Trust and Commitment in Professional
Service Marketing Relationships in
Business-to-Business Markets
Barbara (Cater
This paper examines two very important concepts in marketing rela-
tionships - trust and commitment - whereby commitment is regarded
as consisting of three components: affective, calculative and norma-
tive. The context of this study is professional services in a business-to-
business market, more specifically the marketing research industry in
Slovenia. The results show that trust in the marketing research provider
and its work is very high among interviewed clients. The clients also ap-
pear to be affectively committed to the relationship with the provider,
whereas calculative and normative commitment are low. The study's
results confirm the positive influence of trust on affective commitment
and the weak negative influence of trust on calculative commitment.
Key Words: trust, affective commitment, calculative commitment,
normative commitment, business-to-business markets
jEL Classification: M31, M39
Introduction
In the last 20 years a significant change has occurred in the way compa-
nies in business-to-business markets approach their suppliers and buyers
(Morris et al. 1998; Hakansson and Snehota 1998; Hakansson et al. 2004).
Firms are increasingly looking to have fewer, yet more intense relation-
ships with their partners (Geyskens et al. 1998). In most exchanges in
the business-to-business market, achieving a sale is not the completion
of a single effort but an event taking place within a broader endeavour
to build and maintain a long-term relationship with the customer and
ensure that sales keep coming. Therefore, the main research question is
what influences the customer's willingness to remain with the existing
supplier and further to advance the relationship by investing in strength-
ening ties with the supplier (Gounaris 2005). Within this broader re-
search stream, trust and commitment are two highly interrelated con-
cepts (Kumar et al. 1995) which stimulate a relational bond between the
supplier and the customer.
Dr Barbara (Cater is a Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Economics,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Managing Global Transitions 5 (4): 371-390
Han et al. (1993) found that both buyers and sellers in business-to-
business markets see trust as being by far the most important factor of a
good relationship. Companies began to realise that in order to be com-
petitive in the market one has to be a trusted co-operator (Morgan and
Hunt 1994). The need for trust arises in any supplier-client marketing
relationship characterised by a high degree of risk, uncertainty, and/or
a lack of knowledge or information on the part of the interacting party
(Mayer et al. 1995). This need for trust is particularly important in service
industries, where risk and uncertainty are increased to the extent that the
client is unable to examine a service before purchase (Parasuraman et al.
1985).
Besides trust, researchers recognise commitment as a central ingre-
dient of establishing and maintaining long-term relationships (Dwyer
et al. 1987; Geyskens et al. 1996; Gundlach et al. 1995; de Ruyter and
Wetzels 1999; Hakansson and Snehota 1995; Kim and Frazier 1997b; Ry-
lander et al. 1997; Tellefsen and Thomas 2005). Commitment is also one
of the most common dependent variables used in buyer-seller relation-
ship studies (Wilson 1995). While researchers agree on the importance of
this construct, there are differences in its conceptualisation. Most pro-
posed relationship models in marketing have conceptualised and op-
erationalised commitment as a global construct. However, researchers
observing relationships in organisational and social psychology have
pointed out three distinct motivations (affective, calculative/continuance
and normative) that underlie the desire for continuity (Allen and Meyer
1990; Adams and Jones 1997) and over the last decade some researchers
(Kumar et al. 1994; de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002; de Ruyter and Wet-
zels 1999; de Ruyter et al. 2001; Gilliland and Bello 2002; Gounaris
2005; Bansal et al. 2004; Berghäll 2003; Kim and Frazier 1997a; 1997b;
Kelly, 2004) have transferred this framework to marketing relationships.
Geyskens et al. (1996) pointed out that using the general expression
'commitment' to describe any of the three very different components
creates confusion in the interpretation of theories, models and empir-
ical findings related to commitment. At the same time, it limits our
understanding of this problem and the variability of relations between
the components of commitment and determinants and consequences
of commitment studied in the literature (Kelly 2004; Kim and Frazier
1997b).
Geyskens et al. (1998) in their meta-analysis of studies about trust
pointed out that the overwhelming emphasis has been on developing
and testing new theory rather than on establishing empirical generalisa-
tions. Thus, despite this extensive research no consensus has been estab-
lished about the relationship between trust and other variables. The pur-
pose of this study is to work towards establishing empirical generalisa-
tions by researching the relationship between trust and the components
of commitment in professional services in business-to-business markets
in a post-transitional economy. Although the relationship between trust
and commitment measured as a one-dimensional construct has been
over-researched and the results are almost unanimous (Geyskens et al.
1999), relatively little attention has been paid to relationships between
trust and the components of commitment. In addition, almost all stud-
ies were conducted in the contexts of developed Western countries and
there is a lack of studies in transitional or post-transitional economies
examining commitment as consisting of three components and relating
it to other relationship variables.
Trust and Commitment in Marketing Relationships
Trust is an essential relationship model building block and has often been
defined as a belief that one relationship partner will act in the best inter-
ests of the other (Wilson 1995). It has also been referred to as the key
element of successful relationship development (Naude and Buttle 2000;
Goodman and Dion 2001). Geyskens et al. (1998, 225) on the basis of
a meta-analysis of studies about trust pointed out that most studies in
marketing build on interpersonal research and define trust as 'the extent
to which a firm believes that its exchange partner is honest and/or benev-
olent' or some variant thereof. Two definitions of trust very often cited
are those by Moorman et al. (1992) and Morgan and Hunt (1994). Moor-
man et al. (1992, 82) define trust as 'a willingness to rely on an exchange
partner in whom one has confidence'. According to Morgan and Hunt
(1994, 23), trust exists 'when one party has confidence in an exchange's
partner reliability and integrity.' Their definition is similar to that pro-
posed by Moorman et al. (1992) except that Morgan and Hunt leave out
'willingness' because they believe it does not add value to the definition.
Doney and Cannon (1997, 36) built on social psychology literature and
similarly defined trust as the 'perceived credibility and benevolence of a
target of trust'.
This study adopts the definition of Moorman et al. (1992) who studied
trust in relationships between suppliers and buyers of marketing research
services. An important aspect of their definition is the concept of trust
as a belief, feeling or expectation about an exchange partner, which can
be judged from the partner's expertise, reliability and intentions. This
definition reflects two components of trust: credibility and benevolence.
Credibility reflects the buyer's belief that the supplier has sufficient ex-
pertise to perform the job effectively and reliably. Benevolence reflects
the extent of the buyer's belief that the seller's intentions and motives are
beneficial to the buyer even when new conditions arise about which a
commitment was not made (Ganesan 1994). Geyskens et al. (1998) also
pointed out trust in the partner's honesty, which is one firm's belief that
its partner is reliable, stands by its word, fulfils its promises and is sincere.
Commitment implies the importance of the relationship to the rela-
tionship partners and their desire to maintain the relationship in the fu-
ture (Wilson 1995). Dwyer et al. (1987,19) defined it as 'an implicit or ex-
plicit pledge of relational continuity between exchange partners'. Moor-
man et al. (1992,316) similarly proposed it is 'an enduring desire to main-
tain a valued relationship'. What is common to the different definitions
of commitment is that commitment is characterised by a disincentive to
replace relationship partners (Young and Denize 1995).
Researchers have used a 'more is better' approach when studying com-
mitment in marketing relationships (Fullerton 2003) and have focused
on the common construct of commitment assuming that it is better
for a company to have more committed buyers. This approach works
if we define commitment as a construct directed at the identification
and attachment that bonds a customer to the company (Morgan and
Hunt 1994). However, marketing academics and practitioners now re-
alise that commitment is a complex multidimensional construct that in-
cludes numerous components. On the basis of findings from the context
of interpersonal relationships and organisational behaviour, Kumar et al.
(1994) noted that (attitudinal) commitment consists of different compo-
nents that have different influences on marketing relationships. These
components are: affective commitment, calculative/continuance com-
mitment and normative commitment. All these components of com-
mitment pertain to psychological states but they originate from differ-
ent motivations for maintaining a relationship (Geyskens et al. 1996).
Allen and Meyer (1990) suggested we should understand affective, calcu-
lative/continuance and normative commitment as components and not
types of commitment because the different levels of each can be present
in the relationship between the employee and the organisation.
Affective commitment in marketing relationships, similarly as in the
employee-organisation relationship, originates from identification, com-
mon values, attachment, involvement and similarity (Bansal et al. 2004;
Fullerton 2003; Geyskens et al. 1996; Gruen et al. 2000). Affectively com-
mitted customers also continue the relationship because they like the
provider and enjoy working with it (Fullerton 2005a; 2005b; Geyskens
et al. 1996). On the other hand, calculative (continuance) commitment
stems from the perceived structural constraints that bind a company to
its partners and reflects some kind of negative motivation for continu-
ing the relationship (Geyskens et al. 1996). It presents some kind of con-
straining force that develops in the presence of high switching costs or
a perceived lack of alternative providers and binds the customer to the
company out of need (Bansal et al. 2004; Fullerton 2003; 2005). Norma-
tive commitment reflects a force that binds a customer to the provider
due to a perceived obligation (Bansal et al. 2004). Hackett et al. (1994)
pointed out that this attitude develops on the basis of the internalisation
of normative pressures that are used before or after entering the rela-
tionship. People who act morally feel they 'have to' act in a certain way
because this is their obligation or duty (Etzioni 1988). Kumar et al. (1994)
stated that a normatively committed firm continues the relationship be-
cause it feels it should do so due to moral imperatives.
Development of the Hypotheses
Several empirical studies have discovered the positive influence of trust
on commitment that was measured as a global construct (Moorman et
al. 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Goodman and Dion 2001; Perry et al.
2002; Friman et al. 2002; Lohtia et al. 2005; Rodriguez and Wilson 2002;
Tellefsen and Thomas 2005; Walter and Ritter 2003). Because many of
the unidimensional conceptualisations of commitment in marketing re-
search contexts have in fact tapped the affective dimension of commit-
ment we already have some evidence that trust might act as a driver of
this type of commitment. Researchers who conceptualised commitment
with two or three components have discovered the positive influence of
trust on affective commitment (Geyskens et al. 1996; Wetzels et al. 1998;
de Ruyter et al. 2001; de Ruyter and Wetzels 1999; Wetzels et al. 2000;
de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002; Gounaris 2005). Studies have also shown
that trust has a positive influence on normative (de Ruyter and Semeijn
2002) and a negative influence on calculative commitment (Geyskens et
al. 1996; Wetzels et al. 1998; Wetzels et al. 2000; de Ruyter et al. 2001; de
Ruyter and Wetzels 1999; de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002; Gounaris 2005).
Trust leads firms to focus on a 'positive' motivation to stay in the rela-
tionship because of a feeling of connectedness and identification with
each other and less on calculative reasons for staying with the supplier
(de Ruyter et al. 2001). With a lack of trust it is unlikely that the part-
ners would be affectively committed (Geyksens et al. 1996). When trust is
low, firms more thoroughly examine and monitor the behaviour of their
counterpart and probably base their decisions as to whether to continue
or end the relationship on the calculation of direct benefits and costs
(Geyskens et al. 1996). When trust increases, there are fewer reasons to
continue the relationship on the basis of calculative commitment (de
Ruyter et al. 2001). Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated
for the relationships between trust and the components of commitment:
H1 Trust positively influences affective commitment.
H2 Trust negatively influences calculative commitment.
H3 Trust positively influences normative commitment.
In the second step we propose relationships between components of
commitment in order to test if there is any interaction among these
components. Researchers in the area of organizational psychology and
marketing relationships have found a positive and strong correlation be-
tween affective and normative commitment (Bansal et al. 2004; Kelly
2004; Kumar et al. 1994; Meyer et al. 2002) and a moderate positive corre-
lation between normative and calculative commitment (Kelly 2004; Ku-
mar et al. 1994). On the other hand, researchers have found mixed re-
sults regarding the relationship between affective and calculative com-
mitment. While Kelly (2004) found this correlation to be positive, Ku-
mar et al. (1994) found no correlation between these two components. In
this study we build on the results of Kumar et al. (1994) and we propose
that these two components of commitment are not correlated. Therefore,
the following hypotheses are proposed for the relationships between the
components of commitment:
H4 Affective and normative commitment are positively correlated.
H5 Affective and calculative commitment are not correlated.
h 6 Calculative and normative commitment are positively correlated.
Research Design
OPERATIONALISATION OF THE VARIABLES
AND data gathering
Variables for the model were operationalised on the basis of opera-
tionalisations from past research with some modifications and devel-
opments based on nine in-depth interviews with clients of marketing
research providers conducted in the exploratory phase in November
2004-January 2005. Commitment was measured on the scale of Kumar
et al. (1994) for three components of commitment that was developed
on the basis of Allen and Meyer's (1990) scale drawn from organisational
psychology. Trust was operationalised with the modification of scales
proposed by Moorman et al. (1992), Doney and Cannon (1997) and
Gounaris and Venetis (2002). Respondents were asked to express their
agreement with a given statement using a seven-point Likert-type scale
(from 1 - not at all true, to 7 - completely true). All variables except two
were measured in a positive direction. Two variables for trust that had
a negative direction were reversely scored in the further analysis. After a
scale refinement in line with five experts' opinions the questionnaire was
tested on ten members of the population.
The context of this study is the marketing research industry in Slove-
nia. The context of marketing research was chosen because it provides a
good representation of professional services and includes a wide con-
tinuum of marketing relationships from transactions to partnerships,
therefore providing the desired variability of relationships (Tellefsen and
Thomas 2005). Data were gathered from managers who are responsible
for marketing research in each of the client firms. In order to ensure vari-
ability in the marketing relationships included in the survey the respon-
dents evaluated their relationship with the agency that carried out their
most recent research project, as in the Moorman et al. (1992) research.
They were instructed to answer questions about the specific relationship
and to keep in mind not only the last research but also the entire relation-
ship they had experienced with that provider. The sample framework in-
cluded 230 companies that were clients of marketing research agencies.
Data collection started in March 2005, and by the end of July 2005, 150
telephone interviews had been completed so the response rate was 65.2%
(Churchill and Iacobucci 2005).
DATA ANALYSIS
The set of items for each construct was initially examined using ex-
ploratory factor analysis (varimax rotation) to identify items not be-
longing to the specified domain. Items with a loading of less than 0.55
and/or cross-loadings greater than 0.35 were discarded. Exploratory fac-
tor analysis revealed four components (eight variables loaded on the
trust component, four on affective commitment, three on normative
commitment and two on calculative commitment). To present the re-
sults of clients' trust and commitment, univariate statistical analyses of
variables (the calculation of arithmetic means and standard deviations)
were performed (tables 1, 2,3 and 4). Data were analysed using the spss
13.0 statistical package.
Further, to test the proposed hypotheses, confirmatory factor analy-
sis was performed and a structural model (with trust as an exogenous
variable and components of commitment as endogenous variables) was
tested. The analysis was carried out using the lisrel 8.72 statistical pack-
age. During confirmatory factor analysis we trimmed the model by dis-
carding items for each construct where necessary in order to ensure the
best fitting model. In the final model there were four measurement vari-
ables for trust, four measurement variables for affective commitment,
three measurement variables for normative commitment and one mea-
suring variable for calculative commitment. The only problematic vari-
able was calculative commitment, where we decided to use only one in-
dicator that had the highest average value as a representative measure of
this construct. The goodness-of-fit indices for the cfa were within an
acceptable range. The model has a statistically significant value of chi-
square (x2 = 69.38, df = 49, p = 0.029), but the proportion between the
chi-square value and degrees of freedom (x2/df = 1.42) is within an ac-
ceptable range. Other measures of absolute fit (the root mean square of
error of approximation (rmsea) = 0.053, the standardized root mean
square residual (srmr) = 0.065 and gfi = 0.928) indicated an accept-
able fit, as well as incremental fit measures (nfi = 0.944, nnfi = 0.975,
agfi = 0.885) and parsimonious fit measures (cfi = 0.981) (Bollen 1989;
Hoyle 1995). We then tested the item and construct reliability (table 5).
All items were reliable and all values for composite reliability were above
the critical limit. According to a complementary measure for construct
reliability, average variance extracted, all constructs demonstrated good
reliability. Further, both convergent and discriminant validity (assessed
by the procedures proposed by Anderson and Gerbing 1988) were sup-
ported.
Results
sample characteristics
The majority of companies that responded to the questionnaire were
providers of business services (24.7%), followed by manufacturing
(23.3%) and trade companies (22%). The rest were providers of ser-
vices for consumers (12.7%), services for both companies and consumers
(11.3%), while 6% came from other industries. Altogether, 40.7% of the
companies had up to 50 employees; there were 24.7% of companies
with 101-500 employees and 21.3% of companies with over 501 employ-
ees, while there were fewer companies with 51-100 employees (13.3%).
Among the studied relationships (with the agency that performed the
last research project) most relationships are two to four (42.2%) and
five or more (42.2%) years old. There are 15.6% of relationships that
had lasted up to two years. The average duration of a relationship is 4.4
years. We also examined what is the value share of projects done by this
provider among all research projects carried out with outside suppliers
of marketing research. The average value share of research projects con-
ducted by the studied agency is 76.1%. This means that the majority of
respondents had described their relationship with their most important
provider of marketing research.
trust
Respondents on average indicated a high level of trust in the research
agency (table 1). They more than agreed that they can trust that the re-
search agency will execute research with methodological rigour (mean
6.35; standard deviation 0.93), that it will keep their data confidential
(mean 6.32; standard deviation 0.88) and that it will plan research with
expertise (mean 6.05; standard deviation 1.03). These results show that
clients see their provider as credible. They also trust in the agency's hon-
esty (mean 5.93; standard deviation 1.38), that it provides them with cred-
ible information (mean 5.85; standard deviation 1.03) and that it keeps its
promises (mean 5.72; standard deviation 1.25). However, it seems that the
high level of trust is partly a consequence of clients' involvement in the
research process. Respondents indicated somewhat less agreement with
the statements that they would be willing to let the researcher make im-
portant decisions without their involvement (mean 5.56; standard devia-
tion 1.28) and that they trust the researcher would do the job correctly if
not monitored (mean 5.61; standard deviation 1.24). One possible expla-
nation here could be that the clients are not completely convinced of the
providers' benevolence.
components of commitment
The respondents on average rated the variables measuring affective com-
mitment the highest of all the components (table 2). They expressed the
greatest agreement with the statement that they continue to work with
table 1 Descriptive statistics for variables measuring trust
Variable	Mean	Std. dev.
If I or someone from my department could not be reached by our researcher, I would be willing to let my researcher make important research decisions without my involvement (trust1).	5.56	1.28
If I or someone from my department were unable to monitor my researcher's activities, I would be willing to trust my researcher to get the job done right (trust2).	5.61	1.24
I can trust that the agency will plan the research with expertise (trust3).	6.05	1.03
I cannot trust that the agency will execute research with method- ological rigour (r) (trust4).	6.35	0.93
I can trust that the agency will keep our data confidential (trust5).	6.32	0.88
This agency keeps the promises it makes to our firm (trust6).	5.72	1.25
This agency is not always honest with us (r) (trust7).	5.93	1.38
We believe in the information that this agency provides us with (trust8).	5.85	1.03
notes Variables trust4 and trust8 were reversely coded. The results pertain to the re-
versely scored item.
the agency because it is pleasant working with them (mean 5.52; stan-
dard deviation 1.32), followed by staying with this agency because they
genuinely enjoy their relationship (mean 4.83; standard deviation 1.56),
because they are attracted to the things the agency stands for as a com-
pany (mean 4.77; standard deviation 1.54), and because they like working
with the company (mean 4.63; standard deviation 1.58). For all the mea-
sured variables of affective commitment the mean scores are above 4,
which means that the respondents have on average more than a neutral
attitude to the statements.
On the other hand, the calculative commitment in the examined rela-
tionships was relatively low (table 3). Respondents on average rated state-
ments expressing calculative commitment between 'not at all true' (1)
and 'partly not true' (3). Of two calculative commitment variables that
were retained in the analysis they on average indicated the greatest agree-
ment with the statement that they stay with this research agency because
it is too difficult to change it due to a lack of good alternatives (mean
3.02; standard deviation 1.93). To a lesser extent, they agreed that they
continue the relationship due to necessity, since no feasible alternatives
exist (mean 2.31; standard deviation 1.93).
The respondents indicated an even lower normative commitment to
table 2 Descriptive statistics for variables measuring affective commitment
Variable	Mean Std. dev.
It is pleasant working with the agency, that's why we continue to	4.59	1.52
work with them (acomt).
Our decision to remain a client of this company is based on our	3.82	1.60
attraction to the things the agency stands for as a company (acom2).
We want to remain a client of this agency because we genuinely	3.63 1.56
enjoy our relationship with the agency (acom3).
Because we like working with the agency we want to remain their 3.65 1.60
client (acom4).
table 3 Descriptive statistics for variables measuring calculative commitment
Variable	Mean Std. dev.
Right now, staying with the agency is a matter of necessity since no 3.28 2.24
feasible alternatives exist (ccom1).
It is too difficult to switch to another agency because of the lack of 3.10 2.21
good alternatives; therefore we are staying with the agency; other-
wise we'd consider leaving (ccom4).
table 4 Descriptive statistics for variables measuring normative commitment
Variable	Mean	Std. dev.
Employees who work with the agency would feel guilty if we	1.77	1.09
dropped them as a supplier (ncom1).
We feel a sense of duty to remain a client to this agency (ncom2).	2.05	1.24
Even if it were to our firm's advantage, we feel it would be dishon-	1.71	1.10
ourable if we were to leave the agency (ncom4).
their research providers (table 4). On average, they did not agree that
they continue to work with this provider because they feel a sense of duty
to do so (mean 2.34; standard deviation 1.51) and that employees who
work with this agency would feel guilty if they dropped them as a supplier
(mean 2.28; standard deviation 1.54). The lowest level of agreement was
expressed with the statement that it would be dishonourable if they were
to leave the agency even if it were to their firm's advantage (mean 1.79;
standard deviation 1.17).
hypotheses testing
The final structural equation model includes the exogenous latent vari-
able trust and endogenous latent variables affective, calculative and nor-
mative commitment. With the exogenous variable trust we can explain
45.0% of the variance in affective commitment, 5.83% of the variance
in the normative commitment and only 1.15% of the variance in cal-
culative commitment. Affective commitment is therefore relatively well
explained by the independent variable, while calculative and normative
commitment are not. The fit indices for the overall model are within
an acceptable range. Like with the measurement model, the structural
model also has a statistically significant value of the chi-square test (x2
= 79.96, df = 49, p = 0.008), but the proportion between the chi-square
value and degrees of freedom is within an acceptable range (x2/df = 1.63).
All other relevant fit indices are also within an acceptable range (rmsea
= 0.060; standardised rmr = 0.084; gfi = 0.918; agfi = 0.877; nfi =
0.937; nnfi = 0.970; cfi = 0.976). The analysis with lisrel revealed,
that among components of commitment, trust positively influences af-
fective (standardised coefficient 0.67) and normative commitment (stan-
dardised coefficient 0.24), while it has no statistically significant effect on
calculative commitment (standardised coefficient -0.11). H1, H2 and H3
are therefore supported.
Results revealed a positive correlation between affective and norma-
tive commitment (standardised coefficient 0.35), while there was no sta-
tistically significant correlation between affective and calculative com-
mitment (standardised coefficient -0.10) and normative and calculative
commitment (standardised coefficient 0.11). h4 and h5 are therefore
supported, while h6 is not supported.
Conclusions and Implications
The purpose of this paper was to work towards establishing empiri-
cal generalisations by researching the relationship between trust and
the components of commitment in professional services in business-
to-business markets in a post-transitional economy. First, trust and
commitment were examined and then relationships between trust and
components of commitment and relationships among the components
of commitment were tested. The results show that trust in research
providers in the examined context of Slovenia is high. Clients on average
believe their research providers are credible (have sufficient expertise to
perform the job effectively and reliably) and benevolent (the provider's
intentions and motives are beneficial to the client). These results are in
line with findings from the in-depth interviews with clients. Since the
results of marketing research projects are used as an input for decision-
making, and due to the high degree of risk and uncertainty connected
table 5 Overall cfa for the modified measurement model (n = 150)
Construct and indicators	(1)	(2)	(3)
Trust (exogenous variable)		0.85	0.62
I can let my researcher make important research decisions without my involvement (trusti).	0.88 (12.91)	0.78	0.22
I would be willing to trust my researcher to get the job done right without monitoring (trust2).	0.81 (11.31)	0.65	0.35
I can trust that the agency will plan the research with exper- tise (trust3).	0.66 (8.65)	0.44	0.56
We believe in the information that this agency provides us with (trust8).	0.71 (9.56)	0.51	0.49
Affective commitment (endogenous variable)
It is pleasant working with the agency, that's why we con-
tinue to work with them (acom1).
Our decision to remain a client of this company is based
on our attraction to the things the agency stands for as a
company (acom2).
We want to remain a client of this agency because we gen-
uinely enjoy our relationship with the agency (acom3).
Because we like working with the agency we want to remain
their client (acom4).
Calculative commitment (endogenous variable)
It is too difficult to switch to another agency because of the
lack of good alternatives; therefore we are staying with the
agency; otherwise we'd consider leaving (ccom4).
Normative commitment (endogenous variable)
Employees who work with this agency would feel guilty if we
dropped them as a supplier (ncom1).
We feel a sense of duty to remain a client to this agency
(ncom2).
Even if it were to our firm's advantage, we feel it would be
dishonorable if we were to leave the agency (ncom4).
notes Table columns are as follows: (1) completely standardized loading (t-value); (2)
construct and indicator reliability, (3) variance extracted and error variance.
to this kind of purchase, clients stressed trust as the key element of the
relationship with the marketing research provider. They also named the
absence of trust as one of the main reasons for discontinuing a rela-
tionship. Therefore, we can assume that clients continue to work only
with the providers they trust. Moorman et al. (1992) similarly concluded
0.85	0.59
0.76 (10.30) 0.57 0.43
0.72 (9.56) 0.51	0.49
0.85 (12.18) 0.72	0.28
0.76 (10.30) 0.57 0.43
1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 0.00
0.77	0.54
0.72 (8.66) 0.52	0.48
0.90 (10.78) 0.80	0.19
0.55 (6.54) 0.30	0.70
that trust is one of the most important factors influencing the use of
marketing research because it decreases the perceived uncertainty and
vulnerability connected to the use of marketing information.
Results on commitment revealed that the clients of marketing research
agencies continue their relationship with their providers mostly for affec-
tive reasons (feeling good in the relationship), while calculative (seeing
no alternatives) and normative (feeling obligation to stay) reasons do not
play an important role. The research also shows that calculative and espe-
cially normative commitment levels are very low among the majority of
companies. These results are in line with the findings from the in-depth
interviews. The interviewed clients indicated that they continue relation-
ships due to affective reasons; calculative reasons are less present, while
they feel no normative/moral commitment to their research provider.
These results also coincide with results from other developed Western
contexts where the majority of researchers only studied affective and cal-
culative commitment and did not even include normative commitment
in their models. Meyer and Allen (1997) pointed out that normative com-
mitment could be stronger than affective commitment in collectivistic
cultures that stress strong social bonds and obligations and in cultures
with high uncertainty avoidance and where loyalty is an important value.
The majority of studies of the components of commitment were carried
out in developed Western cultures that do not have these characteristics,
which can explain why this construct does not appear in the majority of
commitment models.
The findings concerning the relationships between the components of
commitment are mostly in line with the results in other contexts. We
supported the hypothesis about positive correlation between affective
and normative commitment; however, in our case this correlation was
weak, while other studies (Bansal et al. 2004; Kelly 2004; Kumar et al.
1994; Meyer et al. 2002) found a moderate to strong correlation between
these two constructs. In line with the proposed hypothesis there was no
correlation between affective and calculative commitment, which is in
line with Kumar et al. (1994), but contrary to Kelly (2004). Lastly, in line
with Kelly (2004) and Kumar et al. (1994) we proposed a positive corre-
lation between normative and calculative commitment, while the results
show this correlation is not statistically significant. Since we measured
only motivation to continue the relationship due to lack of alternatives
(variables measuring calculative commitment based on switching costs
had to be discarded during exploratory factor analysis), our results per-
tain only to that part of calculative commitment and are therefore not
directly comparable to results of those past studies that included both.
The findings concerning the relationships between trust and affec-
tive commitment are in line with the results of studies performed in the
contexts of developed countries that discovered the positive influence of
trust on affective commitment (Geyskens et al. 1996; Wetzels et al. 1998;
de Ruyter et al. 2001; de Ruyter and Wetzels 1999; Wetzels et al. 2000;
de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002; Gounaris 2005) and on commitment that
was measured as a global construct implicitly tapping the affective di-
mension (Moorman et al. 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Goodman and
Dion 2001; Perry et al. 2002; Friman et al. 2002; Lohtia et al. 2005; Ro-
driguez and Wilson 2002; Tellefsen and Thomas 2005; Walter and Rit-
ter 2003). The outcomes also confirm the proposed positive influence of
trust on normative commitment (de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002). On the
other hand, the results do not confirm the proposed negative influence
of trust on calculative commitment that was found by researchers in the
context of developed countries (Geyskens et al. 1996; Wetzels et al. 1998;
Wetzels et al. 2000; de Ruyter et al. 2001; de Ruyter and Wetzels 1999;
de Ruyter and Semeijn 2002; Gounaris 2005). In our research this influ-
ence was too weak to be statistically significant. The reason could again
be in the earlier explained measuring of calculative commitment. The
results of this study therefore add towards establishing empirical gener-
alisations about trust and commitment by indicating that the relation-
ship between trust and the components of commitment in professional
services in the examined post-transitional economy is similar to that in
the cultures of the developed Western economies. The only hypothesis
that was not supported is about the relationship between trust and cal-
culative commitment. Therefore, we cannot claim that a higher degree of
trust in a relationship leads to a lower degree of motivation to continue
relationship due to lack of alternatives.
Besides theoretical implications, this study also offers implications for
marketing research providers. Since clients place a very high level of
importance on the credibility, benevolence and honesty of the research
providers they work with, we could say these factors can literally make or
break a relationship. Marketing research firms should therefore continue
to provide quality and reliable services that clients can trust; they should
be sincere and fulfil promises. Providers should also convince clients of
their benevolence so that clients would not feel they have to monitor the
research process so closely. Regarding the components of commitment,
trust leads to a high level of affective commitment or, in other words, a
strong desire to maintain a relationship. Researchers (Kumar et al. 1994;
Gounaris 2005; Wetzels et al. 1998) found that the consequences of af-
fective commitment are superior to the consequences of calculative and
normative commitment. While affective commitment creates positive
intentions that help to maintain and strengthen relationships, calcula-
tive commitment has just the opposite effects on behavioural intentions.
Creating affective commitment is therefore the most important because
it has the strongest effect on the customers' intentions to continue the
relationship and consequently on the provider's revenues. Managers of
marketing research providers should keep this in mind when crafting
their firms' approach to marketing strategy.
This study shows only one part of the whole picture and many op-
portunities thus exist for future research. Since there are other factors
that influence the development of relationship commitment (e. g. satis-
faction, social ties, co-operation, communication etc.), future research
should relate those factors within the framework and test their relation-
ships with the components of commitment. Special attention should also
be paid to examining the antecedents of calculative and normative com-
mitment because trust, as one of the most important relationship factors
in professional services, apparently does not play a major role in their de-
velopment. In addition, scales for measuring these two constructs should
be further refined. Last but not least, this framework could be tested in
other contexts of professional services in the Slovenian market or in an-
other post-transitional or transitional economy to see if differences ex-
ist compared to developed economies that have not undergone major
changes in the past few years.
References
Adams, J. M., and W. H. Jones. 1997. The conceptualization of marital
commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 72 (5): 1177-96.
Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of af-
fective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 (1): 1-18.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review of recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin 103 (3): 411-23.
Bansal, H. S., P. G. Irving, and S. F. Taylor. 2004. A three-component
model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3): 234-50.
Berghäll, S. 2003. Perceptions of dyadic business relationships: In search
of the social psychological basis of interpersonal relationship percep-
tions in socio-economic exchange relationships. Marketing Theory 3
(1): 59-77.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley.
Churchill, G. A. J., and D. Iacobucci. 2005. Marketing research: Method-
ological foundations. Mason, oh: Thomson South-Western.
de Ruyter, K., and J. Semeijn. 2002. Forging buyer-seller relationships for
total quality management in international business: The case of the
European cement industry. Total Quality Management 13 (3): 403-17.
de Ruyter, K., and M. Wetzels. 1999. Commitment in auditor-client rela-
tionships: Antecedents and consequences. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 24 (1): 57-75.
de Ruyter, K., L. Moorman, and J. Lemmink. 2001. Antecedents of com-
mitment and trust in customer-supplier relationships in high technol-
ogy markets. Industrial Marketing Management 30 (3): 271-86.
Doney, P. M., and J. P. Cannon. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust
in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61 (2): 35-51.
Dwyer, R. F., P. H. Schurr, and S. Oh. 1987. Developing buyer-seller rela-
tionships. Journal of Marketing 51 (2): 11-27.
Etzioni, A. 1988. The moral dimension. New York: The Free Press.
Friman, M., T. Gaerling, B. Millett, J. Mattsson, and R. Johnston. 2002.
An analysis of international business-to-business relationships based
on the commitment-trust theory. Industrial Marketing Management
31 (5): 403-9.
Fullerton, G. 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal ofSer-
vice Research 5 (4): 333-44.
-. 2005a. The service quality-loyalty relationship in retail services:
Does commitment matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
12 (2): 83-97.
-. 2005b. The impact of brand commitment on loyalty in retail ser-
vice brands. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 22 (2): 97-110.
Ganesan, S. 1994. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing 58 (2): 1-19.
Geyskens, I., J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp, and N. Kumar. 1998. Generalizations
about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 15 (3): 223-48.
-. 1999. A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel rela-
tionships. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (2): 223-38.
Geyskens, I., J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp, L. K. Scheer, and N. Kumar. 1996. The
effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A
transatlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13
(4): 303-17.
Gilliland, D. I., and D. C. Bello. 2002. Two sides to attitudinal commit-
ment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforce-
ment mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 30 (1): 24-43.
Goodman, L. E., and P. A. Dion. 2001. The determinants of commit-
ment in the distributor-manufacturer relationship. Industrial Market-
ing Management 30 (3): 287-300.
Gounaris, S. P. 2005. Trust and commitment influences on customer re-
tention: Insights from business-to-business services. Journal of Busi-
ness Research 58 (2): 126-40.
Gounaris, S. P., and K. Venetis. 2002. Trust in industrial service relation-
ships: Behavioral consequences, antecedents and the moderating ef-
fects of the duration of the relationship. Journal of Services Marketing
16 (7): 636-55.
Gruen, T. W., J. O. Summers, and F. Acito. 2000. Relationship marketing
activities, commitment and membership behaviors in professional as-
sociations. Journal of Marketing 64 (3): 34-49.
Gundlach, G. T., R. S. Achrol, and J. T. Mentzer. 1995. The structure of
commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing 59 (1): 78-92.
Hackett, R. D., P. Bycio, and P. A. Hausdorf. 1994. Further assessments
of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational
commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1): 15-23.
Hakansson, H., and I. Snehota, eds. 1995. Developing relationships in busi-
ness networks. London: Routledge.
Hakansson, H., and I. Snehota. 1998. The burden of relationships or who's
next. In Network dynamics in international marketing, ed. P. Naude and
P. Turnbull, 16-25. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hakansson, H., I.-J. Henjesand, and A. Waluszewski. 2004. Introduc-
tion: Rethinking marketing. In Rethinking marketing: Developing a
new understanding of markets, ed. H. Hakansson, D. Harrison and A.
Waluszewski, 1-12. Chichester: Wiley.
Han, S.-L., D. T. Wilson, and S. P. Dant. 1993. Buyer-supplier relationships
today. Industrial Marketing Management 22 (4): 331-8.
Hoyle, R. H. 1995. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and ap-
plications. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Kelly, S. J. 2004. Measuring attitudinal commitment in business-to-business
channels. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 22 (6): 636-51.
Kim, K., and G. L. Frazier. 1997a. Measurement of distributor commit-
ment in industrial channels of distribution. Journal of Business Re-
search 40 (2): 139-54.
-. 1997b. On distributor commitment in industrial channels of dis-
tribution: A multicomponent approach. Psychology and Marketing 14
(8): 847-77.
Kumar, N., J. D. Hibbard, and L. W. Stern. 1994. The nature and conse-
quences of marketing channel intermediary commitment. Working
paper 94-115, Marketing Science Institute.
Kumar, N., L. K. Scheer, and J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp. 1995. The effect of
supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research
32 (1): 54-65.
Lohtia, R., D. C. Bello, T. Yamada, and D. I. Gilliland. 2005. The role
of commitment in foreign-Japanese relationships: Mediating perfor-
mance for foreign sellers in Japan. Journal of Business Research 58 (8):
1009-18.
Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model
of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709-
34.
Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L. Topolnytsky. 2002. Affec-
tive, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 20-52.
Moorman, C., G. Zaltman, and R. Deshpande. 1992. Relationships be-
tween providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust
within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research 29
(3): 314-29.
Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (3): 20-38.
Morris, M. H., J. Brunyee, and M. Page. 1998. Relationship marketing in
practice: Myths and realities. Industrial Marketing Management 27 (4):
359-71.
Naude, P., and F. Buttle. 2000. Assessing relationship quality. Industrial
Marketing Management 29 (4): 351-62.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. 1985. A conceptual model
of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of
Marketing 49 (4): 41-50.
Perry, C., A. Cavaye, and L. Coote. 2002. Technical and social bonds within
business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing 17 (1): 75-88.
Rodriguez, C. M., and D. T. Wilson. 2002. Relationship bonding and trust
as a foundation for commitment in us-Mexican strategic alliances: A
structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Mar-
keting 10 (4): 53-76.
Rylander, D., D. Strutton, and L. E. Pelton. 1997. Towards a synthesized
framework of relational commitment: Implications for marketing
channel theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-
tice 5 (1): 58-71.
Tellefsen, T., and G. P. Thomas. 2005. The antecedents and consequences
of organizational and personal commitment in business service rela-
tionships. Industrial Marketing Management 34 (1): 23-37.
Walter, A., and T. Ritter. 2003. The influence of adaptations, trust, and
commitment on value-creating functions of customer relationships.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 18 (4-5): 353-65.
Wetzels, M., K. de Ruyter, and J. Lemmink. 2000. Antecedents and conse-
quences of service quality in business-to-business services. In Hand-
book of services marketing and management, ed. T. A. Swartz and D.
Iacobucci, 343-56. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Wetzels, M., K. de Ruyter, and M. van Birgelen. 1998. Marketing service
relationships: The role of commitment. Journal of Business and Indus-
trial Marketing 13 (4-5): 406-23.
Wilson, D. T. 1995. An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4): 335-45.
Young, L., and S. Denize. 1995. A concept of commitment: Alternative
views of relational continuity in business service relationships. Jour-
nal of Business and Industrial Marketing 10 (5): 22-37.