Managing opportunism in a developing interfirm relationship: The interrelationship of calculative and loyalty commitment

Relationship commitment and value creation in sponsorship relationships

“…The multi-group analysis also indicates that sponsors that have sponsored hockey teams for 8 years or more are more value-based committed and experience more value from the sponsorship relationship in question than do sponsors that have sponsored hockey teams for fewer than 8 years. This is an interesting observation, because previous studies have found that while calculative commitment predominates at the beginning of relationships, as the relationship develops over a long period, affective commitment increases and calculative commitment correspondingly decreases (Liu et al 2010). As noted, however, previous studies have operationalized calculative commitment differently than is done here, so it is impossible to compare these results.…”

“…Previous studies analyzing the relationships between various forms of commitment have obtained different results. Bansal, Irving, and Taylor (2004) found no support for the relationship between affective commitment and continuance (i.e., calculative) commitment, while Fullerton (2005) and Liu et al (2010) found a negative relationship between calculative commitment and affective commitment. However, these studies have operationalized calculative commitment as both locked-in commitment and value-based commitment, so their results are not comparable to those of our study.…”

“…Also associated with relationship commitment are improved relationship quality and supported relationship maintenance (Amy and Amrik 2002;Aurier and N'Goala 2010), knowledge sharing (Camelo-Ordaz et al 2011), and purchasing (Stanko, Bonner, and Calantone 2007). Chadwick, Super, and Kwon (2015) and McElroy, Morrow, and Laczniak (2001) concluded that commitment fosters organizational efficiency, whereas other studies highlight its importance for better firm and network performance (Clarke 2006;Eisenberger et al 2010;Lohtia et al 2005;Sarkar et al 2001;Wu and Cavusgil 2006), increased turnover (Meyer and Allen 1991), greater innovation (Olsén Hammarfjord and Roxenhall 2017), and various kinds of opportunism (Liu et al 2010;Xin, Duff, and Hair 2010). However, studies analyzing the relationship between commitment and value creation seem to be lacking.…”

“…In the marketing literature, many studies treat relationship commitment as a onedimensional construct, but far fewer treat relationship commitment as comprising multiple types or multiple components. The latter studies have been conducted in contexts such as industrial distribution channels (Chang et al 2012;Davis-Sramek et al 2009;Gilliland and Bello 2002;Jain et al 2014;Kim, Hubbard and Swain 2011;Liu et al 2010;Sharma, Young, and Wilkinson 2015), manufacturing firms (Cater & Cater, 2010), the pharmaceutical industry (Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015), the printing and publishing industry (Chandrashekaran et al 2000), service industries such as banking and insurance (Lam 2012;Malhotra et al 2013;Verhoef, Frances and Hoekstra 2002), sports teams (Melancon, Noble and Noble 2011), telecom services (Gustaffsson, Johnson and Roos 2005), travel agencies (Wieseke et al 2007), and universities (Ganesan et al 2010), but studies in the sponsorship relationship context are lacking.…”

The Influence of Relationship Characters on Switching Cost: The Moderating Role of Customer Characters

“…In order to avoid the possibility of ambiguity, this paper names the variable as "the length of time" based on the definition. Liu et al (2010) argued that the expectations of customers on suppliers would change with the development of relationship between customers and suppliers [17]. At the initial stage of relationship development, customers may perceive more uncertainties and they may even refuse to make attempts, leading to wrong evaluations of customers on suppliers.…”