacy is sometimes viewed as a soft-form of customer loyalty because it is difficult to measure its effects (Dick and Basu, 1994) and that it frequently goes hand in hand with customer retention (Luo and Homburg, 2007). Customers become advocates if they are continuously pleased with the level of service provided by the supplier (White and Schneider, 2000). Although satisfaction is correctly viewed as a logical antecedent of advocacy, satisfaction is not the only key variable that drives customer advocacy. Others put forward that advocacy is the pinnacle of an organization’s strong and effective relationship with a customer (Christopher et al., 1993). Indeed, advocacy is a key artifact of a situation where consumers are loyal to their relational partner (Reichheld, 2006; Ganesh et al., 2000). Since advocacy is ultimately a behaviour of interest to service relationship scholars and practitioners, it is important to understand its evaluative and relational antecedents. It is the kind of behaviour undertaken by consumers who are actively and attitudinally loyal to their relational partner (Bodet, 2008; Bontis et al., 2007; Ganesh et al., 2000). These consumers endorse their partner because they feel comfortable recommending the product, brand or service provider to people that they care about (Fullerton, 2003; Wangenheim and Bayon, 2004). While there can be no question that firms desire advocating customers and that advocacy is considered to be an important result of an effective marketing relationship (Christopher et al., 1993; Reichheld, 2003; White and Schneider, 2000), the extent to which advocacy is a consequence of the constructs of relationship marketing is not so clear. This paper will explicate the extent to which advocacy is a consequence of the various constructs that make up the consumer–service provider relationship.

3. Trust and commitment Trust and commitment have been identified as the most important constructs in the field of relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Both constructs have received considerable attention in the past decade by researchers who have sought to

93

understand the psychological processes that lie at the heart of marketing relationships (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2005; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Gounaris, 2005; Gruen et al., 2000; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Both constructs are key drivers of all customer loyalty-like behaviours, including advocacy. Trust is a cognitive evaluation of the actions of a relational partner. It is a willingness to rely on a party when one is confident in the actions of that party (Moorman et al., 1992). Others have viewed trust as confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). There are two aspects to trust: credibility and benevolence (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Credibility is the extent to which a customer perceives that the words and promises of a partner can be relied upon (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Benevolence is the extent to which a customer believes that their partner is concerned with acting in the best interests of the customer (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Overall, consumers trust organizations that they view as being dependable and helpful (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001). Trust is also a construct that may be difficult to separate from particular elements of the service quality construct (Fullerton, 2005). Issues of reliability are inherent in the SERVQUAL perspective on overall service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Similarly, benevolence is conceptually similar to the responsiveness and empathy dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Regardless, trust is a key antecedent of commitment in a marketing relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Commitment is a pledge of continuity between relational partners (Gundlach et al., 1995). It may also be viewed as the attachment that one party perceives towards another party in an exchange situation (Gruen et al., 2000). Morgan and Hunt (1994) put forward that commitment exists when a party wants to maintain an existing relationship. At its core, commitment is an attitude towards the act of maintaining a relationship with a partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003). Over the past fifteen years of relationship marketing scholarship, our understanding of commitment has significantly expanded. From a construct that had a limited definition (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), it is now regarded as a complex construct that includes multiple components. Many researchers in marketing have borrowed from the organizational behaviour literature where there is a rich tradition of research on the organizational commitment construct (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2008). A well accepted position in this field is that organizational commitment consists of three distinct components: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment (Meyer et al., 2002) and each will be defined below. Affective commitment is defined as the extent to which a customer identifies with and feels a positive attachment for a partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000). When an individual has affective commitment for an organization, they are involved with the organization and enjoy being affiliated with it (Allen and Meyer, 1990). On some occasions, consumers will express ‘‘love’’ for a particular brand or service provider (Fullerton, 2003). In other situations, they regard themselves as being in a friendship type of relationship with their service providers (Price and Arnould, 1999; Jones et al., 2008). Affective commitment is the psychological state that links the customer to a marketing partner that is based on identification and attachment. Arguably, it is the root psychological state that explains most effective marketing relationships. Early studies of commitment in marketing relationships largely operationalized commitment as affective commitment (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994), even though the construct was not specifically identified as such. Continuance commitment is defined as the extent to which a customer feels bound to a relational partner (Bansal et al., 2004;

94

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000). Continuance commitment has its roots in dependence, switching costs and side-bets (Allen and Meyer, 1990; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). We have a good understanding of the nature and effects of dependence in a marketing relationship (Fullerton, 2003; Gilliland and Bello, 2002; Harrison-Walker, 2001). We also know that consumers frequently feel trapped in their relationships with their organizational partners despite significant efforts by the organization to develop the positive aspects of the relationship (Fournier et al., 1998). Continuance commitment is the psychological state that is brought forward when consumers face significant economic or psychological switching costs and as a result perceive few alternatives outside the existing relationship. Normative commitment has received little attention by researchers in the broad fields of management (Meyer and Parfyonova, 2010). In marketing scholarship, the construct is defined as the extent to which a customer feels obligated to do business with a partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000). When an individual is normatively committed to an organization they feel that continuing to be involved with that organization is the right thing to do (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Normative commitment can be built through Cialdini’s (2001) concept of reciprocity as a force of influence in an exchange situation. In essence, we feel obliged to support those organizations that support the things that are important to us. For example, Handelman and Arnold (1999) describe the process through which organizations build legitimacy by appealing to family, community and/or national values. Arguably, these types of appeals build normative commitment because the organization is attempting to create an obligated customer who feels a duty to repay an act of goodwill. However, it should be recognized that normative commitment can manifest itself as a moral duty as well as an indebted obligation (Meyer and Parfyonova, 2010). Normative commitment remains a largely unstudied construct in a marketing context and only a few papers have specifically examined the nature, antecedents and effects of the construct (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). Both affective and continuance commitment are well researched constructs in the marketing literature (Fullerton, 2003; Gilliland and Bello, 2002; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Relationship commitment has been often conceptualized and measured as affective commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Continuance commitment has sometimes been referred to as calculative commitment (Gilliland and Bello, 2002; Gounaris, 2005). Normative commitment remains a poorly understood aspect of commitment in marketing relationships. To date there have been relatively few studies that have investigated the roles played by all three forms of customer commitment (Bansal et al., 2004; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007; Gruen et al., 2000). A few recent studies have taken a relationship marketing approach to the study of advocacy (Brown et al., 2005; Fullerton, 2003; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). For the most part, research has demonstrated a positive link between the development of marketing relationships and customer willingness to be enthusiastic advocates on behalf of their service providers. In their seminal work in the area, Morgan and Hunt (1994) put forward a number of constructs that are potential consequences of trust and commitment. While these authors did not specifically identify advocacy as a dependent variable in their study, they outlined cooperativeness and a willingness to work together to achieve mutual goals as important consequences of business–consumer relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Acting as an advocate on behalf of an organization may be one type of customer behaviour that can be viewed as cooperativeness. Organizational behaviour scholars have demonstrated that pro-social behaviours, including a willingness to say good things about the

+

+ +

+ +

+ + Fig. 1. A model of the effects of satisfaction, trust and commitment on advocacy.

employer, are a consequence of commitment to the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1997). To date, there has been no single study that has taken a complete examination of the antecedents of advocacy in the context of a marketing relationship, with particular emphasis on satisfaction, trust and all three components of customer commitment. Bansal et al. (2004) applied the three-component model of customer commitment to explain customer retention, but advocacy or any form of word of mouth was not measured in the study. Gruen et al. (2000) examined the effects of the three components of commitment on co-production in a professional-service membership context; this construct includes a number of pro-social behaviours, one of which is the promotion of the organization by word of mouth. In addition, while Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder (2007) looked at all three components of commitment as predictors of a number of relational intentions, including word of mouth, they did not examine the components of commitment in the context of a full model that included satisfaction with, and trust in, the service provider. Thus, there is a small gap in the literature and an opportunity for us to gain a better understanding of the role that the components of customer commitment play in the satisfaction– advocacy relationship. This paper contributes to the relationship marketing literature by filling that gap. What follows is a complete structural model of the role that trust and commitment play in the formation of a customer’s willingness to act as an advocate on behalf of a service organization with which they do business. A graphical presentation of this model can be found in Fig. 1.

4. A conceptual model of the effects of satisfaction, trust and commitment on advocacy Satisfaction is one of the most studied constructs in the history of marketing scholarship (Fournier and Mick, 1999; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Advocacy is a key consequence of positive consumer evaluations of the service (Anderson, 1998; Swan and Oliver, 1989; Zeithaml et al., 1996). That is not to suggest that satisfaction is the only trigger for any form of positive word of mouth communication, but some positive evaluative state would seem to be a key necessary antecedent (Mazzarol et al., 2007). There is considerable support for the position that advocacy and willingness to give favorable recommendations is one of the positive consequences of satisfaction in a consumption experience (Bitner, 1995; Brown et al., 2005; Swan and Oliver, 1989; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Anderson (1998) found that delighted customers were more likely to give recommendations than those consumers who had more neutral satisfaction evaluations. This being said, a minority of studies have failed to find a link between customer satisfaction and positive word of mouth communications (Bettencourt, 1997; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). Nevertheless, there is good reason to expect that satisfaction leads to advocacy.

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

H1. Satisfaction is positively related to advocacy intentions. Consumers ultimately come to identify with organizations that share their values and provide value to them. To the extent that ‘‘customer satisfaction’’ is one of the values they expect a firm to deliver in an exchange context, we would expect that affective commitment is one of the favorable consequences of satisfactionlike evaluations (Bansal et al., 2004; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). The rational for this is that consumers like to maintain relationships with those organizations that they perceive as delivering superior value, relative to competing organizations in the marketplace (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Since the nature of affective commitment is based on identification and attachment, it is the case that consumers tend to identify with and become attached to those organizations that have a track record of delivering satisfactory experiences. In addition, the consumer’s cumulative evaluation of the satisfactory consumption experiences makes a positive impact on the degree of commitment in a marketing relationship (Brown et al., 2005). H2. Satisfaction is positively related to affective commitment. Regardless of the nature of the relationship, commitment in a relationship cannot be developed in the absence of trust (Hrebiniak, 1974). In a marketing context, trust is viewed as being central to the development of effective consumer organizational relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In most examinations of trust-based relationships, commitment has been usually narrowly operationalized as only affective commitment (Fullerton, 2005). In addition, there is ample theoretical and conceptual support for the theory that trust is a direct antecedent of affective-type commitment in marketing relationships (Bansal et al., 2004; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The rationale for this position is that over time, consumers become attached to organizations and identify with organizations that they perceive as being both reliable and acting in their best interests. These concepts are at the root of trust (Doney and Cannon, 1997), and it stands to reason that trust will enhance affective commitment. Since the act of affectively committing to a partner places a customer in a vulnerable position, consumers will only commit to partners they perceive as being trustworthy (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). H3. Trust is positively related to affective commitment. Normative commitment is formed when consumers perceive an obligation to do business with a particular supplier. Some have argued that normative commitment in a marketing relationship is a function of particular social norms of behaviour and the extent to which a customer feels motivated to comply with these norms (Bansal et al., 2004). While there are many possible antecedents of normative commitment, reciprocity may be also a key determinant of this construct. Normative commitment may be formed in response to the perception that a supplier has the customer’s best interests at heart and consumers respond to this perceived good deed by making a pledge to continue to do business with that supplier. In essence, reciprocity is a side-effect of relationships built on social norms. Since this type of benevolence is one dimension of the trust construct, trust can be expected to make a positive impact on normative commitment in a marketing relationship. H4. Trust is positively related to normative commitment. When customers perceive few alternatives outside their existing relationship, they feel the psychological state of continuance commitment (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003). This perception may be a result of a number of characteristics of the relationship including side-bets, switching costs and a real or perceived scarcity of alternatives in the market. In some situations, consumers may perceive that all competitors in market have a similar offering,

95

which diminishes perceived choices in a market. It may even be the case that contractual mechanisms create an enforced scarcity of alternatives because the customer is prohibited from exercising free search and choice in the marketplace (Anderson and Weitz, 1992). Irrespective of the cause, the perception of a ‘‘scarcity of alternatives’’ makes a direct and positive impact on continuance commitment. H5. Scarcity of alternatives is positively related to continuance commitment. If a customer is comfortable in their relationship with a service provider, then they are willing to act as an advocate on behalf of that service provider (Fullerton, 2003). Price and Arnould (1999) found that customers who identified with their service providers and took the view that the service provider was their friend were likely to give favorable recommendations. Gruen et al. (2000) found that there was a positive relationship between affective commitment and pro-social behaviour in a marketing relationship. Brown et al. (2005) found the main effect of commitment (largely operationalized as affective commitment in their study) on positive word-of-mouth intentions. The rationale for these findings is that when customers are affectively committed to an organization they want that organization to succeed. In addition, they feel quite comfortable recommending that organization to people they care about because they are confident that these people will benefit from their own experiences with the service provider. This position finds support in the broader literature on organizational commitment, as affective commitment has been found to be a significant and positive effect on pro-social behaviours in the workplace and organizational citizenship behaviours (Meyer et al., 2002). People want to help organizations when they identify with and are affectively attached to those organizations. H6. Affective commitment is positively related to advocacy intentions. Continuance commitment represents a potential dark-side of marketing relationships. There is a growing body of literature that suggests that continuance commitment has a deleterious effect on relationships (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). Continuance commitment has a significant negative effect on customer willingness to act as an advocate on behalf of a service provider because consumers do not want to help an organization that has enforced a relationship through bondage, switching costs, scarcity of alternatives or entrapment (Fullerton, 2003). To the extent that saying good things about a partner represents an act of becoming more psychologically invested in the relationship, consumers do not seek to invest in relationships built on continuance commitment (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). Rather, they look to get out of such relationships as soon as possible (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003). This position is supported in the broader literature on the effects of commitment to the organization. In the workplace, employees are unwilling to act pro-socially in support of an organization that holds them hostage, even in a small way (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Shore and Wayne (1993) found a negative relationship between continuance commitment and altruism in the workplace. There is no better example of altruism in an organizational exchange relationship (whether it is employment based or consumption based) than an individual recommending a relational partner to others out of the goodness of their hearts. In the presence of continuance commitment, there will be no such altruistic advocacy behaviour. When consumers feel frustrated because they are stuck in a relationship they will warn friends and relatives about the

96

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

dangers of that relationship and they will be decidedly unwilling to recommend that organization to other consumers. H7. Continuance commitment is negatively related to advocacy intentions. The discipline has a poor understanding of the consequences of normative commitment because only a small number of studies have examined the antecedents and consequences of this particular component of customer commitment (Gruen et al., 2000; Bansal et al., 2004; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). It is clearly an understudied construct in the field, particularly as it relates to word of mouth processes. To date, only a single study has explicitly examined the link between normative commitment and word of mouth (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007) and this study did not explicitly examine the role that the construct served as a mediator of the relationship between important evaluative constructs (satisfaction and trust) and advocacy. In the organizational behaviour literature, it has been demonstrated that there is a positive link between normative commitment and pro-social behaviour in the workplace (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). To the extent that advocacy and positive word-of-mouth behaviour are types of pro-social behaviour, it would be expected that these effects of normative commitment would hold in a marketing context. In addition, it has been argued in the organizational behaviour literature that the effects of normative commitment are generally weaker than, but in the same direction as, the effects of affective commitment (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). This is particularly the case for the desirable organizational consequences of both components of commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). In the few studies in marketing that have simultaneously investigated the effects of both affective and normative commitment, this position is largely upheld (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). To the extent that obligation, in part, represents a moral imperative to help and support the object of the obligation (Meyer and Parfyonova, 2010), one might expect that people who feel indebted to a partner will help it by enthusiastically recommending it to others. Thus, it is expected that normative commitment is positively related to customer advocacy intentions. H8. Normative commitment is positively related to advocacy intentions. 5. Methodology and measures The hypothesized model was examined in three service settings: hairstyling, auto-repair and financial services. In both the auto-repair and hairstyling settings, participants were selected by mall-intercept. These methods resulted in 203 completed surveys for the auto-repair service setting and 252 for the hairstyling service setting. In both cases, the refusal rate was approximately 40%. In the financial service setting, participants were drawn from four convenience samples of graduate students and employees at a mid-sized Canadian University, graduate students in business at a second mid-sized Canadian University, employees of a hightechnology firm and employees of a consulting firm. Both businesses were located in medium-sized cities in Canada. Over the four convenience samples, 429 surveys were distributed and 207 were completed, for a response rate of just under 50%. In completing these surveys in the hairstyling and auto-repair settings, participants were asked to reflect on their relationship with their usual provider of these services. In the financial service setting, participants were asked to reflect on their relationship with any particular provider of financial services with which they do business.

These service settings were selected because they differ in some significant ways. Auto-repair services are high in credence attributes in that most consumers have difficulty understanding the extent to which the technical aspects of the service are performed correctly (Zeithaml et al., 2006). In the case of a car that is under warranty, the consumer may also face relatively few choices for repair work. Hairstyling services are performed on the individual consumer (rather than on property as in the case for auto-repair services) and are high in experience attributes because the consumer is likely to be unable to fully judge the quality of the service until after it has been performed. For consumers who are highly involved in their personal appearance, the consumer may face significant psychological switching costs if they consider switching stylists. In addition, consumers may form personal bonds or commercial friendships with their stylist/barber (Jones et al., 2008). Financial services are highly intangible and consumers may face financial penalties if they switch service providers if the particular financial service is a mortgage (Bansal and Taylor, 1999) or other complex instrument like a mutual fund. Satisfaction was measured with three items previously used by Spreng et al. (1996). Trust was measured with three items adapted from Doney and Cannon (1997). Scarcity of alternatives was measured with two items developed by the principal researcher. Affective, normative and continuance commitment were each measured with three items adapted from the Allen and Meyer (1990) affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment scales. Each original Allen and Meyer (1990) scale consists of eight items; researchers in marketing have used a small-subset of these items to measure the constructs in the context of a consumer–organization marketing relationship (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003). Advocacy intentions were measured with three items adapted from Zeithaml et al.’s (1996) measure of loyalty. All items except satisfaction were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Satisfaction was measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale. All scales possessed acceptable reliability, surpassing Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) criterion of (a 4.80). The specific wording of all items and the loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis are found in Table 1. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Amos 3.6 (Arbuckle, 1996). This analysis showed that the measurement model offered an acceptable fit to the data in the bank service setting (w2 ¼ 264df ¼ 149, p o .001; CFI¼.97; RMSEA ¼.06; GFI¼.89; AGFI ¼ .85), the auto-repair service setting (w2 ¼271df ¼ 149, p o .001; CFI¼.97; RMSEA¼ .06; GFI¼.88; AGFI ¼.84) and the hairstyling service setting (w2 ¼283df ¼ 149, p o .001; CFI¼.96; RMSEA¼.06; GFI¼.89; AGFI ¼.86). Discriminant validity was assessed according to the methods put forward by Fornell and Larcker (1981). A matrix of latent construct correlations appears in Table 2. Note that the average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of each matrix. Discriminant validity is established when the squared correlation between constructs is less than the AVE of each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Using this criterion, discriminant validity is established for each construct measured in this study except the alternative scarcity–continuance commitment pair. There was a very high correlation between alternative scarcity and continuance commitment in all service settings (.87—banking, .80—autorepair, .83—hairstyling). In the banking service setting and the auto-repair setting, despite this high correlation, the requirements for discriminant validity outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) were met. However, there was a lack of evidence of discriminant validity in the remaining service setting. A second way to demonstrate discriminate validity is to conduct a Confirmatory Factor Analysis and fix the correlation between a pair of constructs to unity and compare the fit of the two models via a w2 difference test (Kline, 1998). When this test was performed on the two constructs

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

97

Table 1 Items, reliability, and factor loadings. Item and reliability

Banking

Hairstyling

Auto-repair

Satisfaction with service (a ¼ .96—banking, a ¼ .97—hairstyling, a ¼.97—auto-repair) My feelings toward my last service encounter with X are: Very dissatisfied-very satisfied Very displeased-very pleased Frustrated-contented

.94 .95 .94

.93 .97 .93

.95 .98 .91

Trust (a ¼.89—banking, a ¼.83—hairstyling, a ¼ .93—auto-repair) X keeps its promises X is concerned with my needs X is trustworthy

.86 .86 .85

.74 .81 .82

.81 .91 .90

Alternative scarcity (a ¼ .89—banking, a ¼ .81—hairstyling, a ¼.84—auto-repair) I have too few options to switch from X Aside from X, there are few choices in this market

.92 .88

.92 .74

.87 .84

Affective commitment (a ¼.82—banking, a ¼ .94—hairstyling, a ¼ .95—auto-repair) I feel emotionally attached to X X has a great deal of personal meaning for me I feel a strong sense of identification with X

.60 .93 .91

.84 .96 .96

.91 .91

Continuance commitment (a ¼.91—banking, a ¼ .84—hairstyling, a ¼ .87—auto-repair) It would be very hard for me to switch away from X right now even if I wanted to. My life would be disrupted if I switched away from X. It would be too costly for me to switch from the X right now.

.87 .89 .89

.76 .78 .82

.83 .81 .85

Normative commitment (a ¼ .87—banking, a ¼ .78—hairstyling, a ¼.81—auto-repair) I feel obligated to continue to doing business with X I believe in being loyal to X because it has done good things for me in the past If I got a better offer from another X, I would not think it right to switch away from my X

.89 .84 .78

.81 .60 .82

.91 .69 .69

Advocacy: (a ¼.95—banking, a ¼.92—hairstyling, a ¼ .97—auto-repair) Say positive things about X to other people Recommend X to someone who seeks your advice Encourage friends and relatives to do business with X

.95 .94 .90

.89 .90 .85

.95 .96 .95

6. Results

Table 2 Latent variable correlations and average variance extracted (AVE). Banking services Satisfaction with service Trust Scarcity of alternatives Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Advocacy intentions

.88 .69  .16 .70  .12 .40 .64

.73  .08 .72  .14 .50 .70

.81  .08 .87  .01  .32

.81  .12 .60 .77

.78 .07  .36

.70 .42

.87

Hairstyling services Satisfaction with service Trust Scarcity of alternatives Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Advocacy intentions

.88 .62 .09 .27 .03 .11 .62

.63 .22 .44 .20 .16 .62

.70 .36 .83 .36 .18

.84 .52 .50 .45

.62 .57 .16

.56 .35

.77

Auto-repair services Satisfaction with service Trust Scarcity of alternatives Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Advocacy intentions

.90 .78 .17 .54 .28 .25 .65

.80 .21 .63 .25 .40 .83

.74 .32 .80 .48 .22

.86 .48 .56 .72

.69 .46 .21

.60 .53

.91

Note 1: All correlations significant at the .001 level. Note 2: AVE is on the diagonal.

in question (alternative scarcity and continuance commitment), there was evidence of discriminant validity in the banking service setting (w2diff ¼29.8df ¼ 1, p o .001), the hairstyling service setting (w2diff ¼8.2df ¼ 1, p o .01) and the auto-repair service setting (w2diff ¼23.6df ¼ 1, p o .001).

The hypothesized model offered an acceptable fit to the data in the banking service setting (w2 ¼309df ¼ 159, p o .001; CFI ¼.96; RMSEA¼.07; GFI ¼.87; AGFI¼.82), the auto-repair service setting (w2 ¼380df ¼ 159, p o .001; CFI ¼.95; RMSEA ¼.08; GFI ¼.84; AGFI¼ .80) and the hairstyling service setting (w2 ¼404df ¼ 159, p o .001; CFI¼.97; RMSEA¼ .08; GFI¼.86; AGFI¼ .82). All parameter estimates for each service setting are shown in Table 3. Overall, the hypothesized structural model does a very good job of explaining variance (71%—banking, 78%—auto-repair, 51%—hairstyling) in the advocacy intentions dependent variable. In addition, six of the hypotheses put forward in the conceptual development were supported in all three service settings while the remaining two hypotheses found support in two of the three service settings. As hypothesized, satisfaction was found to be significantly and positively related to advocacy intentions (H1) in all three service settings examined in this study. Satisfaction was also significantly and positively related to affective commitment (H2) and this was the case in all three service settings. In addition, trust (H3) was significantly and positively related to affective commitment in each service setting, supporting the hypothesis. Trust was also significantly and positively related to normative commitment, offering support for H4 in each service setting. Scarcity of alternatives (H5) was significantly and positively related to continuance commitment, once again supporting the hypothesis in all three service settings. In assessing the effects of the components of commitment on advocacy intentions (H6–H8) only one hypothesis (H6) received support in all three service settings as affective commitment uniformly made a strong and positive effect on advocacy intentions. There was some support for the hypothesis (H7) that continuance commitment makes a negative impact on advocacy intentions as this hypothesis was confirmed in two of three (banking and auto-repair) service settings examined. Finally,

98

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

Table 3 SEM parameter estimates and variance explained. Parameter

Satisfaction-advocacy (H1) Satisfaction-affective commitment (H2) Trust-affective commitment (H3) Trust-normative commitment (H4) Alternative scarcity-continuance commitment (H5) Affective commitment-advocacy (H6) Continuance commitment-advocacy (H7) Normative commitment-advocacy (H8)

nnn

Standardized estimates Banking

Hairstyling

Auto-repair

.17nnn .55nnn .32nnn .55nnn .87nnn .62nnn  .28nnn .03 ns

.54nnn .31nnn .28nnn .23nnn .79nnn .22nnn  .01 ns .17nnn

.42nnn .38nnn .42nnn .43nnn .80nnn .43nnn  .19nnn .24nnn

R2 R2 R2 R2

R2 R2 R2 R2

R2 R2 R2 R2

affective¼68% continuance¼ 76% normative¼ 30% advocacy ¼71%

affective¼ 28% continuance¼ 63% normative¼ 5% advocacy ¼51%

affective¼ 57% continuance¼ 63% normative ¼18% advocacy ¼ 78%

po .001.

normative commitment was significantly and positively related to advocacy intentions (H8) in two of three (hairstyling and autorepair) services examined in this study.

7. Discussion The objective of this study was to further our understanding of the forces that lead to a customer’s willingness to act as an advocate for a service provider in a marketing relationship. This study provides some good support for the position that customer commitment is an important determinant of a customer’s willingness to be a word of mouth enthusiast. The study also continues a trend in the field (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007), where researchers have been able to demonstrate that the full 3-component model of organization commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990) applies in the context of a consumer–organization relationship. Third, the paper provides some support for the view that the components of commitment are formed through the dynamics of the service experience. Satisfaction, trust and consumer perceptions about the scarcity of alternatives outside the existing relationships are significant determinants of various components of customer commitment. In terms of the effects of commitment on the key dependent variable of advocacy, this paper is generally consistent with the recent studies in the area of relationship marketing that have borrowed from the organization commitment literature. In particular, this paper demonstrates that customer commitment is an important driver of the consumer’s willingness to give favorable recommendations to other customers. Primarily, the paper supports a growing body of literature that has found that the effects of affective commitment are uniformly positive (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In this case, customers who are affectively committed to their service provider will be strong advocates on behalf of that service provider. It can be concluded that both satisfaction with the service and trust in the service provider create the kind of identification and attachment based consumer attitudes that lead the customer to be a strong advocate. At the same time, the study also illuminates the dangers of building a relationship in continuance commitment. This is consistent with other studies that have demonstrated that continuance commitment undermines marketing relationships (Fullerton, 2003). Specifically, those aspects of a relationship that serve to bond the customer to the selling organization create a situation where the customer is unlikely to act as an advocate. If a customer feels trapped, even somewhat, in a relationship with a service

provider, they would not want their friends and family to become as trapped as well. They may well warn others about the dangers of doing business with this service provider, but this possibility was not examined in this paper. This is important for organizations that attempt to build relationships with switching costs. For example, many competitors in the cellular telephone market and the home mortgage market use contractual mechanisms to ensure customer behavioural loyalty for the duration of the contract period. Such consumers, in fact, face few choices outside the existing relationship. The results of this study would explain why customers who remain loyal but feel trapped in this relationship may not be advocates on behalf of their cellular service provider or mortgage bank. Finally, the paper supports the call for additional work on the normative commitment construct. While the study found that normative commitment made a weak impact on advocacy intentions, this does not mean that the construct should be ignored. Affective commitment may be a more powerful determinant of the customer’s willingness to be a reference customer, but perceived obligation also seems to have some positive effect. The marketing literature has only a very basic understanding of how normative commitment makes an impact on dependent variables of interest (Bansal et al., 2004). It is interesting to note that the effects of normative commitment in a marketing relationship are in the same direction as the effects of affective commitment, which mirrors findings in the organizational behaviour literature (Allen and Meyer, 1990). This is not surprising since it was demonstrated that the constructs have some common antecedents, but affective commitment is distinct from normative commitment, as clearly shown by the results of the confirmatory factor analysis in this study. However, it is likely that normative commitment has its own distinct antecedents and these deserve some additional study in the field.

8. Theoretical and managerial contributions Overall, the willingness of consumers to be advocates for an organization with which they do business is an important consequence of the relationship. While consumers have to be satisfied as a member of a relational dyad, the commitment that they have towards their relational partner is an important driver of their willingness to engage advocacy or recommending. If Reichheld (2003) is correct in his assertion that willingness to provide recommendations is the strongest indicator of customer loyalty, then it is important to consider all potential drivers of advocacy beyond mere customer satisfaction. Similarly, while Christopher

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

et al. (1993) put forward that advocacy is the top rung on a relational ladder, the findings in this study demonstrate that the degree to which customers will advocate depends on the components of commitment at play in the relationship. Consistent with the extant literature on customer commitment, affective commitment is the strongest and most significant determinant of customer advocacy (Fullerton, 2003; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007). Also consistent with other studies is the finding that continuance commitment is not conducive to the development of advocating customers (Fullerton, 2003; Bloemer and OdekerkenSchroder, 2007). The most significant new finding emerging from the study is that consumers will act as advocates on behalf of their service providers if they feel a sense of obligation toward their relational partner. While other studies have provided an initial indication of the positive effects of normative commitment in marketing relationships (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007), this study provides evidence that the construct makes a unique and significant impact on advocacy even in the presence of satisfaction, trust and the two other components of commitment. Given that researchers in the field of organizational behaviour are still in the process of understanding the nature and impacts of normative commitment (Meyer and Parfyonova, 2010), scholars in relationship marketing should make renewed efforts to map out the antecedents and consequences of this understudied aspect of customer commitment. The study also shows that satisfaction with the service still must be considered a direct driver of consumer advocacy, but it must be recognized that relational variables are strong mediators of the effects of satisfaction. The significances of the satisfaction-affective commitment and the affective commitment-advocacy paths are indicative of a partial mediating (Iacobucci et al., 2007) effect of affective commitment on advocacy. These findings serve as a possible explanation as to why satisfaction sometimes does not lead to forms of positive word of mouth in that satisfaction may not result in advocacy if some other variable present in the relationship has created low levels of affective commitment or normative commitment. The presence of high levels of continuance commitment may also explain a null satisfaction–advocacy relationship. For this reason, it is likely necessary for researchers to continue to tease out the relationship between different components of commitment that may serve to undermine a base relationship between satisfaction and any loyalty-like behaviour, such as switching or advocacy (Fullerton, 2005; Bansal et al., 2004). While this paper examined a variety of consumer services that were different in some significant ways, the theory put forward may have some application beyond consumer services. The extent to which the various forms of commitment can explain consumer advocacy of products, brands and firms in general deserves more attention in the field. For example, the concept of brand community has received renewed attention by marketing scholars (Kozinets, 2001; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001) and it might be fruitful to explain how the components of customer commitment explain why the community of consumers advocates on behalf of products and brands rich in community, such as Harley-Davidson and Star Trek. Similarly, the concept of customer advocacy has become increasingly important for practitioners at a time when consumers employ social networking applications to instantly update friends, relatives and acquaintances on the status of their lives, which may include consumption experiences (Kozinets et al., 2010). The degree to which customer commitment can explain these processes remains largely uninvestigated. So what causes customers to be enthusiastic advocates on behalf of their service providers? It would appear that at a basic level, service providers have to create satisfied customers. But, in the end, managers might consider the drivers of the kinds of

99

loyalty-like behaviours that are the most interesting to service providers may not be the cognitive evaluations of the service experience. Taking a relationship marketing perspective on services allows the provider to recognize that it is likely the deep rooted commitment that customers feel toward them is a significant driver of all key customer behaviours, including reference giving. The paper shows that both affective commitment and normative commitment are key positive drivers of customer willingness to give recommendations. Continuance commitment destroys the potential for advocacy and marketers should take care not to create it through their relationship management efforts. Organizations can build affective commitment by making and meeting promises over time, creating both satisfied customers and trusting customers in the process. Thus, it is impossible to create affectively committed customers out of thin air. It takes time for the relationship to percolate. A relationship built on obligation is likely to be quite different from a relationship built on identification and attachment. Despite the fact that we have a lot to learn about the nature of normative commitment in marketing relationships, managers might consider that customers will be advocates if they believe that it is the right thing to do. The challenge is for marketers to recognize that both affective and normative commitment can strengthen relationships but that there may be distinct approaches required to build a relationship rooted in each type of commitment. References Allen, N., Meyer, J., 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Allen, N., Meyer, J., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63, 1–18. Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (February), 18–34. Anderson, E., 1998. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research 1 (1), 5–17. Arbuckle, J., 1996. AMOS, Version 3.6. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. Arndt, J., 1967. Role of product related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research 4, 291–295. Bansal, H., Irving, G., Taylor, S., 2004. A three-component model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 234–250. Bansal, H., Voyer, P., 2000. Word of mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research 3 (2), 166–177. Bansal, H., Taylor, S., 1999. The service provider switching model (SSPM): a model of consumer switching behavior in services industries. Journal of Service Research 2 (2), 200–218. Berry, L., 1995. Relationship marketing of services—growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4), 236–245. Bettencourt, L., 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing 73 (3), 383–406. Bitner, M., 1995. Building service relationships: it’s all about promises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4), 246–251. Bloemer, J., Odekerken-Schroder, G., 2007. The psychological antecedents of enduring customer relationships. Journal of Relationship Marketing 6 (1), 21–43. Bodet, G., 2008. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four constructs, several relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (1), 156–162. Bontis, N., Booker, L., Serenko, A., 2007. The mediating effect of organizational reputation on customer loyalty and service recommendation in the banking industry. Management Decision 45 (9), 1426–1445. Brown, J., Reingen, P., 1987. Social ties and word of mouth referral behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3), 35–362. Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P., Gunst, R., 2005. Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word of mouth intentions in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2), 123–138. Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., 1993. Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together. Butterworth, London, UK. Cialdini, R., 2001. Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review 79 (September), 72–79. Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J., 2001. Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 35 (11/12), 1238–1258. Dick, P., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Science Journal 22 (2), 99–113. Doney, P., Cannon, J., 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61 (2), 35–51.

100

G. Fullerton / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 92–100

Duhan, D., Johnson, S., Wilcox, J., Harrell, G., 1997. Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (4), 283–295. Engle, J., Keggeries, R., Blackwell, R., 1969. Word of mouth communication by the innovator. Journal of Marketing. 33 (3), 15–19. Fornell, C., Johnson, M., Anderson, E., Cha, J., Bryant, B., 1996. The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings. Journal of Marketing 60 (4), 7–18. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39–50. Fournier, S., Mick, D., 1999. Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 63 (special), 5–23. Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., Mick, D., 1998. Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review 76 (January–February), 42–51. Fullerton, G., 2005. The service quality–loyalty relationship in retail services: does commitment matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12, 99–111 Fullerton, G., 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research 5 (4) 333–344. Ganesh, J., Arnold, M., Reynolds, K., 2000. Understanding the customer base of service providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. Journal of Marketing 64 (3), 65–88. Garbarino, E., Johnson, M., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63 (2), 70–87. Gilliland, D., Bello, D., 2002. The two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (1), 24–43. Gounaris, S., 2005. Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from business to business services. Journal of Business Research 58 (6), 126–140. Gruen, T., Summers, J., Acito, F., 2000. Relationship marketing activities, commitment and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing 64 (3), 34–49. Gundlach, G., Achrol, R., Mentzer, J., 1995. The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing 59 (1), 78–92. Handelman, J., Arnold, S., 1999. The role of marketing with a social dimension: appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing 63 (3), 33–48. Harrison-Walker, J., 2001. The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research 4 (1), 60–75. Haywood, M., 1989. Managing word of mouth communications. Journal of Services Marketing 3 (2), 55–67. Herr, P., Kardes, F., Kim, P., 1991. Effects of word of mouth and product attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4), 454–462. Hill, S., Provost, F., Volinsky, C., 2006. Network based marketing: identifying likely adopters via consumer networks. Statistical Sciences 21 (2), 256–276. Hrebiniak, L., 1974. Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes and perception of influence. Academy of Management Journal 17 (4), 649–662. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., Deng, X., 2007. A meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2), 140–154. Jones, T., Taylor, S., Bansal, H., 2008. Commitment to a friend, a service provider or a service company—are they distinctions worth making? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 473–487. Kline, R., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York, NY. Kozinets, R., de Valk, K., Wojnicki, A., Wilner, S., 2010. Networked narratives: understanding word of mouth marketing in on-line communities. Journal of Marketing 74 (2), 71–82. Kozinets, R., 2001. Utopian enterprise: articulating the meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1), 67–88. Luo, X., Homburg, C., 2007. Neglected outcomes of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 71 (2), 133–149.

Mathieu, J., Zajac, D., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108 (20), 171–194. Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J., Soutar, G., 2007. Conceptualizing word of mouth activity, triggers and conditions: an exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing 41 (11/12), 1475–1494. Meyer, J., Parfyonova, N., 2010. Normative commitment in the workplace: a theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review 20, 283–294. Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., Topolnytsky, L., 2002. Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 20–52. Moore, G., 1999. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Products to Mainstream Consumers. Harper Business, New York, NY. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between buyers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3), 314–328. Morgan, R., Hunt, S., 1994. The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 20–38. Muniz, A., O’Guinn, T., 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (4), 412–432. Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., 1994. Psychometric Theory, 3rd. Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 492–499. Palmatier, R., Dant, R., Grewal, D., Evans, K., 2006. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing 70 (4), 136–173. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring perceived service quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 12–40. Price, L., Arnould, E., 1999. Commercial friendships: service provider–client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing 63 (4), 38–56. Reichheld, F., 2006. The microeconomics of customer relationships. Sloan Management Review 47 (2), 73–78. Reichheld, F., 2003. The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review 81 (December), 46–54. Reynolds, K., Beatty, S., 1999. A relationship customer typology. Journal of Retailing 75 (4), 509–523. Richins, M., 1983. Negative word-of-mouth by complaining customers: a pilot study. Journal of Marketing 47 (1), 68–78. Shore, L., Wayne, S., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5), 774–780. Singh, J., 1988. Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and taxonomical issues. Journal of Marketing 52 (1), 93–107. Spreng, R., MacKenzie, S., Olshavsky, R., 1996. A reexamination of the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60 (3), 15–32. Swan, J., Oliver, R., 1989. Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of Retailing 65 (4), 516–563. Szymanski, D., Henard, D., 2001. Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (1), 16–35. Wangenheim, F., Bayon, T., 2004. Satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth within the customer base of a utility provider: differences between stayers, switchers and referral switchers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3 (3), 211–220. White, S., Schneider, B., 2000. Climbing the commitment ladder: the role of expectations disconfirmation and on customers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Service Research 2 (3), 240–253. Westbrook, R., 1987. Product/consumption based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3), 258–270. Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M.J., Gremler, D., 2006. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 31–46.