Commitment to Retail Store (COMRS)

Commitment was measured using the single-factor measure employed by Morgan and Hunt (1994), adapted from the original work of Meyer and Allen (1984) and Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). They believe that the essence of the construct of commitment relates to both parties’ beliefs about working at maintaining the relationship because it is considered to be important. The resultant scale consists of seven items which tap into the extent that distributor firms felt committed to the relationship with their supplier firms. It used a Likert-type scale with 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 = ‘strongly agree’ as anchors, and generated an alpha index of 0.895 to indicate reliability. All seven items in the scale were used in the research because they reflected attitudinal dimensions relating to the respondents’ intentions to remain within the relationship. No adjustments were made to the item semantics though the seven-point scale was expanded to 10 points in order to reflect the other measures used within the research, with 0 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 = ‘strongly agree’ as anchors. There have been many studies devoted to commitment within the marketing literature, but only those pertinent to this study have been summarised in Table 3.9 below.

160

Table 3.9 : Summary of the Measures of Commitment to Retail Store

Scale

*** Scale employed in this research setting.

To help conceptualise the notion of commitment between firms and customers, Dwyer, Schurr and Oh (1987) point out that the most important aspect of relational exchange is that it occurs over time and that each transaction must be viewed in terms of history and anticipated future. By modelling the development of relationships in the context of a growing social exchange process, they reveal the central role that commitment plays in helping foster solidarity and cohesion between parties.

Gundlach, Achrol and Mentzer (1995) believe the construct is closely related to mutuality, loyalty and the forsaking of alternatives.

Wilson (1995) considers that commitment is a critical variable in helping to measure the future of a relationship between parties. The commitment towards another exchange partner represents the most advanced stage in their ongoing relationship and often results in the exclusion of others. Morgan and Hunt (1994) provide many examples of marketing contexts in which the commitment construct has been applied to help explain close marketing relationships; they conclude that exchange relationships grounded in commitment are so valuable that marketers should attempt to develop and maintain the precious attribute. The most notable models depicting developing marketing relationships (Dwyer, Schurr & Oh 1987; Ford 1980; Wilson

161

1985) emphasise the central importance of commitment in helping to distinguish close and interdependent marketing relationships.

Gundlach, Achrol and Mentzer (1995) agree that there appears to be convergence in the literature in terms of depicting commitment as a three-component mode; viz.,(l) an input/instrumental component, (2) an attitudinal component and (3) a temporal dimension. They describe the instrumental component in terms of idiosyncratic investments which would be lost or non-redeemable should the relationship cease to exist. This aspect of the construct is reflected in the definition offered by Dwyer, Schurr and Oh (1987, p.19) who state that commitment is “an implicit and explicit pledge of relational continuity between exchange partners”. The attitudinal component is described as being affective in nature and commitment has been likened to psychological attachment in terms of strong emotional ties (Young & Denize 1995). Gundlach, Achrol and Mentzer (1995) feel that it is best to describe attitude in terms of a behavioural intention,⁸ depicted in terms of long-term investment intentions because such an attitude between exchange partners tends to provide the basis for confidence and stability within the relationship. They believe that the temporal dimension of commitment is at the very heart of the construct which, by definition, involves the desire to maintain a relationship into the future (Moorman, Zaltman &

Deshpande 1992). Garbarino and Johnson (1999, p.73) agree that the construct comprises an attitudinal, instrumental and temporal dimension; however, they define the construct as “customer psychological attachment, loyalty, concern for future welfare, identification, and pride in being associated with the organization”.

Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) argue that, while commitment is conceptualised in terms of aforementioned dimensions, the construct invokes the benefits (reliability) and liabilities (increased vulnerability) of the commitment construct. Therefore, it is the structure of commitment that is of significance.

Gundlach, Achrol and Mentzer (1995) describe the structure in terms of credibility and proportionality. The more credible the inputs provided by parties, expressed in terms of the combined magnitude of idiosyncratic resources pledged, the stronger the long-term commitment towards the relationship. In addition to the magnitude of such non-retrievable investments, they also agree that it is the relative contribution made

8 They suggest that such an approach reduces the problems associated with overlapping domains associated with other related constructs such as motivation, identification, loyalty, involvement and behavioural intentions.

162

by either of the parties that tends to affect their overall level of commitment to the relationship. When ‘matching investments’ are made, both parties are committed to the relationship and avoid, or reduce, the likelihood of opportunism within the relationship; alternatively, disproportionate commitment leads to other types of ‘non-relational’ motives.

Anderson and Weitz (1992) express commitment in terms of the attitude towards the exchange partner rather that actual inputs; however, their conceptualisation appears to incorporate a degree of proportionality. They conclude that it is the perception that either party has about the commitments made by the other party that affects their own level of commitment. They feel that the essence of commitment within inter-firm relationships is sacrifice and stability because it implies the adoption of a long-term relational orientation between specific parties. Young and Denize (1995) concur with such a view by characterising commitment as a disincentive to replace relationship partners, implying longevity of the firm–customer relationship. Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992, p.316) define commitment as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship”, which also suggests that commitment is enduring in nature and reflective of a positive evaluation of an exchange relationship. Therefore, the relationship does not easily change between positive and negative orientations, and is indicative of the value associated with being in the firm–customer relationship.

Morgan and Hunt (1994, p.23) define relationship commitment as “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it”, and as this definition appears to encapsulate the elements described above as well as insinuate relational-building activities, it has been adopted in the current research.

In the current research, the Commitment to Retail Store (Q6) survey question originally had 13 items. However, it was later decided more meaningful information would be gained by deleting a number of items and keeping only those related to retail stores rather than general commitment. Therefore, items like ‘I constantly compare the prices and rates offered by various retail stores for laptops’ (Q6.1), ‘I would visit multiple retail stores in the area before I decide to buy a laptop from a store’ (Q6.2), ‘I compare prices and rates of several laptops from stores before I select a retail store’ (Q6.3),

163

and ‘Evaluation of different alternatives is critical’ (Q6.12) were selected. Cronbach’s alpha and mean results were α = 0.817 and χ2 = 6.182 respectively.