The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.

htm

APJML 24,1

102
Received 26 February 2011 Accepted 18 August 2011

An empirical investigation of customer dependence in interpersonal buyer-seller relationships

Kareem Abdul Waheed
Institute of Management Technology, Dubai International Academic City, Dubai, UAE, and

Sanjaya S. Gaur
AUT Business School, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose In the current highly competitive marketing environment, there are few situations in which customers attempt to build and maintain relationships with marketers. In large-format retail situations, customers maintain a non-personal association with the store and personal relationships with salespersons. By contrast, many customers in developing countries such as India build and maintain long-term relationships directly with the small-scale retailers, who happen to be the owners as well as the salespersons of the store. The purpose of this paper is to focus on customer dependence on the retailer, a rare phenomenon which is evident in rural areas of India even today. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on an empirical study of a buyer-seller relationship between a farmer and a chemical fertilizer retailer, which is a common interpersonal business constellation in India. Findings The paper identies the determinants of customer dependence as customer perceived market uncertainty, product importance and product familiarity. The paper also explains the positive effects of customer dependence on customer trust. Originality/value Traditionally, customer dependence is viewed as a structural constraint in relationship outcomes. The effect of customer dependence on power, control and opportunistic behavior in the buyer-seller relationship context is well researched. This paper applies an interpersonal trust-development perspective and views customer dependence as a positive relationship construct and lls an apparent gap in research on customer dependence in the context of the interpersonal buyer-seller relationship. Keywords India, Rural areas, Buyer-seller relationships, Customer dependence, Customer trust Paper type Research paper

Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics Vol. 24 No. 1, 2012 pp. 102-124 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1355-5855 DOI 10.1108/13555851211192722

Introduction In the current highly competitive marketing environment, there are few situations in which customers attempt to build and maintain relationships with marketers. In large-format retail situations, customers maintain a non-personal association with the store and personal relationships with salespersons. By contrast, many customers in developing countries like India build and maintain long-term relationships
The authors are grateful to Dr Brian Bloch for his comprehensive editing of the manuscript.

directly with the small-scale retailers, who happen to be the owners as well as the salespersons of the store. The relationship marketing research extensively covers such variables as customer dependence, satisfaction, trust and loyalty, which play an important role in building and maintaining long-term relationships (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Andaleeb, 1995; Rajaobelina and Bergeron, 2009; Kassim and Abdullah, 2010). With regard to research in the retail domain, there is a focus on customer satisfaction, trust, loyalty and emotional attachment (Westbrook, 1981; Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Reynolds and Beaty, 1999; Vlachos et al., 2010). In this paper, we focus on customer dependence on the retailer, a rare phenomenon which is evident in rural areas of India even today. Dependence is an important initiating variable for buyer-seller relationship. Dependence has been studied in the marketing channel and industrial buying literature (Andaleeb, 1995, 1996; Lusch and Brown, 1996; Gassenheimer et al., 1996, 1998; Joshi and Arnold, 1998) with an interorganizational relationship perspective. Retailing in India is still dominated by an interpersonal-based buyer-seller relationship. To the best of our knowledge, no study in the eld has researched customer dependence from an interpersonal buyer-seller relationship perspective. We attempt to identify the determinants of customer dependence and study the effects on customer trust both through the literature and conceptual model development. We conducted a survey to study customer dependence in the relationship between a farmer and a chemical fertilizer retailer, which is an example of a typical interpersonal buyer-seller relationship in Indian context. Literature review The extant literature suggests that dependence of one party on another provides power to the less dependent party (Anderson and Narus, 1984; Dwyer et al., 1987; Ganesan, 1994). There is broader research on the negative aspects of dependence for long-term relationships ( Johnson, 1999). The negative aspects of dependence are evident when the powerful party tends to enforce a control mechanism then the dependent party tends to behave opportunistically. This phenomenon ultimately discourages parties from maintaining long-term relationships (Andaleeb, 1995, 1996; Monczka et al., 1995). It is therefore useful to understand coordinative behavior between buyer and seller subject to asymmetric dependence. Emerson (1962) developed dependence theory in an interpersonal dependence perspective. According to this theory, dependence is dened as the degree of dependence of one individual on another as a multiplicative function of two factors: the value of the goal that the other individual mediates and the perceived availability of alternative avenues for achieving the goal. In other words, the dependence of an individual on a source person is directly related to the rewards obtained from that source and inversely related to the number of alternative sources of those rewards. From an interorganizational perspective (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 51), dependence is dened as the product of importance of a given input or output to the organization and the extent to which it is controlled by relatively few organizations. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) further describe dependency as a measure of the potency of the external organizations or groups in a given organizational environment, and of the extent to which organizations must be taken into account, perceived as important and considered in organizational decision making. The pressure on organizations to comply

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 103

APJML 24,1

104

with external demands is especially signicant when the level of dependency is high. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) also mention three critical factors which determine the dependence of one organization on another: (1) the extent to which the interest group has discretion over resource allocation and use; (2) the extent to which they are limited by the availability of alternatives, or the extent of control over the resource by the interest group; and (3) the essentiality of the resource, the extent to which the organizations require it for continued operation and survival. Frooman (1999) describes resource essentiality as a function of two factors: (1) the relative magnitude of exchange; and (2) criticality. The percentage of inputs to outputs accounted for by an exchange determines the relative magnitude of the exchange. Hence, one organization depends on another if a large proportion of its inputs are supplied by the latter. The criticality of a resource has to do with whether an organization can exist without it. Therefore, for an organization to be effective and increase its probability of survival and success, it has to deal with inuences from external actors. An organization can undertake three types of action. The rst is to comply with such inuence. The second response is to evade it, and the nal is to alter external demands by modifying its relationships with external actors. According to the theory, organizations take actions to reduce the risk caused by uncertainty in interdependencies, by modifying their relationships with the external environment (Stern and Reve, 1980). Resource dependence theory (RDT) has been applied in the marketing eld, mostly in the marketing channel literature, in order to understand the effects of dependence between the channel partners (Cronin et al., 1994; Gassenheimer and Ramsey, 1994; Andaleeb, 1996). RDT has also been applied in industrial buying situations (Biong and Selnes, 1995; Joshi and Arnold, 1998; Handeld and Bechtel, 2002). RDT has been applied both to marketing channels and industrial buying situations, in an interorganizational perspective of dependence. De Wulf (1999) questions the use of RDT in explaining long-term exchange relationships resulting from coordinative behavior based on trust. Trust is a basic component in any human interaction (Gambetta, 1988). In marketing, trust is studied in interpersonal as well as interorganizational-based buyer-seller relationships in various contexts (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Dwyer et al., 1987; Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Kennedy et al., 2001; Dagger and OBrien, 2010). Customer dependence and trust are closely related constructs (Andaleeb, 1995, 1996). There is a dearth of literature on the link between customer dependence and trust. We attempt to apply an interpersonal trust development perspective (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996) to the effects of customer dependence in interpersonal buyer-seller relationships. Several empirical studies identify a strong positive association between dependence and commitment (Goodman and Dion, 2001; Gutierrez et al., 2004; Sriram et al., 1992; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1996). Hence, the focus of the present study is on direct effect of dependence on trust. However, we do not consider the effect of dependence on commitment, as this issue has already been studied comprehensively.

Customer dependence in interpersonal buyer-seller relationships Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual model of determinants of customer dependence and both direct and indirect effects of customer dependence on customer trust in interpersonal buyer-seller relationships. Customer-perceived product familiarity, product importance and supply uncertainty are expected to impact on customer dependence on the seller. Customer dependence should impact directly on customer trust. Determinants of customer dependence and customer trust Product familiarity. This concept refers to the degree of knowledge of a particular product or service (Alonso, 2000; Tuu and Ottar, 2009). Increased product knowledge increases the expertise of the customer (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Knowledgeable customers consider the purchase decision making less complex compared to less knowledgeable (Dellaert and Stremersch, 2005). Product knowledge provides condence to the customers and it acts as a precursor for expert power (Chinomona and Pretorius, 2011). There are numerous studies in distribution channel relationships area that suggest suppliers expert power enables the supplier to infuse control mechanism in a non-coercive way and involve the customer to be non-coercively committed to the relationship and exhibit cooperative behavior (Harsini, 2001; Sahadev, 2005; Zhao et al., 2008; Lindblom et al., 2009). Because, customers perceive high risk when they lack product/service expertise, they tend to depend on a particular seller or service provider (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Schultze, 2003). Also, as argued by Chakrabarty et al. (2010), highly dependent customers need the products/services of the selling organization and the knowledge and expertise of salespeople. Hence, the suppliers expert power necessitates the customer to depend on the supplier. When customers gain such an expert power which supplier possesses, they need not follow the control mechanism of the supplier and be not dependent on the supplier. Furthermore, expert power enables customers to switch easily between suppliers as their perceived switching costs is reduced, especially their procedural costs of switching (Burnham et al., 2003). There are a couple of empirical ndings that support our above argument. Selnes and Hansen (2001) argued that the frequent use of self service (which is commonly used by informed customers) by customers reduces the perceived utilitarian value of service person and found that it reduces the social bonding between the customer and the service person. Capraro et al. (2003) examined the relationship between level of knowledge about alternatives and defection in the context of actual health insurance choices and found that the level of objective and subjective knowledge about alternatives has a direct effect on likelihood of defection above and beyond satisfaction level. Hence:

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 105

Product familiarity Supply uncertainty Product importance

+ + Customer dependence + + Customer trust

Figure 1. Conceptual model of customer dependence for rural traders

APJML 24,1

H1a. The greater the level of customer product familiarity; the lower the level of customer dependence on the retailer. As mentioned in the above paragraph, product familiarity refers to the degree of knowledge of a particular product or service (Alonso, 2000; Tuu and Ottar, 2009). Knowledge reduces perceived risk, improves the condence and provides expert power to the power holder (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Schultze, 2003). Expert power reduces conict and enhances the satisfaction between the exchange partners (Lee, 2001). One partys expert power leads the other party to trust the former. Extant literature in marketing channels also suggests that the supplier expert power positively impacts customer trust (Harsini, 2001; Sahadev, 2005; Chinmona and Pretorius, 2011). In retailing context, Busch and Wilson (1976) conducted an experimental analysis of salesman expert and referent social power on customer trust in the salesman and found that the customers perceive both sources of power to be trustworthy. Also, they found that the expert power was more important than referent power in affecting customer trust. When the customer acquires that expertise which the salesman possesses, then the situation becomes different. Bell and Eisingerich (2007) argued that the customer investment expertise will reduce their loyalty to the nancial service provider (although they did not nd empirical support for their argument). If a customer trusts a trader solely regarding the task of the trader, it is considered as a low degree of trust (Kao, 1998). When the customer is familiar with the task that the trader is performing for him, it is logical to conclude that the former need not trust the later. There are divergent empirical ndings on this issue. Coulter and Coulter (2003) found that customer knowledge/familiarity acted as a negative moderator on the impact of perceived service person personality related characteristics (e.g. empathy) on customer trust. A negative impact of product familiarity on trust was tested empirically in a developing country context by Andaleeb and Anwar (1996), who found a non-signicant relationship. However, a research from a developed country by Kennedy et al. (2001) yielded a signicant negative relationship between product familiarity and trust in the salesperson, which suggests the need for further investigation. Hence: H1b. Increased customer product familiarity is associated with lower levels of customer trust in retailers. Product importance. Bloch and Richins (1983, p. 71) dene perceived product importance as, the extent to which a consumer links a product to salient, enduring or situation-specic goals. Product importance is derived from the product characteristics, consumer characteristics and purchase situation (Bloch and Richins, 1983). If the product is perceived to be important to customer goals, risk perceived by the customer will be high (McQuiston, 1989). In such situations, customers always try to reduce the perceived risk, tending to acquire more information about the availability of alternatives. If there are alternatives available, they would be in a more powerful and comfortable position than the suppliers. Otherwise, customers have to depend on the supplier. Customer dependence on the supplier is one way by which the customer attempts to reduce perceived risk (Pires and Stanton, 2005). Customers need to depend on the supplier when they perceive their product purchase decisions to be important. Hence: H2a. The greater the perceived importance of the product, the greater the customer dependence on the retailer.

106

Product importance is the perceived signicance of the buying decision in terms of the size of the purchase and/or the potential impact of the purchase on the buyer (Kool et al., 1997). Shepherd and Zacharakis (2003, p. 155) argued that if the purchase price represents a signicant amount of the buyers income and/or represents an emotional decision, then the importance placed on the product is high. It also increases the expectations of the customers (Patterson et al., 1997). Conceptually, product importance refers to the perceived consequences of making the wrong decision and determines the amount of time the buyer allocates to the purchase decision. The more important the purchase, the greater the perceived risk of the purchase decision (McQuiston, 1989). Hence, as a risk reduction mechanism, customers increase information acquisition behavior ( Jacoby et al., 1978) and improve information exchanges, operational linkages (Lichtenthal and Tellefsen, 2001; Cannon and Perrault Jr, 1999; Batt, 2000; Metcalf and Frear, 1993), interrm cooperation and social exchanges (Lichtenthal and Tellefsen, 2001; Metcalf and Frear, 1993) with the supplier when they perceive the product to be important for their business. When customers perceive the buying decision of a product/service to be important, Patterson et al. (1997, p. 8) argue that, then to reduce dissonance (e.g. we chose the supplier who performed poorly), the customer will, all things being equal, tend to perceive the performance of the supplier more positively. Patterson et al. (1997) also empirically found that the perceived product importance leads to higher perceptions of performance. It means that when there is greater perceived product importance, customers tend to perceive positive about the supplier by developing collaborative relationships (Cannon and Perrault Jr, 1999). Furthermore, Cannon and Homburg (2001) found that the perceived product importance increases their intention to expand purchases from the current supplier. Empirically, Batt (2000) found a positive relationship between the importance of purchasing seed and farmer trust in their potato seed suppliers. There are some empirical ndings from another related concept to product importance namely, product involvement. When customers perceive certain products or services to be important, they place high purchase involvement on those products or services (Beatty et al., 1988; Mittal, 1989). Bloch and Richins (1983, p. 73) consider product involvement, as the motivational state that results from the stimulus of product importance perceptions. Kinard and Capella (2006, p. 361) found that high involvement consumers perceive relational benets from a service provider. In their research, the relational benets are categorized as condence, social and special treatment. They also argued that the condence benets reduce anxiety levels associated with a service offering, increase perceived trust in the provider, diminish the perception of risk, and enhance knowledge of service expectations. Similarly, Liang and Wang (2008) also found that a higher level of product involvement leads to a higher level of trust and commitment. Hence: H2b. Customer trust in retailers is positively associated with the perceived importance of the product. Supply uncertainty. Uncertainty is dened as unanticipated change in the circumstances surrounding an exchange (Noordewier et al., 1990; Jean et al., 2010) and is a basic requirement for the successful relationship performance between buyer and seller (Ambrose et al., 2010). Uncertainty in the input market is concerned with the availability of adequate and stable input supplies and is a perception the customer holds before making the purchase decision. Supply uncertainty can act as an exit barrier

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 107

APJML 24,1

108

in relationships with suppliers, if there is perceived uncertainty about the availability of alternative supplies and suppliers. If alternative suppliers are uncertain or unavailable, customers are normally motivated to continue established supplier relationships owing to difculties in replacing existing suppliers in input markets. This exit barrier in the customer relationship with the supplier increases customer dependence on the supplier. According to Williamsons (1975) seminal work on transaction costs analysis (TCA) principle, if the input market is really uncertain, it increases transaction costs of the customers. These transaction costs normally happen in two ways namely, deterrenceand compliance-based transaction costs. The customer incurs deterrence-based transaction cost due to non-maintenance of relationship with the supplier when customer perceives the availability of input supplies and suppliers as uncertain. It means that the customer may not be able to continue its production in a smooth way and to avoid such a situation, the customer develops alternative transaction mechanism (increased opportunism) which also involves search cost. Also, customer might have developed idiosyncratic investments (asset specicity) with the focal suppliers input and its processes ( Joshi and Stump, 1999). If customer moves out of the relationship, it leads to the loss of earlier investments specic to the relationship. In order to reduce such cost, customers need to build and maintain long-term relationship with the supplier (Williamson, 1975). Building and maintaining long-term relationships (vertical relations and reduced opportunism) also involves transaction cost which is nothing but compliance-based transaction cost. Customers usually evaluate deterrence- and compliance-based transaction costs. If customers opt for deterrence-based transaction cost, they do not depend on the focal suppliers as they do not mind the expenses in nding alternative supplier and loss of idiosyncratic investments when input market is uncertain. However, if they opt for compliance-based transaction cost, it leads to dependence on suppliers as this dependence is directly proportional to the level of difculty faced in gaining access to alternative sources of valued outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1984, 1990). In practice, customer dependence is a prerequisite for attempts to build long-term relationships with suppliers. There are controversial empirical ndings on the effects of uncertainty on vertical relations (Anderson and Schmittlein, 1984) as implied from Williamsons framework, especially on interaction effects of asset specicity and uncertainty (Rindeisch and Heide, 1996; David and Han, 2004). However, our research focuses on the main effect of uncertainty on vertical relations. Rindeisch and Heide (1996, p. 49) who critiqued TCA contributions state that:
[. . .] these main effects suggest that the problem created by environmental uncertainty is handled more efciently by creating a governance structure that permits adaptation within an ongoing relationship, rather than by switching to a new partner if changes need to be made.

We contend that the customer dependence on seller is one form of such adaptation mentioned above. Hence: H3. The greater the level of supply uncertainty perceived by the customer, the greater the customer dependence on the retailer. Effect of customer dependence on customer trust Researchers such as Andaleeb (1995) on marketing channel relations, and Handeld and Bechtel (2002) on industrial buyer seller relations attempt to separate the effects

of dependence from those of trust. Customer (economic) dependence (measured by supplier assistance and revenue lost) is found to exert a signicant positive effect on customer compliance (Gassenheimer and Calantone, 1994). Andaleeb (1995) questions the assumption of implicit trust in dependence-based relationships between the parties and entails the possibility that the dependent party does not trust the other party. He examines how the behavioral intentions of channel members (such as the intention to cooperate, control and inuence) are likely to be moderated by trust perceptions when dependence is high or low. The results indicate the important role of trust in explaining intentions to cooperate, control and inuence in a buyer-seller dyad. Dependence was also found to inuence intent to cooperate and willingness to adopt a strong stance, but had no effect on intentions to exert control. A widely prevailing argument suggests that when the customer is dependent on the supplier, the supplier can exploit its market power, and customers will be less able to obtain competitive price quotes to negotiate (Monczka et al., 1995). In addition, Handeld and Bechtel (2002) argue that customers may trust a supplier when they have more than one (multiple sourcing), but trust another supplier less, simply because they feel vulnerable, due to the fact that the supplier is the only source in the market for a unique product or service. This argument led Handeld and Bechtel (2002) to test the hypothesis that increased levels of perceived customer dependence on the supplier have a negative impact on customer trust, which was however, not empirically supported in their study. The interpersonal trust development perspective of Lewicki and Bunker (1996) is adopted in this paper in order to justify the hypothesis that customer dependence on the supplier leads to customer trust. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) posit three stages of trust development in interpersonal relationships in a professional context: calculus-based trust (CBT), knowledge-based trust (KBT), and identication-based trust (IBT). According to them, interpersonal trust develops gradually as the parties move from one stage to another, evolving and changing over time. Trust is created as CBT develops; then, as the parties get to know one another better, the relationship may move on to the KBT stage. If only an arms length transaction is required, the relationship may not move beyond CBT. A similar process is involved in the movement from KBT to IBT. At the rst stage of interpersonal trust development, CBT, interpersonal trust is an ongoing, market-oriented, economic calculation whose value is derived by comparing the outcomes resulting from creating and sustaining the relationship to the costs of maintaining or severing it (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996, p. 145). We argue that by denition, both interpersonal dependence and CBT entail the same individual psychological process, as both involve a comparison of the value of outcomes (Emerson, 1962). In other words, interpersonal dependence and CBT are one and the same thing. Hence, as the relationship experience of dependence-based relations is positive, it would lead to the next stages of trust development, KBT and the IBT. KBT relies upon information developed over time, as the parties get to know one another. Increased information enhances the predictability of the other party, which contributes to the development of interpersonal trust (Shapiro et al., 1992). IBT is based on an understanding of the others needs and desires. Here, parties are condent that their interests will be protected, and little or no monitoring of the other is required (Shapiro et al., 1992). This contention is supported by Andaleeb (1995, p. 159), with the initiation of exchange, dependence relations are expected to result. Dependence often establishes a need to build relationships. A recent study by Ferrer et al. (2010) found that

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 109

APJML 24,1

110

the interdependency in inter-rm relationships have a signicant positive inuence on the formation of both arms length and cooperative relationships. In these relationships trust increases the merits of continuing them (Bradach and Eccles, 1989). Stevenson (1997) found a signicant positive relationship between the extent of experience with a negotiation partner and the level of interpersonal trust, and a stronger positive relationship between extent of experience and extent of relationship, when the quality of experience increases. We contend that even when the buyers are in dependent position, the extent and quality of experience gained during the interactions could lead to positive effects on trust. Hence: H4. The greater the customer dependence on the retailer, more the customer trusts the retailer. Methodology Sample In India, interpersonal buyer-seller relationships could be found in consumer-retailer relationships where the retailer is the owner as well as the salesperson of the shop. In this study, we considered the farmer (customer) and the rural-based chemical fertilizer retailer (seller) relationship. India is an agriculture-based country and it has 29 states. Every state has its due share in agriculture. Each state has a distinct language and culture. Farmers of Tamil Nadu state were selected for this study primarily due to the lead authors familiarity with the language, customs, practices and geography of the region. The study required the author to travel across selected villages in person and meet the farmers for personal interviews. The study was conducted with respect to farmers of Madurai, Pudukottai and Trichy districts of Tamil Nadu state, India. These districts have a high per hectare chemical fertilizer consumption. One taluk[1] from each of the above districts with high fertilizer consumption was selected. Ten villages were selected randomly from each of the taluks. Lists of farmers were gathered from the Village Administrative Ofcer of the village in question. The lists from all 30 villages contained a population size of 3,119 farmers. A total sample size of 300 was planned to enable the statistical analysis required for this study. The number of farmers from each village was specied in proportion to the total number of farmers in the lists. The farmers were selected randomly from each village. If the selected farmer was not available, another was chosen randomly from the list, and so that the total number of farmers from each village was maintained as planned. A questionnaire was prepared taking into account all the relevant measures and demographics. The questionnaire was rst translated into Tamil and then back translated to English with the help of English and Tamil language translators (Brislin, 1980; McGorry, 2000). The earlier version of the English questionnaire was compared to the back-translated questionnaire and inconsistencies removed in consultation with the translators (Brislin, 1980; McGorry, 2000). The lead author of this article personally visited all these villages and the questionnaire was lled by the lead author himself while interviewing the respondents. Due care was given to avoid response bias while interviewing the farmers as the interviews were conducted at the farmers home or in his farm. Either they were alone or with their family during the interview. We avoided the situation where other farmers were present during the interview as they could get inuenced to provide socially acceptable responses. About 16 percent (48/300) of the selected farmers from the initial list were not available for the interviews in the village

due to their travel commitments and they were replaced by other farmers randomly selected from the complete farmer list of the respective village. Among the selected farmers for replacement 12.5 percent (5/48) were also not available and they were also replaced by other farmers chosen from the farmer list and the total sample size of 300 was maintained. All the farmers included in this survey had purchased fertilizer either from retailers located in their villages or in nearby villages or towns. The demographic characteristics of respondents are shown in Table I. Approximately 97 percent of the respondents were male. This is primarily due to the fact that the land holding pattern and farm management practices are still considered to be male activities in the rural areas of India. The age of the respondents is well distributed among all age groups. About 2 percent of the respondents had no formal education at all and approximately only 50 percent of the respondents had
Frequency Gender Male Female Age Under 25 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65 Education No formal education Up to elementary school Up to high school Up to higher secondary school Up to college Marital status Married Unmarried Family size Under ve Five to nine Ten-13 14 and above Annual incomea Under Rs 35,000 Rs 35,000-69,999 Rs 70,000-1,04,999 Rs 1,05,000-1,39,999 Rs 1,40,000-1,74,999 Rs 1,75,000 and above 292 8 10 30 30 44 41 32 36 23 23 31 6 49 153 45 47 274 26 59 199 38 4 148 86 45 2 7 12 Percent 97.33 2.67 3.33 10.00 10.00 14.67 13.67 10.67 12.00 7.67 7.67 10.33 2.00 16.33 51.00 15.00 15.67 91.33 8.67 19.67 66.33 12.67 1.33 49.33 28.67 15.00 0.67 2.33 4.00

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 111

Note: aOne American dollar 45.26 Indian rupees as on 26 February 2011

Table I. Characteristics of respondents

APJML 24,1

a high school education. In addition, 91 percent of the respondents were married, with 66.33 percent living in a household comprising of ve to nine members. Half the respondents had an annual income below Rs. 35,000 (approximately US$750). Measurement scales Product familiarity. Most of the researchers conceptualized the construct expertise as one partys perception of the other partys expertise. For example, Chinomona and Pretorius (2011) measured manufacturers perception of dealers expert power, Sahadev (2005) measured distributors perception of supplier expertise and Zhao et al. (2008) measured suppliers perception of customer expert power. However, we conceptualized product familiarity as customers perception about his or her own knowledge about the product which he or she intends to purchase from the retailer. Kennedy et al. (2001) measured buyers perception of their own knowledge about the product. Hence, buyer familiarity with the product was measured on a three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale from Kennedy et al. (2001). In their research, the scale yielded a Cronbach a coefcient of 0.91. The scale was revised slightly to reect the fertilizer purchase situation. Importance of the product. Cannon and Perrault Jr (1999) measured perceived product importance in the context of manufacturing industry. Patterson et al. (1997) measured perceived product importance in the context of business to business professional services. Batt (2000) measured farmers perceived product importance in seed potato purchases. We adapted Batts (2000) scale as it suited context of our study. This scale has two factors, namely supplier evaluation and economic consequences. The rst factor (supplier evaluation) suggested that farmers spend a considerable amount of time making the purchase decision and that, despite the long-standing relationships which often existed between seed suppliers and farmers, the farmers carefully evaluated the alternatives each time they purchased new seed. The supplier evaluation factor yielded a Cronbach a coefcient of 0.73. The second factor (economic consequences) dealt with the cost of purchasing the seed and the number of times the farmer chose to buy the new seed from the supplier. This factor yielded a Cronbachs a of 0.62. The scale was revised to suit the study context. Supply uncertainty. Ambrose et al. (2010) measured uncertainty by a four-item scale which was adapted from Gao et al. s (2005) scale in the context of supply chain relationships. Batt (2000) measured uncertainty on a two-factor, ve-item; strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) scale. The two factors were seed specications and input market uncertainty. The rst factor of seed specications was related to personal indecisiveness about the seed requirements. The second factor of input market uncertainty had two items: price stability and supply stability. It is a two-item scale and yielded a Cronbachs a of 0.89. We used Batts (2000) scale as it suited the context of our study. We conceptualize supply uncertainty as unanticipated changes in the availability of an adequate and stable supply of inputs and hence used a single item related to the stability of supply. Previous researches also measured market uncertainty as a single-item scale. For example, Anderson and Schmittlein (1984, p. 391) measured uncertainty as difculty of evaluating sales force performance in a single-item semantic differential scale as, It is very difcult to measure equitably the results of individual salespeople. Customer dependence. Dependence construct has been conceptualized in two ways, rst, as a partys perception of its own dependence on other party and second,

112

the perception of other partys dependence on them. Heide and John (1988) conceptualized distributors perception of their own dependence as potential replaceability of principal. Similarly, Andaleeb (1995, 1996) measured buyers perception of their own dependence on the seller. However, quite different from above authors conceptualization, Carr et al. (2008) assessed customers perception of suppliers dependence on them and Chakrabarty et al. (2010) measured customer dependence as perceived by salespersons. We needed a scale to measure farmers perception of their own dependence on the chemical fertilizer retailer. Very close to the context of our study, Batt (2000) measured farmer dependence on their potato seed suppliers which was developed from the following studies, Anderson and Narus (1990), Frazier et al. (1989), Heide and John (1988) and Ganesan (1994). Originally, the scale had three factors, namely independence, availability of alternatives and comparison of alternatives with six items, three items and one item, respectively. The reported Cronbachs a for the factors such as independence and availability of alternatives were 0.93 and 0.65, respectively. The present study used Batts (2000) rst factor namely, independence, which described how and despite the nancial obligations between farmer and seed supplier, most farmers were not unduly inuenced by the demands imposed upon them by their seed supplier. The scale was revised to conform to the specic context of our study. Customer trust. Morgan and Hunt (1994) measured retailers trust on their supplier. In an industrial purchasing context, Gao et al. (2005) assessed buyer trust and buyer-perceived supplier trust adapted from previous studies (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994). In this study, Holdens (1990) sales trust scale was used to assess customer trust in the retailer. Holdens (1990) original scale, developed to assess trust in an industrial buyer-seller relationship has eight items and a reported Cronbachs a of 0.92. The same scale was also used by Kennedy et al. (2001) to assess trust in salesperson and has a reported Cronbachs a of 0.97. The scale was again revised to conform to the present study. Analysis and results Measurement model We used AMOS 16.0 for the analysis. We rst assessed the measurement model, followed by the structural model for the hypothesis testing, using the guidelines suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In this section, we rst report the results of our conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all the measures in order to test their convergent validity. The product familiarity (three items) did not require any modication, as their measurement model suggested a good t with the data and reported signicant factor loadings (product familiarity x 2(1) 0.353, p 0.552, TLI 1.003, CFI 1, RMSEA 0.000; composite reliability: 0.905). Other measures such as product importance, dependence and trust required some renement, due to weak factor loadings and poor t indexes. We used a minimum cut off loading of 0.6 for all the measures. Following this procedure, we removed some of the items for product importance, dependence and trust measures. The remaining items provided a better t and strong factor loadings as well (product importance x 2(1) 0.208, p 0.649, TLI 1.007, CFI 1, RMSEA 0.0; trust x 2 (1) 3.371, p 0.066, TLI 0.983, CFI 0.994, RMSEA 0.089; dependence x 2 (1) 0.56, p 0.454, TLI 1.004, CFI 1, RMSEA 0.0). All these measures had a good

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 113

APJML 24,1

114

composite reliability (product importance 0.729; trust 0.865; dependence 0.818). Table II summarizes the results of the CFA for all the individual measurement models. All the measurement scales related to the study are mentioned in the Appendix. Once the convergent validity for all the measures had been established, we proceeded to the next step of testing the discriminant validity with CFA among the related measures. The results are shown in Table III. The measurement models for all the pairs had a good t with the data. Furthermore, we used a condence interval test to check the correlation among the measures. Structural model The full structural and measurement model analysis was performed to test the t of our proposed theoretical model with the data. The results are provided in Table IV. Fit indexes such as the x 2 t index, TFI, CLI and RMSEA suggested a good t with the data (x 2(50) 68.148, p 0.045, TLI 0.984, CFI 0.988, RMSEA 0.035). Overall, the theoretical model was found to have a satisfactory t with the data. We now turn our attention to the hypothesis testing, Table IV the results of which are presented in Table IV. The results indicate that customer dependence is inuenced positively

Construct /items Product familiarity pf1 pf2 pf3 Dependence de1 de2 de3 Trust tr1 tr2 tr3 Product importance pi1 pi2

Std. Reg. Coeff. 0.915 0.817 0.881

x2

dF 1

TLI

CFI

RMSEA Comp. reliability 0 0.905

0.353 0.552

1.003 1

0.56 0.818 0.744 0.76

0.454

1.004 1

0.818

3.371 0.066 0.795 0.859 0.82 0.208 0.649 0.761 0.754

0.983 0.994

0.089

0.865

Table II. CFA results for all the measures

1.007 1

0.729

Correlations between Estimate DE $ PF DE $ PI DE $ TR TR $ PI TR $ PF PF $ PI 2 0.125 2 0.014 0.112 0.556 2 0.032 2 0.008

SE 0.195 0.144 0.189 0.155 0.18 0.139

95% condence interval Lower Upper 2 0.515 2 0.302 2 0.266 0.246 2 0.392 2 0.286 0.265 0.274 0.49 0.866 0.328 0.27

x2 3.928 17.357 15.302 1.794 10.589 1.862

p 0.864 0.004 0.054 0.877 0.226 0.868

dF TLI CFI RMSEA 8 5 8 5 8 5 1.01 0.94 0.98 1.01 1 1.01 1 0.97 0.99 1 1 1 0 0.091 0.055 0 0.033 0

Table III. Assessment of discriminant validity among selected pairs of constructs

Notes: TR, trust; PF, product familiarity; DE, dependence; PI, product importance

Path Product familiarity ! customer dependence Product familiarity ! customer trust Product importance ! customer dependence Product importance ! customer trust Supply uncertainty ! customer dependence Customer dependence ! customer trust x2 DF P TLI CFI RMSEA

Hypo-theses H1a H1b H2a H2b H3 H4 68.148 50 0.045 0.984 0.988 0.035

Standardized estimates 2 0.133 2 0.014 2 0.052 0.559 0.277 0.120

Critical ratio 2 2.066 2 0.244 2 0.731 7.447 4.459 1.898

p-value 0.039 0.807 0.465 0.000 0.000 0.058

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 115

Table IV. Summary of results for the structural model

by supply uncertainty (standardized coefcient 0.277; critical ratio 4.459) with a p-value less than 0.01 and negatively inuenced by product familiarity (standardized coefcient 2 0.133; critical ratio 2 2.066) with a p-value less than 0.05. Furthermore, product importance was found to have a signicant positive association with customer trust (standardized coefcient 0.559; critical ratio 7.447) with a p-value less than 0.01. The main contention of our study, that of customer dependence (standardized coefcient 0.120; critical ratio 1.898) was found to have signicant positive association with trust, with a p-value of 0.058. General discussion and implications There is well-documented research suggesting the importance of customer dependence for long-term buyer-seller relationships. However, the limited research in the marketing domain has considered the phenomenon of customer dependence in the marketplace. Our study conceptualized and empirically tested the determinants of customer dependence and its effects on customer trust. Customer perceptions of supply uncertainty were empirically established as an important determinant of customer dependence in buyer-seller relationships, specically in the interpersonal relationship context. When customers perceive high supply uncertainty, they attempt to adapt within an ongoing relationship (Rindeisch and Heide, 1996) which leads to their dependence on the retailers. Primarily, this nding conforms to the implications of Williamsons TCA framework. Some researchers have shown contradicting results of the impact of uncertainty on vertical integration or relations (Harrison and Kelly, 2010; Leonidou et al., 2006). However, our result of the positive impact of supply uncertainty on customer dependence could be one of the reasons for the previous research nding on buyer and seller cooperation during uncertainty (Eriksson and Sharma, 2003). Perceived product familiarity was found to have no impact on customer trust. We expected a negative impact of product familiarity on customer trust. Previous research on this issue also showed contradicting results. Kennedy et al. (2001) found

APJML 24,1

116

a signicant negative relationship while Andaleeb and Anwar (1996) found the relationship to be non-signicant. However, we found that the perceived product familiarity to signicantly reduce customer dependence on the seller. Retailers have been provided with information and training related to the products and their functionality by the manufacturers which improves their product knowledge and gives expert power over their customers. Customers also look for such expertise from sellers to make an informed purchase decision which consequently leads them to cooperate and be committed to the relationship with the sellers (Sahadev, 2005; Zhao et al., 2008). In contrast, when customers improve their familiarity with the product and possess such expert power (expertise), they do not depend on the sellers. This nding is important to the marketers and implies them to understand customer familiarity status. This could be performed by the seller by knowing customer status in the customer buying task continuum (Hanson, 1979). According to the buying task continuum, in new task buying customer lacks knowledge about the product, familiarity increases in modied rebuy and customer gets a great deal of experience and information in straight rebuy (Park and Lessig, 1977; Hanson, 1979). This would possibly help the retailers to understand customer dependence level which could be used in their sales strategy formulation. More product familiarity leads to lack of dependence on the retailer which means customer would switch from one particular retailer to another when they are highly familiar with the product. This does not mean that the retailers should not educate the customers about the product. It is always better for marketers to educate customers on the functionality of their product as it improves customer satisfaction (Soderlund, 2002). Soderlund (2002, p. 861) found that when service performance was high, high-familiarity customers expressed a higher level of satisfaction and behavioral intentions than did less familiar customers. Furthermore, theoretically, our nding conforms with previous researches which were conducted on the similar lines by Selnes and Hansen (2001) and Capraro et al. (2003) and possibly provides the missing link in their research as to why self-service reduces social bonding (Selnes and Hansen, 2001) and why knowledge about alternatives increases defection (Capraro et al., 2003). Perceived product importance was found to have no impact on customer dependence, but it does exert a signicant impact on customer trust. This nding implies that the customers are comfortable in being positive about the retailers and they expect higher perceptions of performance when they perceive the product to be important and consequently manifest trust on the retailers rather than feel dependent on them (Patterson et al., 1997; Cannon and Perrault Jr, 1999). Theoretically, this nding compliments similar researches conducted earlier (Batt, 2000; Liang and Wang, 2008). Our main contention on the effect of customer dependence on customer trust was well supported ( p-value 0.058). Basically, this result emphasizes the relevance of interpersonal trust development perspective (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996) in interpersonal-based buyer-seller relationships. We view the development of CBT as a process that leads the customer dependence. The possible subsequent interactions between the buyer and seller add to mutual knowledge and positive experiences, which may lead to information symmetry. Such symmetry between the buyer and seller will evolve when the customer develops IBT in the seller. Such trust between buyer and seller leads to joint goals, cooperative behavior, collective decision-making and collective efforts. Hence, this process negates the negative consequences of customer dependence in buyer-seller relationships.

Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 33) in their seminal article on commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing acknowledged the importance of power and resulting dependence for deriving partners compliance and suggested extending their model by including power as one variable that leads to sick relationships. They contended that continuing exercise of power and resulting dependence destroys trust and commitment and results in relationship failures. This made researchers to view dependence as having negative consequences in relationship marketing that results in sick relationships and motivated them to focus only on healthy relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 33) based constructs. Consequently, researchers neglected dependence construct in the researches of relationship marketing except in a few (Cronin et al., 1994; Gassenheimer and Ramsey, 1994; Andaleeb, 1996). In contrast to the widespread belief, we found that dependence did not yield negative consequences and in fact improves customer trust which would further build healthy relationships. Also, Morgan and Hunt (1994) in their original model found that the manufacturers less opportunistic behavior enhances retailer trust and in their extended model hypothesized that the manufacturers power reduces retailer trust. Basically, they conceptualized customer trust from the perspective of the perceived behavior about partners (manufacturer/supplier/seller). However, we conceptualized customer trust from customer perspective, that is, how customer trust develops when customers feel they are dependent. Future research could also focus on how customer trust develops when customers perceive lack of power from their side and when they have less opportunistic behavioral tendencies. We derive several implications from this nding. Apart from providing high-quality products and services and satisfying the customers (Kennedy et al., 2001), improving communication and inculcating shared values (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) to develop customer trust, the marketers should also look at building dependence negating its negative consequences as it eventually enhances trust. Marketers can nurture dependence mechanisms towards the goals of trust-based, long lasting relationships by providing ongoing streams of suitable products, facilitating upgrades from one product to another or investing in capital, people, lasting assets and basic business procedures (Jackson, 1985). Further, this result could be applied to the case of inter-rm alliances. Both the alliance partners should invest in men, machine and money which would increase mutual dependence and that would nally lead the alliance to a mutual trust-based long-term success. Even though, our study is greatly limited in scope as it was conducted in small villages of the Indian market, it implies that future research in relationship marketing should basically change its mindset on dependence construct considering its positive consequence on trust development. Also, the future research should look into the comparison of our ndings with other cultures and contexts.
Note 1. A taluk is the main revenue, administrative and planning unit in the district. References Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 411-54.

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 117

APJML 24,1

Alonso, S. (2000), The antecedents and consequences of customer loyalty: the roles of customer satisfaction and consumer trust-commitment, dissertation, University Microlms International, Ann Arbor, MI. Ambrose, E., Marshall, D. and Lynch, D. (2010), Buyer supplier perspectives on supply chain relationships, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1269-90.

118

Andaleeb, S.S. (1995), Dependence relations and the moderating role of trust: implication for behavioral intentions in marketing channels, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 157-72. Andaleeb, S.S. (1996), An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 77-93. Andaleeb, S.S. and Anwar, S. (1996), Factors inuencing customer trust in salespersons in a developing country, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 35-52. Anderson, E. and Schmittlein, D. (1984), Integration of the sales force: an empirical examination, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 385-95. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1984), A model of the distributors perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Fall, pp. 62-74. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), A model of distributor rm and manufacturing rm working relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58. Batt, P.J. (2000), Modeling buyer-seller relationships in agribusiness in South East Asia, Proceedings of 16th Annual IMP Conference, Paper No: 17, University of Bath-University of Birmingham, Bath, 7-9 September. Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P. (1988), The involvement-commitment model: theory and implications, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-67. Bell, S.J. and Eisingerich, A.B. (2007), The paradox of customer education: customer expertise and loyalty in the nancial services industry, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 5/6, pp. 466-86. Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), Customers motivation for maintaining relationships with service providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37. Biong, H. and Selnes, F. (1995), Relational selling behavior and skills in long-term industrial buyer seller relationships, International Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 483-98. Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 69-81. Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15, pp. 97-118. Brislin, R.W. (1980), Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials, in Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Hand Book of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 2, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 389-444. Burnham, T.A., Frels, J.K. and Mahajan, V. (2003), Consumer switching costs: a typology, antecedents, and consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31, pp. 109-26.

Busch, P. and Wilson, D.T. (1976), An experimental analysis of a salesmans expert and referent bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, February, pp. 3-11. Cannon, J.P. and Homburg, C. (2001), Buyer-supplier relationships and customer rm costs, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 29-43. Cannon, J.P. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1999), Buyer-seller relationships in business markets, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 439-60. Capraro, A.J., Broniarczyk, S. and Srivastava, R.K. (2003), Factors inuencing the likelihood of customer defection: the role of consumer knowledge, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 164-75. Carr, A.S., Kaynak, H., Hartley, J.L. and Ross, A. (2008), Supplier dependence: impact on suppliers participation and performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 899-916. Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G. and Widing, R.E. II (2010), The effects of perceived customer dependence on salesperson inuence strategies, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. XXX No. 4, pp. 327-41. Chinomona, R. and Pretorius, M. (2011), SME manufacturers cooperation and dependence on major dealers expert power in distribution channels, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 170-87. Coulter, K.S. and Coulter, R.A. (2003), The effects of industry knowledge on the development of trust in service relationships, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 31-43. Cronin, J.J., Baker, T.L. and Hawes, J.M. (1994), An assessment of the role performance measurement of power-dependency in marketing channels, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, pp. 201-10. Dagger, T.S. and OBrien, T.K. (2010), Does experience matter? Differences in relationship benets, satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty for novice and experienced service users, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1528-52. David, R.J. and Han, S.-K. (2004), A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 39-58. Dellaert, B.G. and Stremersch, S. (2005), Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 219-27. De Wulf, K. (1999), The role of the seller in enhancing buyer-seller relationships: empirical studies in a retail context, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Ghent University, Belgium. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51. Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Sejo, O. (1987), Developing buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 21-54. Emerson, R.M. (1962), Power-dependence relations, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 31-41. Eriksson, K. and Sharma, D.D. (2003), Modeling uncertainty in buyer-seller cooperation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 961-70. Ferrer, M., Santa, R., Hyland, P.W. and Bretherton, P. (2010), Relational factors that explain supply chain relationships, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 419-40.

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 119

APJML 24,1

120

Frazier, G.L., Gill, J.D. and Kale, S.H. (1989), Dealer dependence levels and reciprocal actions in a channel of distribution in a developing country, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, January, pp. 50-69. Frooman, J. (1999), Stakeholder inuence strategies, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 191-205. Gambetta, D. (1988), Maa: the price of distrust, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust Making and Breaking Relationships, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 213-38. Ganesan, S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 1-19. Gao, T., Sirgy, M.J. and Bird, M.M. (2005), Reducing buyer decision-making uncertainty in organizational purchasing: can supplier trust, commitment, and dependence help?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 397-405. Gassenheimer, J.B. and Calantone, R.J. (1994), Managing economic dependence and relational activities within a competitive channel environment, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 29, March, pp. 189-97. Gassenheimer, J.B. and Ramsey, R. (1994), The impact of dependence on dealer satisfaction: a comparison of reseller-supplier relationships, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 253-66. Gassenheimer, J.B., Davis, J.C. and Dahlstrom, R. (1998), The effects of incongruency: is dependent what we want to be?, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74, Summer, pp. 247-71. Gassenheimer, J.B., Sterling, J.U. and Robicheaux, R.A. (1996), Long-term channel member relationships, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 94-116. Goodman, L.E. and Dion, P.A. (2001), The determinants of commitment in the distributor-manufacturer relationship, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 287-300. Gutierrez, S.S.M., Cillan, J.G. and Izquierdo, C.C. (2004), The consumers relational commitment: main dimensions and antecedents, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 351-67. Handeld, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2002), The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 367-82. Hanson, J.W. (1979), Organizational buying behavior: a conceptual view of the buying center as an information processing unit, in William, W.L. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 622-7. Harrison, J.L. and Kelly, S.J. (2010), Perceived environmental uncertaintys effect on commitment in business-to-business channels, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 792-803. Harsini, S. (2001), Power-trust-commitment in relationship marketing, dissertation, University Microlms International, Ann Arbor, MI. Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1988), The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specic assets in conventional channels, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-35. Holden, R.K. (1990), An exploratory study of trust in buyer-seller relationships, dissertation, University Microlms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A. (1996), Commercial and interpersonal relationships; using the structure of interpersonal relationships to understand individual-to-individual, individual-to-rm, and rm-to-rm relationships in commerce, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 53-72. Jackson, B.B. (1985), Build customer relationships that last, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39, November-December, pp. 120-8. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W. and Fisher, W.A. (1978), A behavioral process approach to information acquisition in nondurable purchasing, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 532-44. Jean, R.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Kim, D. (2010), Drivers and performance outcomes of relationship learning for suppliers in cross-border customersupplier relationships: the role of communication culture, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 63-85. Johnson, J.L. (1999), Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: managing the interrm relationship as a strategic asset, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 4-18. Joshi, A.W. and Arnold, S.J. (1998), How relational norms affect compliance in industrial buying, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 106-14. Joshi, A.W. and Stump, R.L. (1999), Determinants of commitment and opportunism: integrating and extending insights from transaction cost analysis and relational exchange theory, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 334-52. Kao, A.C. (1998), Trust and agency: the patient-physician relationship in the era of managed care, dissertation, University Microlms International, Ann Arbor, MI. Kassim, N. and Abdullah, N.A. (2010), The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings: a cross cultural analysis, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-71. Kennedy, M.S., Ferrell, L.K. and LeClair, D.T. (2001), Consumers trust of salesperson and manufacturer: an empirical study, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51, pp. 73-86. Kinard, B.R. and Capella, M.L. (2006), Relationship marketing: the inuence of consumer involvement on perceived service benets, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 359-68. Kool, M., Meulenberg, M.T.G. and Broens, D.F. (1997), Extensiveness of farmers buying process, Agribusiness, Vol. 13, pp. 310-18. Lee, D.Y. (2001), Power, conict, and satisfaction in IJV supplier Chinese distributor channels, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 149-60. Leonidou, L.C., Barnes, B.R. and Talias, M.A. (2006), Exporterimporter relationship quality: the inhibiting role of uncertainty, distance, and conict, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, pp. 576-88. Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), Developing and maintaining trust in working relationships, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114-39. Liang, C-J. and Wang, W-H. (2008), Do loyal and more involved customers reciprocate retailers relationship efforts?, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 8, pp. 63-90. Lichtenthal, J.D. and Tellefsen, T. (2001), Toward a theory of business buyer-seller similarity, The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. XXI No. 1, pp. 1-14. nen, S. (2009), Suppliers control over category Linblom, A., Olkkonen, R., Ollila, P. and Hyvo management in Finnish and Swedish supplier-retailer relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1006-13.

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 121

APJML 24,1

122

Lusch, R.F. and Brown, J.R. (1996), Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 19-38. McGorry, S.Y. (2000), Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 74-81. McQuiston, D.H. (1989), Novelty, complexity and importance as causal determinants of industrial buyer behaviour, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 66-79. Macintosh, G. and Lockshin, L.S. (1997), Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 487-97. Metcalf, L.E. and Frear, C.R. (1993), The role of perceived product importance in organizational buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Business-to-business Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 63-85. Mittal, B. (1989), Measuring purchase-decision involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-62. Monczka, R.M., Callahan, T.J. and Nichols, E.L. Jr (1995), Predictors of relationships among rms predictors of relationships among buying and supplying rms, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 45-59. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, July, pp. 20-38. Noordewier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990), Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships, Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 80-93. Park, C. and Lessig, V.P. (1977), Judgmental rules and stages of the familiarity curve: promotional implications, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 6, pp. 10-16. Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-17. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Pires, G. and Stanton, J. (2005), Ethnic Marketing Accepting the Challenge of Cultural Diversity, Thomson Learning, London. Rajaobelina, L. and Bergeron, J. (2009), Antecedents and consequences of buyer-seller relationship quality in the nancial services industry, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 359-80. Reynolds, K.E. and Beatty, S.E. (1999), Customer benets and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 11-32. Rindeisch, A. and Heide, J.B. (1996), Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, October, pp. 30-54. Sahadev, S. (2005), Exploring the role of expert power in channel management: an empirical study, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, pp. 487-94. Schultze, U. (2003), Complementing self-serve technology with service relationships: the customer perspective, e-Service Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-31. Selnes, F. and Hansen, H. (2001), The potential hazard of self-service in developing customer loyalty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 79-90. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B.H. and Tesdeschi, J.T. (1992), Business on a handshake, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 365-77.

Shepherd, D.A. and Zacharakis, A. (2003), A new ventures cognitive legitimacy: an assessment by customers, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 148-67. Soderlund, M. (2002), Customer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and behavioral intentions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 861-80. Sriram, V., Krapfeland, R. and Spekman, R. (1992), Antecedents to buyer-seller collaboration: an analysis from the buyers perspective, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 303-20. Stern, L.W. and Reve, T. (1980), Distribution channels as political economies: a framework for comparative analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 52-64. Stevenson, M.A. (1997), The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal trust in mixed-motive dyadic negotiation, dissertation, University Microlms International, Ann Arbor, MI. Tuu, H.H. and Ottar, O.S. (2009), Food risk and knowledge in the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 521-36. Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K. and Vrechopoulos, A. (2010), Consumer-retailer emotional attachment: some antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1478-99. Westbrook, R.A. (1981), Sources of customer satisfaction with retail outlets, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 68-85. Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, The Free Press, New York, NY. Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B.B. and Yeung, J.H.Y. (2008), The impact of power and relationship commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply chain, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 368-88. Appendix. Measurement scales after back translation (statements followed by ( ) indicate reverse scoring) Product familiarity seven-point semantic differential scale . How familiar or unfamiliar were you with the chemical fertilizers you purchased, before rst visiting the current retailers shop? (completely familiar to completely unfamiliar) ( ) . How informed or uninformed were you about chemical fertilizers, prior to rst visiting the current retailer? (fully informed to not at all informed) ( ) . How knowledgeable or unknowledgeable were you about chemical fertilizers before rst visiting the current retailer? (knew all to knew nothing at all) ( ) Supply uncertainty seven-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree The supply of fertilizer is highly unstable. Product importance seven-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree . I buy fertilizer from my retailer at least once a year. . Fertilizer is the most signicant component of my total production costs. Customer dependence seven-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree . My retailer decides what fertilizers I should use. . My retailer controls all the information pertaining to decision making in our relationship. . My retailer has all decision making power in our relationship.

Interpersonal buyer-seller relationships 123

APJML 24,1

Customer trust seven-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree . My retailer would not lie even if he could gain by doing so. . My retailer always maintains his principle of honesty and integrity even though his business is not doing particularly well. . My retailer can be trusted. About the authors Kareem Abdul Waheed is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Institute of Management Technology, Dubai, UAE. His research interests include buyer-seller relationship, societal marketing and corporate social responsibility. He has published research articles in Measuring Business Excellence, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal and Corporate Environmental Strategy: International Journal Corporate Sustainability. Kareem Abdul Waheed is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: waheed@imtdubai.ac.ae Sanjaya S. Gaur is an Associate Professor of Sales & Marketing at AUT Business School, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. His research interests include buyer-seller relationships, relationship selling behaviour, small group buying behaviour, TBSS adoption behaviour, market orientation and its impact on rms in emerging economies. His research has appeared in Asian Journal of Marketing, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics and Corporate Environmental Strategy: International Journal Corporate Sustainability.

124

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints