2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
RELATIONSHIP MARKETING FACTORS AS KEY PREDICTORS OF
INTERFIRM COOPERATION AND SUCCESS
Veronica Rosendo-Ríos, Colegio Universitario de Estudios Financieros (CUNEF).
+34645638886. vrosendo@cunef.edu
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
1
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Relationship Marketing Factors as Key Predictors of Interfirm Cooperation and Success
Verónica Rosendo-Ríos, vrosendo@cunef.edu, Colegio Universitario de Estudios
Financieros (CUNEF)
ABSTRACT
This study aims to provide a picture of how trust, integration and commitment can have a
positive influence on inter-firm cooperation and success. The research was conducted in a
business-to-business setting between private and public sector institutions, namely universityindustry relationships. The survey was targeted to private Spanish enterprises that were
engaged in research and development projects of collaboration with a major Spanish Public
University in Madrid. Online survey was chosen for data collection. The total number of
usable questionnaires was 183. Factor analysis using principal components was performed in
order to validate the different constructs used in this study. Hypotheses were tested by means
of correlations and linear regressions.
The results show that the key predictors for inter-
organizational cooperation and success are mainly integration, commitment, and, to a lesser
extent, trust. Satisfaction also appears as a crucial factor for customer retention, therefore
enhancing university-industry relationship success.
KEYWORDS
Relationship Marketing, University-Industry Links, Satisfaction, Intention to Renew.
1. INTRODUCTION
Factors such as globalization (Gummesson, 2002), or the rapid technological change (Palmer,
2002) have forced organizations to establish long-term relationships with other actors in the
marketplace in order to get sustainable competitive advantages, and thereby to survive in
today´s marketplace.
University-Industry linkages constitute a good example of these
relationships. However, while the business-to-business stream of Relationship Marketing
literature tends to focus primarily on the private sector, little attention has been paid so far to
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
2
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
inter-organizational collaborations between private and public institutions from this research
field (Plewa & Quester, 2007). Hence, a closer look at these collaborations is taken in this
study, more specifically at University and Industry relationships.
Firms are now pressurized to speed the process of innovation through the creation and
development of new products and technologies (Santoro & Chakrabarti, 2002).
For its
attainment, they are currently looking for new ways of outsourcing R&D activities. On the
other hand, universities are also on the lookout for additional financial resources, due to
factors such as the decrease in government funds, the fact that the potential funding from
students fee is limited, and the increase of competition regarding research support (Rosendo,
2010). In view of these challenges, the commercialization of knowledge has grown rapidly
over the last few years. According to RedOtri (2008) - a public Spanish national report on
R&D- the investment gained in Spain by R&D activities with organizations and other
institutions amounted to 617 million Euros in 2007. The larger increase was reported to be
achieved on research activities with third parties that involved financial support for the
Spanish university. Notwithstanding the relevance of these collaborations, there has been a
large number of failures in technology transfer attempts between these two institutions (Lee,
2000; Cyert & Goodman, 1997), and researches carried out in this context from a relational
approach have been very limited. Few notable exceptions include the studies reported by
Plewa & Quester (2007, 2008) and Plewa (2009).
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of UniversityIndustry success by examining the effect that certain relational variables, namely trust,
integration and commitment can have on some outcome measures, more specifically,
satisfaction and customer retention - measured in terms of the firm´s intention to renew the
relationship of collaboration with the university. Hence, information generated from this
research should provide managers with a greater insight into the successful process of
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
3
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
University-Industry relationship creation and development, as well as a guideline on more
effective governance.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, some hypotheses are stated. After
a description of the methodology followed in this research, the procedures used to test the
hypotheses are explained. Namely, factor analysis is carried out in order to validate the
different constructs under study. Following the resultant factor scores, the hypotheses are
empirically tested using correlations and linear regressions. The findings of the study are then
presented. The paper concludes with a summary of the study´s research contributions and
directions for further research in this context.
2. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Trust has been traditionally considered in the literature of Relationship Marketing as a
cornerstone to facilitate and maintain long-term relationships (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Berry,
1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Moorman et al., 1993; Dwyer et al., 1987). This relevance is
reflected in the increasing number of empirical studies that have corroborated the positive
influence that trust has on a large number of variables, such as future intentions or satisfaction
(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999), thus becoming a key strategic factor for business management
(Spekman, 1988).
Regarding its conceptual definition, there have commonly been two
general approaches to trust in the literature (Moorman et al., 1993). Trust as a cognitive belief
or expectation based on the counterparty´s reliability or expertise (Doney & Canon, 1997;
Dwyer & Oh, 1987), and trust as a behavioral intention that involves vulnerability and
uncertainty on the part of the trustor (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Following Moorman et al.,
(1992), for the purpose of this research, business firm´s trust in the university is defined as “a
willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence”. In relation to its
dimensionality, the dimensions to be used in this research to assess the level of a firm´s trust
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
4
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
in the university partner follow Ganesan´s (1994) approach and include two facets, namely
credibility and benevolence, since this multidimensionality allows a more comprehensive
understanding of the differential effects of trust in a relationship (Singh & Sirdeshmuk, 2000).
Turning to the specific context of University-Industry collaborations, trust among partners is
important for many reasons (Barnes et al., 2002).
Due to their research nature, these
organizational linkages have often been characterized by structural market failures, such as
excessive secrecy, high uncertainty, or the use of an opportunistic behavior of the research
outcomes by one of the counterparties.
Moreover, firms are faced with the resultant
knowledge derived from the collaborative research projects that they have carried out together
with the university. However, as posited by Moorman et al., (1993), it is possible that the
ultimate firm users are unable to assess the quality of the research services, or even to
interpret the research findings. Additionally, the information and knowledge that both parties
have to share is confidential, since this information is crucial for the strategic decisions that
firms may face in the near future. Therefore, firms become vulnerable and have to rely on the
university researchers´ good will. Notwithstanding the relevance of this variable, the number
of empirical studies that have applied this relational factor in this specific context is
surprisingly very limited. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Trust is positively related to satisfaction in University-Industry Links.
As well as trust, commitment has been proposed in Relationship Marketing literature as one
of the main factors in order to foster long-term relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). This is
reflected in the fact that committed partners are more likely to share resources, and invest
time, and effort to reinforce their relationship (Anderson & Weitz, 1992). In this respect, trust
without commitment to share the appropriate resources would turn into a poor relationship
that could not eventually be maintained in the long-term (Gounaris, 2005). Hence, although
there is no agreed consensus on which one of the two factors is the antecedent of the other
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
5
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994), it is practically unquestionable that both factors have a high impact
on the effective development of a relationship. Setting the limits of these general approaches,
and despite the many conceptualizations of commitment available in the literature, this study
follows the definition of commitment proposed by Anderson & Weitz (1992), as ´a desire to
maintain a stable relationship, a willingness to make short-term sacrifices to maintain the
relationship, and a confidence in the stability of the relationship´, since this conceptualization
does not only include the behavioral and attitudinal components of commitment, but also its
long-term orientation and stability, and hence, is deemed more appropriate for the study of
University-Industry relationships. Therefore, based on the previous discussion of trust and
commitment as basic components of long-term relationships, the following hypotheses are
established:
Hypothesis 2: Commitment is positively related to satisfaction in University-Industry Links.
Hypothesis 3: Trust is positively related to Commitment in University-Industry Links.
From a general approach, strategic collaboration and integration between organizations starts
when the relationship exchange acquires relevance, that is, when for both relational parties the
establishment of a relationship is a fundamental characteristic rather than a secondary one
(Anderson et al., 1994). According to Kahn (1996), integration is composed of two main
facets, namely collaboration and communication.
Following Kahn and Mentzer (1996),
communication by itself does not guarantee the success of a business relationship, since this
factor is supposed to be linked with a specific transaction of information. This view is also
shared by Bernasco et al. (1999), who stated that communication processes such as meetings,
committees or telephone calls do certainly improve the level of interaction, but not necessarily
the level of collaboration. On the contrary, relationships based on collaboration emphasize
the relational continuity and the integration between the exchange members. According to
Nevin (1995) relationship formation is based on the level of reciprocity between the parties
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
6
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
involved. The reasons behind that reciprocity are mainly cooperation, collaboration and
coordination between the exchange partners, as opposed to domination, power or control.
This is in line with the postulates of Relationship Marketing. In fact, Parvatiyar and Sheth
(1994), for example, view Relationship Marketing as an orientation "that seeks to develop
close interactions with selected customers, suppliers and competitors for value creation
through cooperative and collaborative efforts". Therefore, collaboration is suggested to be a
key element in order to maintain long-term relationships. Cooperation has been defined by
Anderson & Narus (1990) as, ´similar or complementary coordinated actions taken by firms
in interdependent relationships to achieve mutual outcomes or singular outcomes with
expected reciprocation over time´.
Anderson & Narus (1990) argued that meaningful
communication and cooperation between firms in a relationship is a necessary antecedent of
trust. In this respect, integration or collaboration enables the proper flow of information
between partners, which may reduce certain types of risks perceived by either party of the
relationship. As stated before, University-Industry links have long been characterized by the
sharing of confidential information, and therefore the presence of risk by an opportunistic
behavior on the part of an exchange partner. Morgan and Hunt (1994) continued to develop
the above definition by accentuating the proactive aspect of cooperation in opposition to
being pressurized to take interdependent actions. According to them, the interaction of
cooperation and commitment results in cooperative behavior that enables the partnership to
work and ensures that both parties receive the benefits of the relationship, and therefore,
achieve mutual satisfaction. Although research on the influence of integration in trust and
commitment is scant, there is evidence that both communication (Sharma & Patterson, 1999)
and collaboration or cooperation (Plewa, 2009) improves the level of trust in interorganizational relationships. The following two hypotheses are thus stated:
Hypothesis 4: Trust is positively related to integration in University-Industry Links.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
7
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Hypothesis 5: Commitment is positively related to integration in University-Industry Links.
Integration has acquired during the last few decades an outstanding relevance in the strategic
alliances literature (Rothaermel et al., 2006) and in the merger and acquisition literature
(Chaterje et al., 1992). Due to the high relevance of the technological transfer of knowledge
in the process of the University-Industry research collaborations, integration has been
highlighted as one of key factors in order to achieve this transfer, and hence one of the main
predictors of satisfaction (Mora-Valentin et al., 2004; Plewa, 2009). Therefore, the following
hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 6: Integration is positively related to satisfaction in University-Industry Links.
Customer´s satisfaction with a service provider, in this case the university, can be defined as a
consumer´s related fulfillment response regarding his consumption experience with a product
or service (Oliver, 1980). According to many Marketing postulates, the relevance of this
concept is mainly based on the fact that business profitability is a direct consequence of the
achievement of customer´s satisfaction (Churchill & Suprenant, 1982). Notwithstanding its
significance, there is a lack of general consensus regarding its conceptualization, delimitation
and measurement (Giese & Cote, 2000).
In this respect, customer satisfaction has been
generally conceptualized as either an emotional or a cognitive response, although most recent
researches have conceded an emotional response to it (Giese & Cote, 2000). This response
has been traditionally based on the disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980), as a feeling
coming from a comparison of customer´s expectations with a product or service and the
perceived performance of that product or service (Yi, 1990). In this respect, whenever
performance exceeds expectations, satisfaction would be increased. At this point, it is also
important to clearly distinguish between transaction specific satisfaction and overall
satisfaction, as well as between economic and non-economic satisfaction. Prior to Geykens et
al.´s (1999) proposals, and mainly for relationships between channel members, it was
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
8
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
generally understood that satisfaction was a positive affective state resulting from the
appraisal of all aspects of a firm´s working relationship with another firm (Gaski & Nevin,
1985; Frazier et al., 1989). In line with this approach, satisfaction was composed of both
economic and non-economic components. Economic satisfaction referred to the economic
reward (e.g. price discounts) that was obtained from the relationship with the exchange
partner.
Non-economic satisfaction referred to the positive affective response to non-
economic psychological aspects of any relationship, such as respectfulness, or goodwillingness (Geykens et al., 1999). Geykens & Steenkamp (1999) proposed that these two
facets of satisfaction should be separated, since the proportion of economic and non-economic
items that had been included in the rating scales proposed to measure satisfaction varied
considerably in the different researches available, and therefore, it was not possible to make
an effective comparison across previous studies. In this regard, and in line with Marketing
Relationship postulates, for the purpose of this research satisfaction will be considered as a
non-economic factor. Regarding the aforementioned distinction between transaction specific
and relational - or overall - satisfaction, researchers have traditionally opted for either one of
these concepts of satisfaction, although it is worth mentioning that some researchers (e.g. Tse
& Wilton, 1988; Szymanksy & Henard, 2001) have stated that only overall satisfaction can
properly measure this construct.
Overall satisfaction has been understood as a global
assessment based on the buying experience of multiple encounters, whereas transaction
specific satisfaction is more related with a feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction regarding a
specific transaction or service (Anderson et al., 1994). Following the objectives presented
here, and having into account that University-Industry collaborations or links form normally a
part of long-term projects, for the purpose of this research satisfaction has been
conceptualized as an overall uni-dimensional construct based on non-economic components.
Concerning satisfaction as a predictor of customer´s intention to renew the relationship with
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
9
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
the service provider, there is no consensus on the direct effects between these variables.
Whereas many researchers have emphasized the relevance of customer satisfaction to attain
short-term profitability (Mittal y Kamakura, 2001), others have taken a different view,
showing not only that there is no linear effect between these variables (Simó, 2002), but also
the possible lack of a direct effect (Garbarino y Johnson, 1999).
Following this line, many
mediating and moderating factors that could influence this direct effect have been proposed in
the literature, depending on the context under study and on the research field. In this respect,
Homburg and Biering (2001) examined personal characteristics such as variety seeking, age
or the customer´s level of income, while other authors posited that customer´s intention to
renew the relationship was moderated by the level of attachment or the customer´s loyalty
(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999. Therefore, given that the direct effect between satisfaction and
intention to renew has not been applied in university-industry linkages (Rosendo & Laguna,
2010), but that this causal effect seems to be evident in many other research fields and sectors,
and based on the previous discussion of satisfaction and its predictors, the proposition that
satisfaction positively impacts the customer´s intention to renew the relationship with the
service provider is formalized as follows:
Hypothesis 7: Satisfaction is positively related to intention to renew the relationship in
University-Industry Links.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection and Sampling
The target population for this study consisted of national firms operating all over Spain that
had recently been, or were at the moment of the study, engaged in research and development
projects of collaboration with a major public Spanish University in the Autonomous
Community of Madrid. The unit of analysis was the project collaborative relationship as a
whole. An initial list of companies was provided by the major public university and served as
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
10
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
a sampling frame. There was no alternative sampling frame available because there is no
public registration database of firms that collaborate with universities in Spain. The complete
list was assessed and shortened following certain criteria, namely, a) the time-span period was
limited to collaborations that were current or that had not finished prior to the last two years,
b) the purpose of the collaboration was of a research nature, and c) the firms could not be
public institutions. To examine whether the final sample was representative of the population
under study, the selected firm profiles were compared to descriptions of industries that
collaborate with universities in research projects provided by previous studies (Barge-Gil et
al., 2007). Overall, the profile of the selected companies matched well with the overall
University-Industry relationships in terms of project duration, firm characteristics and firm
size.
Subsequently, the study followed a two-step approach based on an exploratory
qualitative investigation and an explanatory quantitative survey.
The exploratory
investigation was deemed important in order to ensure the appropriate adaptation and
measurement of the different constructs used in this study. Therefore, a critical validation by
a group of experts was conducted in order to review and edit the items, leading to the final
questionnaire developed for the self-administered electronic survey. Following a pre-test
conducted with managers similar in profile to the target respondents, in April 2010 the final
questionnaire was e-mailed to 370 ID managers of national firms on the sampling frame
operating all over Spain. To account for the impact of the low response rate normally
associated with electronic surveys, respondents were offered a summary of the results to
encourage their participation. A letter from the R&D Vice-Chancellor of the university was
also included, encouraging cooperation and reiterating that individual responses would be
strictly confidential.
Surveys were returned directly to the researcher to emphasize the
academic control of the information. The response rate for this initial phase was 18%.
Follow-up surveys were sent to those respondents who had not returned their surveys within a
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
11
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
three-week period, thereby increasing the response rate to 25%. Two weeks after the second
mailing, a reminder was sent to respondents asking them to complete the questionnaire. After
extensive mail and telephone follow-up, an effective response rate of 49% was accomplished
with a total of 183 completed questionnaires valid for use in this study. It was considered a
very satisfactory rate for this type of survey of business people, where response rate below
15% become questionable (Malhotra, 1993). All 183 questionnaires were analyzed. In order
to avoid the so called non-response bias, possible differences in the means obtained for each
one of the factors proposed in this study were analyzed between early and late respondents, as
well as non-respondents and late respondents.
independent samples t-test were conducted.
To this end, the Levene´s-Test and the
Results showed no statistical significant
differences in the mean scores (Rosendo et al., 2011). Having considered non-response bias
in sample quality, and assuming non-response is not the only source of possible sample bias
(Blair and Zinkhan, 2006), coverage bias and selection bias were also checked (Rosendo,
2010). All these previous steps suggested that the final sample was adequate for further
analysis.
3.2 Operationalisation of Constructs
The measurements used in this study were derived from existing scales in Relationship
Marketing literature. These measures were slightly modified to be adapted to the specific
context of University-Industry Links. The final scales were all seven-point Likert-type ones,
anchored by completely disagree (1) to completely agree (7).
Trust was measured based on the scale reported by Ganesan (1994). It consisted of 10 items
that included the two dimensions most often referred to in the literature, that is, credibility and
benevolence (Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Kumar et al., 1995). The main reason for its use was
that this rating scale has been consistently reported in the literature as having very sound
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
12
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
psychometric properties in the context of inter-organizational relationships (c.f. Joshi &
Stump, 1999; Gao et al., 2005).
Commitment was measured following Anderson & Wetiz (1992). The twelve items included
in the scale tap the multiple facets of commitment most often highlighted in the literature,
namely credible commitment, idiosyncratic investment, and the dedicated allocation of
resources (Anderson & Weitz, 1992). Therefore, the set of items included in this scale reflect
a close, long-term and stable relationship. These are relational characteristics that should
apply to University-Industry Links.
Regarding satisfaction, a wide number of measures have been used in the available literature,
ranging from direct to indirect measurements (Yi, 1990). The scale adapted for this study
reflects the level of firm satisfaction with the overall relationship, and is based on the measure
reported by Oliver (1980,1981) and Westbrook and Oliver (1981). One of the main reason
behind this choice is that this scale has been highly recommended in Marketing as a reference
scale to measure this construct (c.f. Hausknecht, 1990), besides it has been reported in
previous studies as a very consistent and reliable one (c.f. Bearden & Teal, 1983). Likewise,
intention to renew the relationship was based on a single item scale reported by Oliver (1980,
1981), Westbrook (1980, 1981), and Westbrook & Oliver (1981).
Integration has been scarcely applied in the field of Relationship Marketing. Therefore, there
is a considerable lack of scales available in this specific literature. On the other hand, this
variable has been largely applied in the area of strategic alliances, as well as in the context of
research and its commercialization, and in the field of technological transfer. This study is
based in the scale proposed by Dwyer & Oh (1987, 1988). This 4-item seven-point Likert
scale measures the level of respondents´ integration with the university research group.
All the items were randomized in the final questionnaire to minimize the impact of order bias.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
13
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
4. RESULTS
4.1 Validation of Measurements
First, all reverse-scored items were re-codified, and factor analysis using principal component
was performed in order to validate the different constructs used in this study (Churchill,
1979). Those items with factor loadings below 0.5 and low item-to-total correlation were
excluded (Hair et al., 1999). Secondly, in order to assess the underlying reliability of each
scale and get further clarification of the items contributing to each factor, the Cronbanch´s
Alpha scores were calculated (Nunnally, 1978), alongside with the improvements these scores
would have if certain items were removed.
The results obtained from the four factor
analyses, together with the reliability scores for scales, are reported in table 2 (Appendix I).
Although most of the scales have an alpha coefficient higher than the recommended value of
0.7 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), the analyses identified problems in several factors.
Regarding the
first construct (i.e. trust) even though most of the factor loadings exceeded 0.5, some of the
items were below this limit, suggesting a better uni-dimensionial fit if these items were
excluded. It was therefore decided to eliminate these indicators in further analysis.
As for
the construct of integration, the Cronbanch´s alpha coefficient improved notably with the
elimination of item I4. As regards the third factor (i.e. commitment), results were not quite as
expected. Most factor loadings were below the cut-off limit of 0.5, and therefore were
excluded. Notwithstanding this fact, the remaining items kept the three facets established as
significantly important in the literature, namely behavioral, attitudinal and temporal
components.
Principal component analysis of the fourth factor confirmed the uni-
dimensionality of the construct, with a single factor explaining practically 85% of the
variance.
On the basis of these modifications -and once the aforementioned items were excluded due to
their low factor loading with the correspondent variables- a second exploratory factor analysis
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
14
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
was carried out. The results, which are to be found in table 3 (Appendix I), show that the
factor loadings for all the corresponding factors exceeded the recommended cut-off point of
0.5, hence corroborating the dimensionality of each of the constructs under study and
confirming that the composition of each of the four factors was adequate. Likewise, the
variance explained by three of the factors was higher than 80%, being nearly 70% for the
remaining one.
The Cronbach´s alpha scores for the different scales were all above 0.7,
which indicates a very satisfactory internal consistency and reliability, and shows to be in line
with the scores reported in previous studies (cf. Ganesan, 1994; Dwyer & Oh, 1987, 1988;
Anderson & Weitz, 1992; Oliver, 1980). Hence, the trust scale was finally comprised of six
items, the integration and commitment scales were comprised of three items respectively, and
satisfaction was based on the original four-item scale.
As previously stated, the factor
intention to renew was based on a single item, so no further psychometric analyses were
carried out.
4.2 Correlations and Regressions Results
The established hypotheses were tested by means of correlations and linear regressions. To
this end, in order to obtain composite scores on each uni-dimensional construct in table 1,
summative scales were developed by creating four variables, one for each of the constructs,
measured through the arithmetic mean of the individual scores of their component items. A
correlation analysis was conducted on all variables in this study for two main reasons. The
first one was to check the existence of multi-collinearity between the factors, which is
revealed when the inter-correlation between the explanatory variables exceeds 0.8 (Berry &
Feldmann, 1985). The Pearson correlations matrix showed that this was not the case in the
present study. The second reason was to explore the relationships between independent and
dependent variables. The bi-variate correlation procedure was subject to a two tailed tests of
statistical significance at two different levels –highly significant (p<0.01) and significant
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
15
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
(p<0.05).
ISBN : 9780974211428
Correlations analyses supported all the positive relationships among the
independent variables and the dependent variables posited in this study at a highly significant
level, except for the correlation between trust and satisfaction (p>0.05).
The results of the regression analyses presented in table 1 support the notion of most of the
hypothesized relationships among the independent and the dependent variables with very high
statistical significance (p<0.001), showing strong associations among most variables, and
proving six of the hypotheses to be supported. Commitment was found to be significantly
correlated with satisfaction (H2, p<0.001).
In line with hypothesis H3, trust was also
positively related to integration (p<0.001), as well as integration to satisfaction (p<0.001).
Commitment emerged as well positively correlated with integration (p<0.001), supporting
H4. Analyzing the effect of trust on commitment, results were very much as expected,
showing a significant relationship between both constructs, hence supporting H5. H7 was
also supported, with a strong link between satisfaction and intention to renew the relationship.
However, contrary to the expectations in hypothesis H1, trust was not found to be positively
related to satisfaction, therefore this hypothesis had to be rejected (H1, p>0.05).
Table 1: Results of the regression analyses
5. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results obtained in this study supported most of the hypothesized paths in this paper,
confirming -either directly or indirectly- the relevance of commitment, integration and trust
for customer´s retention in this specific context. Following this empirical research, trust
emerged as a fundamental construct for University-Industry collaboration success due to its
significant and positive influence both on commitment (β=0.614***), and on integration
(β=0.491***). These findings are aligned with the relevance that trust has acquired in RM
literature (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), as well as with the empirical evidence presented in the
context of strategic alliances between private research centers and private sector organizations
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
16
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
(Davenport et al., 1999; Montoro-Sanchez et al., 2000). The role of trust as a predictor of
commitment and integration can be explained by the intrinsic research nature that
characterizes University-Industry relationships. The unfeasibility by both parties to predict
the ultimate outcomes of any research process carried out by the university gives rise to a high
level of firm uncertainty (Harman & Sharwell, 2002). Moreover, the information that both
parties share is generally distinguished for being highly confidential, mainly due to the fact
that some of the strategic decisions that firms may take in the near future depend, to some
extent or another, on that same information. This can lead to an opportunistic behavior by
one of the exchange counterparts, thus, making trust a fundamental pillar for UniversityIndustry relationship success. Although it could be argued that contractual agreements may
also reduce this potential risk, the exclusive use of these contractual safeguards could also
have a discouraging effect, by reducing the development of new knowledge not specifically
agreed on the contractual clauses.
Therefore, the usage of trust as an alternative -or
complementary- relationship tool can, firstly, help to mitigate these adversities (Bendapudi &
Berry, 1997), and secondly, help to increase the level of integration and commitment among
both relationship parties. Additionally, trust can have a persuasive effect in the resolution of
disagreements or conflicts between the exchange partners, easing the mutual understanding
and the friendly acceptance of discrepancies between both parties, and enhancing their joint
cooperation (Dwyer et al., 1987). Furthermore, a trusting research relationship may offer
flexibility in operations and information exchange, settling down the basis for discovery and
successful research, and for more satisfying collaborative research outcomes (Plewa, 2009).
Surprisingly, the results obtained in relation to the direct impact of trust on satisfaction
(β=0.051; t=0.079) were quite unexpected, although as previously discussed, it is worth
mentioning the fact that trust does have an indirect impact on satisfaction due to its high
correlation with integration and commitment. Trust was operationalised in this research as an
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
17
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
affective construct based on two dimensions, namely credibility and benevolence. Therefore,
it could be suggested that, although trust is a relevant factor for University-Industry links,
firm satisfaction and retention will not be directly determined by affective factors such as
trust, but by behavioral factors, such as integration or commitment. That is, trust evolves in
line with relationships evolvement. In this respect, there is theoretical support that trust may
be the consequence, rather than the determinant of a long-term relationship (Ganesan, 1994).
Hence, firm trust would be achieved once the university research team has proved to be
cooperative and committed in the University-Industry relationship.
On that account, if
university managers aim at encouraging industry linkages, incentives should be given to the
academic staff that form part of a research group in order to motivate their collaboration with
their exchange partners, and their commitment to the relationship. This will lead to the
achievement of a higher involvement of academic staff in University-Industry links, and thus
to better research output and customer retention through higher levels of firm satisfaction.
The results obtained in this study also showed a positive effect between all dimensions of
commitment and both satisfaction (β=0.651***) and integration (β=0.511***). These results
are lined up with previous researches in Relationship Marketing (Jap & Ganesan, 2000;
Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). They do also confirm prior studies carried
out in the context of research cooperation among private institutions, as well as previous
literature on technology transfer and its commercialization (Barnes et al., 2002; Irwin et al.,
1998).
Relationship commitment, together with relationship trust, has been proposed as a relevant
factor in order to reduce the level of opportunistic behavior by one of the exchange parties
(Williamson, 1981). Additionally, according to the results of this study, the correlation
between commitment and satisfaction may be influenced by the level of integration between
the parties. In this sense, a high collaboration and integration among the exchange partners
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
18
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
may induce a higher level of commitment in the research group, thus increasing the overall
level of firm satisfaction with the relationship and therefore the likelihood of customer
retention.
Lastly, commitment was operationalised in this study following Anderson & Weitz´s (1992)
conceptualization as a multi-dimensional construct based on behavioral, attitudinal and
temporal facets. It reflects, therefore, elements regarding a feeling of loyalty towards the
counterpart, a long-term effort in order to maintain the relationship, and the willingness to
invest the necessary resources in the relationship. Hence, the encouragement of all these
dimensions between the members that form part of a university research group will constitute
a valuable resource for university managers that wish to retain firms as their customers.
Likewise, this will contribute to a higher collaboration and cooperation between the parties
involved in the relationship, leading to a better cooperation, an increase in the quality and the
quantity of the research outcomes, and an increase on customer retention.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This research contributes to the Relationship Marketing literature by demonstrating the
importance of developing relationship marketing strategies in order to achieve higher levels of
success in University-Industry collaborations. The present study is noteworthy for several
reasons. As to the knowledge of the researcher, no prior study has been done previously in
Spain on any public university to examine the effects that trust, commitment and integration
can have on short-term and long-term outcome measures, namely on firm´s satisfaction and
on firm´s intention to renew the relationship. Therefore, this study will definitely benefit
university managers to understand the extent to which the effective application of these
relational factors can affect the level of customer retention in this type of collaborative
projects.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
19
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Our results revealed a weighty effect between integration and satisfaction, suggesting that
integration is significantly important for University-Industry linkages, as industries will only
be satisfied with a public university research project when they feel the levels of collaboration
and integration between the parties are appropriate. Finally, our study empirically validated
the link between commitment and satisfaction, and between satisfaction and intention to
renew. It was observed that commitment and satisfaction were significantly and positively
related. Moreover, our research empirically validated the effect of trust on commitment in a
business-to-business context between private and public institutions.
Previous empirical
research on trust and commitment was primarily conducted only in industrial and channel
literature (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Baker et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 1995).
Finally, the findings of this study have to be interpreted considering the limitations of the
research. Some limitations might be related to collecting the data and interpreting the results.
First, data collection was limited to a major public university, so the results might be
challenged whether it is truly representative of the entire country. Second, a probability
sampling would have been a better on to draw realistic inferences regarding the studied
variables. Another potential shortcoming in the study is common method bias. One sample
questionnaire was used to measure all constructs included in this study, so maybe the strength
of the relationships between these constructs may be somewhat inflated.
Moreover,
confirmatory factor analysis could have been employed to make the model more robust.
Lastly, the results of a study conducted in a single context can not necessarily be generalized
to other contexts.
More research is necessary on collaborations between universities and private organizations.
In this respect, the general conclusions argued in this study do not preclude the possibility of
introducing new factors in the context of University-Industry links.
For instance,
supplementary factors in University Industry linkages may be included as antecedents,
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
20
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
mediators or moderators. In this sense, the level of organizational similarity between the
partners, or the level of employee experience similar research groups of collaborations could
be incorporated as additional antecedents of trust, integration or commitment. Potential
moderating or mediating factors could include the level bureaucracy implied in these
collaborations, or the life cycle stage of the research project. Future research is guaranteed to
allow for additional variables. It should also be noted that the lack of support for the
influence of trust on satisfaction deserves further analyses. These recognized shortcomings
will definitely inspire further studies in future research agendas.
7. REFERENCES
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D.R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share,
and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 53-66.
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. & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial
Channel Dyads. Marketing Science, 8 (4), 310-323.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
Baker, T., Simpson, P., & Siguaw, J.A. (1999). The Impact of Suppliers´ Perceptions of
Reseller Market Orientation on Key Relationship Constructs. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 27 (1), 50-57.
Barge-Gil, A., Modrego, A., & Santamaria, L. (2007). Complementarities Between External
Sources of Knowledge:
The Case of Universities and Technology Industries in Spain.
Proceedings of XII of Seminario Latino-Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica. Buenos
Aires. ALTEC.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
21
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Effective Universitiy-Industry Interaction: A
Multi-Case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects. European Management Journal, 20
(3), 272-285.
Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J.E. (1983). Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and
Complaint Reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 21-28.
Bendapudy, N. & Berry, L.L. (1997). Customers´Motivations for Maintaining Relationships
with Service Providers. Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 15-37.
Bernasco, W., Weerd-Nederhof, P.C., Tillema, H., & Boer, H. (1999). Balanced Matrix
Structure and New Product Development Process at Texas Instruments Materials and Control
Division. R&D Management, 29 (2), 121-131.
Berry, L.L. (1995). Relationship Marketing and Services- Growing Interest, Emerging
Perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 236-245.
Berry, W., & Feldmann, S. (1985). Multiple Regression in Practice.
California.
Sage
Publications.
Blair, E., & Zinkhan, G.M. (2006). Nonresponse and Generalizability in Academic Research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (1), 4-7.
Bucklin, L.P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances. Journal
of Marketing, 57(2), 32-46.
Chatterje, S., Lubatkin, M., Schuweiger, D.M., & Weber, Y. (1992). Cultural Differences and
Shareholder Value in Related Mergers: Linking Equity and Human Capital. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(5), 319-334.
Churchill, G.A.J. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Churchill, G.A.J., & Suprenant, C. (1982).
An Investigation into the Determinants of
Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 491-504.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
22
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Cyert, R.M. & Goodman, P.S. (1997). Creating Effective University-Industry Alliances: An
Organizational Learning Perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 25 (4), 45-57.
Davenport, S.J., Davies, J., & Grimes, C. (1999). Collaborative Research Programmes:
Building Trust from Difference. Technovation, 1, 31-40.
Doney, P.M. & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller
Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35-51.
Dwyer, R.F., & Oh, S. (1987). Output Sector Munificence Effects on the Internal Political
Economy of Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4), 347-358.
Dwyer, R.F., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 52 (2), 21-34.
Frazier, G.L., Gill, D., & Kale, S.H. (1989). Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal
Actions in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country. Journal of Marketing, 53
(January), 50-69.
Gao, T., Sirgy, M.J., & Bird, M.M. (2005). Reducing Buyer Decision-Making Uncertainty in
Organizational Purchasing:
Can Supplier Trust, Commitment, and Dependence Help?.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 397-405.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 1-19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 70-87.
Gaski, J.F., & Nevin, J.R. (1985). The Differential Effects of Exercised and Unexercised
Power Sources in a Marketing Channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 130-142.
Geykens, I., Steenkamp, J.B., & Kumar, N. (1999). A Meta-Analysis of Satisfaction in
Marketing Channel Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 223-238.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
23
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Geykens, I., Steenkamp, J.B., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about Trust in Marketing
Channel Relationships Using Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
15, 223-248.
Geykens, I., Steenkamp, J.B., Scheer, L., & Kumar, N. (1996). The Effects of Trust and
Interdependence on Relationship Commitment: A Transatlantic Study. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 13 (4), 303-317.
Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of Marketing
Science Review, accessed April 16, 2010 (Available at
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf)
Gounaris, S.P. (2005). Trust and Commitment Influences on Customer Retention: Insights
from Business-to-Business Services. Journal of Business Research, 58, 126-140.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S., & Mentzer, J.T. (1995): “The Structure of Commitment in
Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), 78-92.
Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship Marketing in the New Economy. Journal of
Relationship Marketing, 1 (1), 37-58.
Hair, J.F.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1999): Análisis multivariante.
España. 5th Edition. Prentice Hall Internacional.
Harman, G., & Sharwell, V. (2002). Risks in University-Industry Research Links and the
Implications for University Management.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24 (1), 37-51.
Hausknecht, D.R. (1990). Measurement Scales in Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Consumer Behavior, 3(1), 1-11.
Homburg, C. & Giering, A. (2001). Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the
Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty- An Empirical Analysis.
Psychology and Marketing, 18, 43-66.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
24
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Irwin, H., More, E., & Mcgrath, M. (1998). Relationship Management for Innovation: The
Central Role for Communication in Australia´s Participation in two High-Tech Industries.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10 (4), 467-481.
Jap, S.D., & Ganesan, S. (2000). Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle:
Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment. Journal of
Marketing Research, 37 (May), 227-245.
Joshi, A.W., & Stump, R.L. (1999). The Contingent Effect of Specific Asset Investments on
Joint Action in Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: An Empirical Test lf the Moderating
Role of Reciprocal Asset Investments, Uncertainty, and Trust. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 27 (3), 291-305.
Kahn, K.B. (1996). Interdepartmental Integration: A Definition with Implication for Product
Development Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (2), 137-151.
Kahn, K.B., & Mentzer, J.T. (1996). Logistics and Interdepartmental Integration.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, 26 (8), 6-14.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Steenkamp, J.B. (1995). The Effect of Supplier Fairness on
Vulnerable Resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (1), 42-53.
Lee, Y.S. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An
Empirical Assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25 (2), 111-133.
Malhotra, N.K. (1993). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Prentice-Hall.
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of Partnership Success:
Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques.
Partnership
Strategic
Management Journal, 15 (2), 135-152.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
25
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Montoro-Sanchez, A., Mora-Valentin, E.M., Guerras-Martin, L.A. (2000). La naturaleza del
socio como factor moderador en la relación entre confianza y éxito en los acuerdos de
cooperación. Revista de Economía y Empresa, 14 (40), 31-57.
Mora-Valentin, E.M., Montoro-Sánchez, A., & Guerras-Martin, L.A. (2004). Determining
Factors in the Success of R&D Cooperative Agreements between Firms and Research
Organizations. Research Policy, 33 (1), 17-40.
Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors Affecting Trust in Market
Research Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 81-101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships between Providers and
Users of Market Research:
The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 314-328.
Nevin, J.R. (1995). Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels: Exploring
Fundamental Issues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 327-334.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978): Psychometric Theory. New York. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Setting.
Journal of Retailing, 57 (Fall), 25-48.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction
Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-469.
Palmer, A. (2002). The Evolution of an Idea: An Environmental Explanation of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1 (1), 79-94.
Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. (1994). Paradigm Shift in Marketing Theory and Approach: The
Emergence of Relationship Marketing. In Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods and
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
26
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Applications Section I, Session 2.1. Eds. Jagdish Sheth and Atul Parvatiyar. Center for
Relationship Marketing. Atlanta. Emory University.
Plewa, C. (2009). Exploring Organizational Culture Difference in Relationship Dyads.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 17, 46-57.
Plewa, C. & Quester, P. (2008). A Dyadic Study of “Champions” in University-Industry
Relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20 (2), 211-226.
Plewa, C. & Quester, P. (2007). Key Drivers of University-Industry Relationships: The Role
of Organizational Compatibility and Personal Experience.
The Journal of Services
Marketing, 21 (5), 370-382.
Plewa, C. & Quester, P. (2006). The Effects of a University´s Market Orientation on the
Industry Partner´s Relationship Perception and Satisfaction. International Journal of
Technology Intelligence and Planning, 2 (2), 160-170.
Rothaermel, F.T., Hitt. M. A., & Jobe, L. A. (2006). Balancing Vertical Integration and
Strategic Outsourcing: Effects on Product Portfolio, Product Success, and Firm Performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1033–1056.
Rosendo, V. (2010). Modelización de los factores determinantes del éxito en la colaboración
Universidad-Empresa: Un enfoque basado en el Marketing Relacional. Doctoral dissertation.
Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
Rosendo, V.; Laguna, P. (2010). La satisfacción del consumidor y la intención de renovación
en el contexto de vínculos interorganizacionales: Una aproximación desde el Marketing
Relacional. Proceedings of the 11º Forum Internacional sobre las Ciencias, las Técnicas y el
Arte aplicadas al Marketing. Academia y Profesión. Madrid.
Rosendo, V.; Laguna, P.; Mercado, C. (2011). An Empirical Examination of UniversityIndustry Links based on a Relationship Marketing Approach. Proceedings of XXI Jornadas
Hispano-Lusas de Gestión Científica. Córdoba.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
27
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Santoro, M. & Chakrabarti, A.K. (2002). Firm Size and Technology Centrality in IndustryUniversity Interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180.
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational Endowments and the Performance of
University Start-ups. Management Science, 48 (1), 154–171.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P.G. (1999). The Impact of Communication Effectiveness and
Service Quality on Relationship Commitment in Consumer Professional Services. Journal of
Services Marketing, 13 (2), 151-170.
Siegel, D.S., Waldmann, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the Impact of Organizational
Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An
Exploratory Study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.
Singh, S.N., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer
Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgements. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 66
(January), 15-37.
Simó, A.L. (2002). Análisis de la satisfacción en la experiencia del consumidor: una
aplicación en empresas de servicios de ocio y turismo.
Investigaciones Europeas de
Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 8 (3), 199-214.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, M.D. The John Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets,
State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, M.D The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spekman, R. (1988). Strategic Supplier Selection: Understanding Long-Term Buyer
Relationships. Business Horizons, 31, 75-81.
Szymansky, D.M., & Henard, D.H. (2001). Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of
Empirical Evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (1), 16-35.
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
28
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Tse, D.K., & Wilton, P.C. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation:
An
Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 104-112.
Westbrook, R.A., & Oliver, R.L. (1981). Developing Better Measures of Consumer
Satisfaction: Some Preliminary Results.
In Advances in Consumer Research, Kent B.
Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 94-99.
Williamson, O.E. (1981). The Economics of Organizations: The Transaction Cost Approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3), 548-577.
Yi, Y. (1990). A Critical Review of Customer Satisfaction. Review of Marketing. Eds.
Valerie A., Zeithmal, American Marketing Association, 68-123.
APPENDIX I
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1:
Hypotheses
number
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
β Coefficient t-Value
R²
Trust→ Satisfaction
0.051
0.079
0.257
Commitment→ Satisfaction
0.651***
11.549
0.429
Trust→ Integration
0.491***
7.57
0.241
Commitment→ Integration
0.511***
8.004
0.361
Trust→ Commitment
0.614***
10.474
0.377
Integration→ Satisfaction
0.453***
6.831
0.205
Satisfaction→ Intention to renew
0,69***
12.83
0.69
Path
Note: *** p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
29
2013 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Table 2. Principal Components. First Analysis
T1
TRUST
0.543
T2
0.611
T3
0.508
T4
0.642
T5
0.320
T6
0.451
T7
0.511
T8
0.266
T9
0.553
T10
0.699
T11
0.335
T12
0.459
INTEGRATION
I1
0.803
I2
0.800
I3
0.791
I4
0.491
COMMITMENT
COM1
0.073
COM2
0.652
COM3
0.367
COM4
0.430
COM5
0.110
COM6
0.073
COM7
0.731
COM8
0.065
COM9
0.292
COM10
0.711
SATISFACTION
S1
0.769
S2
0.893
S3
0.838
0.867
S4
Factor Variance
Cronbach´s Alpha
KMO
Barlett´s Tes t
49.74%
72.12%
49.94%
84,18%
0.899
0.870
0.696
0.936
0.855
χ² 1242,7; d.f.:66;
Sig.0,000
0.810
χ² 398,713; d.f.:6;
Sig.0,000
0.766
χ² 1038,727; d.f.:45;
Sig.0,000
0.825
χ² 671.517; d.f.:6;
Sig.0,000
Table 3. Principal Components. Second Analysis
T1
TRUST
0.619
T2
0.728
T4
0.710
T7
0,605
T9
0,729
T10
0.672
INTEGRATION
I1
0.845
I2
0.844
I3
0.811
COMMITMENT
COM2
0.889
COM7
0.857
COM10
0.762
SATISFACTION
S1
0.769
S2
0.893
S3
0.838
0.867
S4
Factor Variance
Cronbach´s Alpha
KMO
Barlett´s Test
July 2-3, 2013
Cambridge, UK
69.18%
83.29%
83.59%
84,18%
0.89
0.899
0.901
0.936
0.852
χ² 490,458; d.f.:10;
Sig.0,000
0.750
χ² 336,055; d.f.:3;
Sig.0,000
0.766
χ² 372.031; d.f.:3;
Sig.0,000
0.825
χ² 671.517; d.f.:6;
Sig.0,000
30