-
International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(7): 16 - 33
(2010)
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org
The Role of Self-determination Factors for Relationship
Development between Customers and Service Providers Munshik Suh,
Pusan National University, Republic of Korea Jinwoo Ahn, Dong-Eui
University, Republic of Korea Taeseok Rho, Pusan National
University, Republic of Korea, Corresponding author Abstract :
Relationship Marketing has been dealt with as an effective strategy
to sustain customer loyalty in many previous researches. It seems
to be essential that organizations should make efforts to develop a
successful relationship between the organizations and the
customers. However, a customer's voluntary efforts are also needed
to strengthen the relationship meaningfully. Relationships are
built on the foundations of mutuality. In other words, a customer’s
efforts are necessary for relationship development, as well as an
organization’s efforts. Hereby, the role of customers for the
development of a relationship with an organization has been
overlooked in many previous researches so far. This research is
based on the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to explain the role of
customer motivation in the process of relationship development. We
started by using SDT to confirm the psychological side of
relationship development in customer aspects. Thus, we chose
customers who have experienced either a medical or beauty service
recently. Then, this paper verified the path relationships between
self-determination factors(autonomy, perceived competence,
relatedness) and relational factors(shared responsibility,
affective commitment, relationship strength). It suggested that
customer’s roles in psychological parts be inevitable in developing
the relationship. Additionally, we examined the differences in
service types. According to the results of this study,
self-determination factors have positive effects on the relational
factors through “relatedness”, one of self-determination factors,
which was shown as a mediating variable in this study. As mentioned
above, we examined the difference of path relationships in a
different service type. It showed that the path value from the
“autonomy” variable to the “relatedness” variable was higher in
beauty services than in medical services, while the effect of the
path from the “relatedness” variable to the “relationship strength”
variable was stronger in the medical service. This can be explained
by the 'Integrated Regulation' theory claimed by SDT researchers.
In conclusion, this paper has several marketing implications on
customer acquisition and retention. For service providers, they
should recognize the fact that a customer's perception of
self-determination factors can generate tangible and intangible
performance in relationship development. Keywords:
self-determination theory, relationship marketing, relatedness
1. Introduction Relationship marketing is well-known as an
effective strategy for customer retention and strategic customer
management(Robert et al., 2003; Berry, 1995; Gronroos, 1994). By
retaining existing customers, organizations can decrease the cost
of obtaining new customers, meet customers’needs more easily, and
even make them loyal customers. These are the benefits that
relationship marketing gives to organizations. Previous researches
focused on contractual relationships or vertical relationships in
industrial settings. However, recent works have extended the degree
which a relationship between organizations and customers is
examined. This is because organizations learned that each customer
is also valuable. A challenge in consumer settings is how to
measure each
-
customer’s interest in a relationship with an
organization(Dholakia, 2006) and how to change a customer’s efforts
for the relationship. In other words, organizations should consider
how to present relationship benefits to their customers, as well as
knowing how each customer can participate in the relationship
voluntarily to develop it. For successful relationship marketing
between customers and organizations, the relational efforts of
organizations are naturally necessary in advance, but efforts by
the customer to develop the relationship also need to make it
meaningful. Beatty et al.(1996) addressed this issue about the
customer’s effort for the development of relationships
conceptually. Empirically, Lengnick-Hall et al.(1996) revealed the
importance of customer efforts for relationship development by
examining the correlation between relational outcomes and the
customer’s citizenship behavior. Nevertheless, it is true that the
role of customers in relationship development has not been dealt
with strongly in many previous researches so far. Considering this
point, this paper explains relationship marketing first. The
factors for the relationship development in previous relationship
marketing researches are summarized in Palmatier et al.(2006). They
conducted meta-analysis from 18 years of research data related to
relationship marketing. They divided factors mentioned in
relationship marketing researches into three groups: (1) relational
efforts such as relationship benefits, dependence on seller, and so
on as antecedents for relationship development, (2) relational
mediating variables such as relationship quality, relationship
satisfaction, etc., and (3) relational dependence variables such as
loyalty, cooperation, and so forth. However, there are no
researches mentioning the psychological factors on the motivational
side of the customer. Although it is important that the customer’s
motivational and psychological factors influence their
decision-making when purchasing and deciding to retain, little
attention was paid to these factors in a number of researches
relatively. In fact, there are some researches that have examined
the customer’s role on relationship development. For example,
Dholakia(2006) shows us that when customers decide to start a
relationship by themselves, not by the firm, customers perceive
relationship performance more favorably. However, this research
also briefly deals with the relationship based on the customer’s
motivational and psychological factors. Even though the study
explains the importance of the customer’s self-determination in the
relationship, it can not explain why customers determine to
participate in the relationship by themselves. In the realm of
relationship marketing, studies on self-determination and the
customer’s psychological factors are still in an early stage and it
should be addressed in depth. Thus, in this paper, it is determined
which of the customer’s motivational and psychological factors
influence the relationship development and what the relationships
between these factors and relationship performance variables are.
Of course, these factors related to self-determination are
extracted from the main variables mentioned in SDT. In detail, this
paper examines relationships between self-determination
factors(autonomy, competence, relatedness) and relational
factors(shared responsibility, affective commitment, relationship
strength). Additionally, it is examined how different the
relationships are by service types(medical vs beauty service).
2. Literature Review
2.1 Self-Determination Theory The Self-Determination Theory(SDT)
is an approach to explain human motivation and personality, which
uses traditional experiment method employing an organismic
metatheory
-
that highlights the importance of human’s evolved inner
resources for personality development and behavioral
self-regulation(Ryan, Kurl and Deci, 1997). SDT focused on the
process of internalization of motivation and explored
social/environmental factors influencing intrinsic motivation and
internalization(Deci and Ryan, 2002). The area of SDT includes the
investigation of people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate
psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation
and personality integration, as well as for the conditions that
foster those positive processes. In general, motivations have been
classified into intrinsic and extrinsic things. However,
self-determination is referred to as a determination element
derived from intrinsic motivation, and it can be the continuum
shown in table 1, which can dispute established researches(Deci and
Ryan, 1985; 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). It has proven that this
approach for self-determination is right in several eastern and
western empirical researches(Hayamizu, 1997; Ryan and Connell,
1989; Vallerand and Bissonnette, 1992). Because an individual’s
behavioral regulation is classified according to autonomy or the
degree of self-determination in SDT, intrinsic motivation can be
referred to as self-regulated behavior. In other words, the more
internally motivated individuals are, the higher self-determined
they will be.
Table 1. The Self-Determination Continuum
Self-determinedNonself-determinedBehavior
InternalInternalSomewhat
Internal
Somewhat
ExternalExternal
Locus of
Causality
Intrinsic
Regulation
Integrated
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
External Regulation
Non
Regulation
Type of
Regulation
Intrinsic
MotivationExtrinsic MotivationAmotivation
Type of
Motivation
Self-determinedNonself-determinedBehavior
InternalInternalSomewhat
Internal
Somewhat
ExternalExternal
Locus of
Causality
Intrinsic
Regulation
Integrated
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
External Regulation
Non
Regulation
Type of
Regulation
Intrinsic
MotivationExtrinsic MotivationAmotivation
Type of
Motivation
SDT researchers have identified three needs related to
self-determination: the needs for autonomy(De Charms, 1968; Deci,
1975), competence(Harter, 1978; White, 1963), and
relatedness(Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994). Those needs
appear to be essential for facilitating the optimal functioning of
the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for
constructive social development and personal well-being.
2.1.2 SDT Factors Ryan and Deci(2000) argue that the perception
of SDT factors(autonomy, competence, and relatedness) leads to
satisfaction within a specific relationship. The reason is that
people naturally form relationships to meet his or her needs and
then act to satisfy them(Deci and Ryan, 2002; Levesque et al., Deci
and Ryan, 2004; Reis et al., 2000). First, autonomy refers to a
person’s need to feel the fact that his or her activities are
self-chosen, self-governed, and self-endorsed(Deci and Ryan, 2000;
Ryan and Deci, 2000). Associated with the fulfillment of this need
is a person’s perception that he or she is free from pressure to
behave in certain ways and is able to express him or her self as he
or she wishes. A person whose needs for autonomy is satiated is
likely to report feelings of “volition, agency, and intiative”(La
Guardia et al., 2000). Autonomy in this study is a customer’s sense
of freedom to make his or her own choices in a relationship without
any constrained feelings.
-
Second, competence refers to a person’s innate, life-span
tendency to seek findings of effectiveness, achievement, and
challenge in his or her activities(Deci and Ryan, 2000). A person
whose needs for competence is satiated will report feeling curious
and skilled(La Guardia et al., 2000). Third, relatedness refers to
a person’s need to feel a sense of closeness with others(Deci and
Ryan, 2000). The need for relatedness is a homonomous tendency; it
is a desire to belong to a social sphere(Ryan and Deci, 2000) and
to avoid feeling isolated. A person whose needs for relatedness are
satisfied is likely to report feeling “connected with and cared for
by another” (Standage et al., 2003). Although relatedness has a
positive effect on intrinsic motivation, its effect is less than
others(Grolnick and Ryan 1986; Deci and Vansteenkiste, 2004). And
relatedness has been recently studied among SDT factors and little
has been done about that. However, in the relationship marketing
context, the role of relatedness can be anticipated as an important
variable for a specific relationship.
2.2 Shared Responsibility Especially in the service industry,
relationships between customers and service providers are very
important for the success of the service outcome. In a number of
researches, this is well known as the inseparability of
service(Edgett and Parkinson, 1993; Regan, 1963). It generates
shared responsibility between customer and service provider for
service task success through the exchange of emotions. Shared
responsibility is the perception that both the customer and service
provider are needed for successful exchange(Sierra and McQuitty,
2005). Service employees have an opportunity to make the customer
feel part of the service transaction. By bringing the customer into
the service exchange, the customer’s perception of joint control
over service outcome is increased, and then naturally his or her
belief in shared responsibility is also increased(Lawler et al.,
2000; Berry et al., 1988). According to Lawler(2001)’s “ affect
theory of social exchange” , a social relationship is built by
emotion. Both customers and service providers should depend on each
others by sharing emotions to make the service successful.
Therefore, the service is not only a task for the service provider,
but also for the customers. In other words, during the service
process a relationship can be generated between them, and customers
may feel a sense of shared responsibility through the relationship.
Finally it causes a positive outcome of service. Consequently, it
is said that customers participating in a relationship voluntarily
will perceive a higher degree of shared responsibility.
2.3 Relationship Commitment Commitment and trust are core
variables in the relationship marketing research field(Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Both of them are important variables for the
development of long-term relationships. The role of commitment is
confirmed to be important in the relationship with the customer,
while that of trust is important in the relationship among channel
members. In this research, therefore, we will focus on relationship
commitment to mediate a path between SDT factors and relational
outcome, and define relationship commitment as “an enduring desire
to maintain a valued relationship”(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). In the marketing research field, there is a
standpoint that the conceptual framework of relationship commitment
can be referred to as a single dimensional factor(Dwyer, Schurr and
Oh, 1982; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) or can be referred to as a
multi-dimensional factor(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Allen and Meyer,
1990; Geuen et al., 2000). Generally speaking, when relationship
commitment is dealt with as a multi-dimentional factor, it
-
contains three dimensions; an affective, normative, and
calculative commitment. However, relationship commitment in this
research will be treated only as an affective aspect. In general,
commitment in transactions refers to an affective commitment. It is
because the motivation of relationship retention is based on
psychological / emotional affection(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Kumar
et al., 1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In other words, when
customers have goodwill and affection toward service providers,
they want to retain the relationship.
2.4 Relationship Strength Relationship strength has not been
correctly defined yet, and its concepts introduced in some
researches have been presented in various ways. Researches for
relationship strength can be classified into three types. First,
there are researches for the definition of relationship strength
like relationship quality(Hewet, Money, and Sharma, 2006; Hausman,
2001). Second, there are some researches about the depth of
transaction between a firm and customer’s future purchasing
possibility / intention(Barnes, 1997; Patterson 2001; Berscheid,
Snyder and Omoto, 1989). The depth of purchasing possibility
reflects the current behavioral side, while retention intention
reflects the future behavioral side. Because relationship strength
between service provider and customer(Bove and Johnson, 2001) is
composed of commitment and trust, it is also similar to the concept
of relationship quality. Third, as mentioned above, there are some
empirical researches dealing with the relationship between
relationship strength and commitment or trust. Thus, to deal with
behavioral intention, we deeply consider the second type of
researches on relationship strength(percentage of purchase,
relationship retention intention, word of mouth) used in
Barnes(1997)’s study.
2.4 Transfer Barrier and Type of Services Services are far from
homogeneous. Theories suggest that relational benefits may vary by
service type(Lovelock, 1983). We might expect SDT factors to be
more important in a service setting where there is a high degree of
interpersonal contact and the service is highly customized versus,
say, a situation which is low contact and standardized. Patterson
and Smith(2001) chose four service types excluding the
financial/structural switching barrier in order to restrict the
effect of other variables. It means that if customers want to
switch service providers, he or she can change them easily. These
characteristics of classification were identified because they were
the best to show the effect of SDT factors in the service industry.
To examine the different effects between service types, we analyzed
two types of service from Patterson and Smith(2001)’s research.
3. Research model and Hypothesis Development
3.1 Research Model A research model was developed to achieve the
purpose of this study. It is represented in figure 1. And an
empirical test was conducted.
-
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrength
RelatednessRelatedness
Self-Determination Factors in the Relationship
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrength
RelatednessRelatedness
Self-Determination Factors in the Relationship
Figure 1. Research Model
3.2 Hypothesis Development 3.2.1 Relationships among SDT factors
Autonomy has been studied as a core factor among SDT factors. It
started from Deci(1980)’s recommendation for ‘self-determination’
and it intended classification between ‘controlled intention’ and
‘autonomy’. Perception of autonomy leads to competence and
relatedness(Ryan and Deci, 2000), It also generates an individual’s
perception of satisfaction and well-being(Ryan et al., 1983;
Levesque et al., 2004). Thus, it is also assumed that autonomy
affects competence and relatedness and develops a positive
relationship. This leads to the following hypotheses. H1 : Autonomy
will have a positive effect on competence. H2 : Competence will
have a positive effect on relatedness. H3 : Autonomy will have a
positive effect on relatedness. 3.2.2 Effect of SDT factors on
shared responsibility Internalization of extenally motivated
behavior depends on autonomy and competence. In other words, SDT
factors are an energizing basis that generates internally motivated
self-regulation behavior(Deci and Vansteenkiste, 2004). This is the
basic concept of SDT. In the relationship between the customer and
service provider, each customer needs to feel personal
responsibility that his or her decision or behavior causes
different outcomes of exchange. All individuals prefer having the
right to make decisions. So, the share of influence in the
relationship increases a participant’s desire for participation,
perception of trust(Schwartz, 1989), and commitment(Scarpello,
1994). Thus, it is assumed that the more a customer voluntarily
participated in a relationship, the more his or her perception of
responsibility will be increased. This leads to the following
hypotheses. H4. Autonomy will have a positive effect on shared
responsibility. H5. Competence will have a positive effect on
shared responsibility. H6. Relatedness will have a positive effect
on shared responsibility.
-
3.3.3 Effect of SDT factors on affective commitment The degree
of motivation can reflect an organization’s relational outcomes.
Especially, customers perceiving self-determination in a
relationship are more likely to participate in
relationship-oriented behavior than customers forced by firms(Ryan
and Deci, 2006). This result is based on psychology studies about
intrinsic motivation and self-determination. Autonomous decisions
generate a higher degree of motivation, effort, patience, and
long-term participation(Ryan and Deci, 2000). And Dholakia(2006)
claimed that self-determined customers perceive a higer degree of
desire and positive emotion than firm-determined customers. In
other words, self-determination affects positive emotional response
in relationships with service providers. It is also assumed that a
customer’s perception of affective commitment will be increased by
perceiving intrinsic motivation(SDT factors). This leads to the
following hypotheses. H7. Autonomy will have a positive effect on
affective commitment. H8. Competence will have a positive effect on
affective commitment. H9. Relatedness will have a positive effect
on affective commitment. 3.3.4 Effect of shared responsibility on
affective commitment Lawler(2001) expected that the higher a
customer’ s perceived shared responsibility is, the higher his or
her degree of emotion will be. That effect was shown in a service
context exactly as he expected. The outcome of exchange generates
emotion that varies by form or strength and the emotion can be
positive or negative. Several researches have claimed that a high
degree of shared responsibility will generate emotional attachment
or a positive emotion to a social exchange unit(Lawler, 2001;
Sierra and MicQuitty, 2005). Thus, customers with a shared
responsibility toward their service providers are likely to
perceive affective commitment. This leads to the following
hypotheses. H10. Shared Responsibility will have a positive effect
on affective commitment. 3.3.5 Effect of shared responsibility and
affective commitment on relationship strength Based on Fishbein and
Ajzen(1975)'s research; the theory of reasoned action, this paper
studies within the frame of cognitive-> affective-> conative
to explain the relationship between the customer-service provider.
Affective commitment is a subordinate concept of relationship
commitment and it is an attitudual variable that explains a
customer’s status of emotion. Shared responsibility is also an
emotional factor felt in a relationship with a service provider.
Relationship strength is a behavioral variable that includes share
of purchase, retaining intention, and WOM(Barnes, 1997). Emotional
variables such as commitment and trust have an effect on
relationship strength. Especially, affective commitment will have a
strong effect on future relationship retaining intention which is
one of the subordinate concepts. Future intention about a
transaction can explain the current status of a relationship. Thus,
commitment or trust; The most typical attitudual variable in
relationship marketing; can reflect the future relationship with a
service provider(Crosby et al., 1990). As mentioned above, In
accord with the result claimed by Feshbein and Ajzen(1975).
Therefore, the more customers perceive shared responsibility and
affective commitment, the more future behavior intention can be
positive. It is also assumed that a customer’s perception of
relationship strength will be increased by perceiving shared
responsibility and affective commitment. This leads to the
following hypotheses. H11. Shared responsibility will have a
positive effect on relationship strength. H12. Affective Commitment
will have a positive effect on relationship strength.
-
4. Method
4.1 Sample The data collection process of this study involved
convenience samples of customers who have experienced either a
medical or beauty service recently. Respondents were asked to
answer the questions with the service in mind. For the purpose of
viewing this study from different perspectives(credence,
experience), a sample size of 354 was collected(160,199
questionnaires from medical and beauty service).
4.2 Measure 4.2.1 Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness Respondents
were asked about the degree of perceived SDT factors(autonomy-
7items, competence- 6items, relatedness- 6items), Nineteen items
were used to measure perception of SDT factors, each suggested by
previous research(Deci and Ryan, 2000;
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/needs_scl.html).
Response to the nineteen items SDT factors scale were again given
on seven-point scales anchored by “Strongly disagree~ Strongly
agree.” 4.2.2 Shared responsibility To measure shared
responsibility, respondents were asked about their impact on the
service transaction’s outcome. Four items were used to measure
shared responsibility, each suggested by previous research(Sierra
and McQuitty, 2005). Response to the four items on shared
responsibility scale were again given on seven-point scales
anchored by “Strongly disagree~ Strongly agree.” 4.2.3 Affective
commitment Affective commitment was measured by adopting the scale
developed by Anderson and Weitz(1992). Respondents were asked about
the degree of perceived affection. Response to the five items
affective commitment scale were again given on seven-point scales
anchored by “Strongly disagree~ Strongly agree.” 4.2.4 Relationship
strength To measure relationship strength, respondents were asked
about their perception of the service transaction’s outcome. Six
items were used to measure relationship strength, each suggested by
previous research(Barnes, 1997). Response to the six items
relationship strength scale were again given on seven-point scales
anchored by “Strongly disagree~ Strongly agree.”
5. Analysis and Results
5.1 Validity and Reliability Analysis 5.1.1 Exploratory factor
analysis and Reliability analysis We describe the existing scales
and the modification of existing scales. To examine validity and
reliability, we conducted exploratory factor analysis and
reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha. The result of the
exploratory factor analysis of all constructs and reliability
analysis is presented in Table 2. Each eigen value was found to be
above the level of 1 and
-
factor loading was also above the recommended level(0.5). Thus,
all reliability and validity were sufficient and indicate adequate
value.
5.1.2 Confirmatory Factor analysis A confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to determine the reliability and validity of
the measurements. The results were suggested in Table 3. As a
result of the anlaysis, the fit index for the ideal item component
indicates that the model has overall fit the data. Overall, GFI
above .9 and other indexes were found to be above the recommended
level of .9.
5.1.3 Correlation analysis The correlation among constructs was
assessed. The result of the analysis has been presented in Table 4.
Discriminant validity is examined by using a coefficient. Because
the value of the [coefficient ± 2(SE)] is below 1, the constructs
have discriminant validity(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Table 2. Exploratory Factor analysis of all constructs
Construct Item content 1 2 3 4 5 6 cronbach's α
Autonomy
Autonomy1 0.20 0.78 -.130 .244 .783 .088
0.787 Autonomy3 .230 .119 .082 .010 .689 .245
Autonomy4 .011 .122 -.130 .063 .822 .125
Autonomy5 0.45 .088 -.094 .188 .709 -.117
Competence
Competence2 .135 .089 .127 .048 .187 .703
0.715 Competence3 .141 .275 .201 -.023 .058 .683
Competence4 .098 .109 .065 .106 .016 .842
Relatedness
Relatedness1 .196 .782 .128 .073 .079 .245
0.916
Relatedness2 .152 .772 .171 .121 .029 .280
Relatedness3 .317 .664 .198 .127 .109 .107
Relatedness4 .306 .749 .126 .205 .163 .120
Relatedness6 .178 .784 .192 .239 .103 -.011
Shared Responsibility
Shared Responsibility1 .170 .156 .858 -.044 -.048 .155
0.908 Shared Responsibility2 .130 .312 .827 .016 .062 .072
Shared Responsibility3 .120 .198 .882 -.119 -.127 .082
Shared Responsibility4 .073 .088 .814 -.061 -.205 .136
Affective Commitment
Affective Commitment2 .256 .231 .006 .770 .076 .020
0.888 Affective Commitment3 .195 .220 -.031 .862 .105 .066
Affective Commitment4 .230 .167 -.046 .822 .149 .127
Affective Commitment5 .093 .142 -.155 .753 .234 -.022
Relationship Strength
Relationship Strength1 .772 .280 .131 .219 .149 .032
0.928
Relationship Strength2 .822 .289 .119 .077 .119 .030
Relationship Strength3 .738 .298 .142 .230 .082 .163
Relationship Strength4 .718 .170 .140 .236 .023 .216
Relationship Strength5 .863 .150 .007 .109 -.006 .073
Relationship Strength6 .854 .132 .112 .113 .038 .103
eigen value 9.264 3.892 2.160 1.781 1.375 1.243
cumulative 34.312 48.727 56.726 63.322 68.416 73.018
-
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of all constructs
Construct (cronbach's α) Numbers Estimates
Standardized loading T-value
Items (EFA)
Autonomy (.768)
X1 0.84 0.051 16.50 3
(6) X3 0.76 0.051 14.84 X4 0.59 0.053 11.14
Competence (.715)
X6 0.62 0.056 10.97 3
(5) X7 0.70 0.056 12.48 X8 0.71 0.056 12.74
Relatedness (.892)
X12 0.80 0.045 17.73 3
(6) X13 0.93 0.042 22.09 X14 0.85 0.044 19.41
Shared Responsibility (.889)
X15 0.82 0.045 18.29 3
(4) X17 0.96 0.041 23.07 X18 0.80 0.045 17.52
Affective Commitment (.891)
X20 0.82 0.045 18.37 3
(5) X21 0.82 0.042 22.38 X22 0.82 0.045 18.25
Relationship Strength (.887)
X24 0.88 0.043 20.40
4 (6)
X25 0.89 0.043 20.91 X27 0.69 0.048 14.30 X28 0.80 0.045
17.64
=306.14(df=137), p=0.00 GFI=0.92, AGFI=0.89, NFI=0.92,
NNFI=0.95, CFI=0.96, IFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.057, RMR=0.049
Table 4. Discriminant validity analysis of constructs
Autonomy Competence Relatedness Shared
Responsibility Affective
Commitment Relationship
Strength
Autonomy 1.00
Competence 0.22
(0.07) 3.36
1.00
Relatedness 0.31
(0.06) 5.39
0.39 (0.06) 6.67
1.00
Shared Responsibility
-0.27 (0.06) -4.74
0.35 (0.06) 6.02
0.32 (0.05) 6.13
1.00
Affective Commitment
0.37 (0.05) 6.78
0.25 (0.06) 4.00
0.55 (0.04) 13.02
-0.05 (0.06) -0.95
1.00
Relationship Strength
0.20 (0.06) 3.31
0.38 (0.06) 6.53
0.61 (0.04) 15.64
0.27 (0.05) 4.94
0.48 (0.05) 10.38
1.00
5.2 Hypothesis Tests The research model as proposed in Figure 1
was tested by using LISREL 8.3. The goodness of fit statistics of
research model mostly above .9 and NFI/CFI were found to be near
the recommended level of .9(χ2=51.90(df=3, p=0.00), GFI=0.96,
NFI=0.89, CFI=0.89, IFI=0.90, RMR=0.062). The results of the path
analysis are summarized in table 5.
-
Table 5. Result of proposed model
Hypothesis Path Total Effect Indirect Effect
Path coefficients t-value Result
H1 Autonomy → Competence 0.16 (3.02) - 0.16 3.02 Supported
H2 Competence → Relatedness 0.29 (5.88) - 0.29 5.88
Supported
H3 Autonomy → Relatedness 0.27 (5.16) 0.05
(2.69) 0.22 4.40 Supported
H4 Autonomy → Shared Responsibility -0.24 (-4.7) 0.12
(4.49) -0.36 -7.64 Rejected
H5 Competence → Shared Responsibility 0.35 (7.24) 0.09
(4.21) 0.27 5.45 Supported
H6 Relatedness → Shared Responsibility 0.30 (6.04) - 0.30 6.04
Supported
H7 Autonomy → Affective Commitment 0.33 (6.49) 0.18
(5.48) 0.15 2.93 Supported
H8 Competence → Affective Commitment 0.16 (3.16) 0.08
(2.80) 0.074 1.52 Rejected
H9 Relatedness → Affective Commitment 0.44 (9.07) -0.05
(-2.85) 0.49 9.75 Supported
H10 Shared Responsibility → Affective Commitment -0.17
(-3.23) - -0.17 -3.23 Rejected
H11 Shared Responsibility → Relationship Strength 0.19
(3.74) -0.08
(-3.09) 0.27 6.03 Supported
H12 Affective Commitment → Relationship Strength 0.48
(10.61) - 0.48 10.61 Supported
χ2=51.90(df=3, p=0.00),
GFI=0.96, NFI=0.89, CFI=0.89, IFI=0.90, RMR=0.062
All hypotheses are supported except H4, H8 and H10. However, the
result of indirect effect on shared responsibility from autonomy
presented 0.12(t=4.49), and the effect on affective commitment from
competence presented 0.08(t=2.80). H10 that shared responsibility
has a positive effect on affective commitment was rejected. We
assume that emotional attachment refered to in Lawler(2001)’s study
and affective commitment are laid on different dimensions for
explaining attachment behaviors. The results of the path analysis
are visualized in and summarized in figure 3. Briefly, Perception
of autonomy and competence can affect shared responsibility and
affective commitment through relatedness as mediator. Then, they
ultimately can have a positive effect on relationship strength.
Space intentionally left blank
-
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrength
RelatednessRelatedness
Chi-Square = 51.90, df=3, P-value = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.21
0.16(3.02)
0.29(5.88)
ns
0.15(2.93)
0.27(5.45)
ns
0.30(6.04)
0.49(9.75)
ns
0.27(6.03)
0.48(10.67)
Indirect Effect : Autonomy Responsibility 0.12(4.49)
Competence Commitment 0.08(2.80)
Valid Path
Invalid Path
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrength
RelatednessRelatedness
Chi-Square = 51.90, df=3, P-value = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.21
0.16(3.02)
0.29(5.88)
ns
0.15(2.93)
0.27(5.45)
ns
0.30(6.04)
0.49(9.75)
ns
0.27(6.03)
0.48(10.67)
Indirect Effect : Autonomy Responsibility 0.12(4.49)
Competence Commitment 0.08(2.80)
Valid Path
Invalid Path
Figure 2. Result of path analysis
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrengthRelatedness
Relatedness
AffectiveCommitment
AffectiveCommitment
AutonomyAutonomy
CompetenceCompetence
SharedResponsibility
SharedResponsibility
RelationshipStrength
RelationshipStrengthRelatedness
Relatedness
Figure 3. Summary of Result
5.2.4 Multigroup analysis(Moderating effects of service
type)
Because the purpose of this study is to examine the difference
between credence and experience services, data was collected from
medical and beauty service customers. By using data collected from
each group, we conducted a multigroup analysis. The multigroup
analysis was conducted to explore whether the structural models
would be different across the service types. By examining the
differences in chi-square and whether the difference is significant
gives an indication as to the areas where there are significant
differences in the structural models between two groups(credence
and experience). We assumed that the degree of perception of SDT
factors is different whether the service type is credence or
experience. Moreover, these differences are also revealed in the
relationship development process. The findings for the multigroup
analysis on the service type are detailed in . We conducted an
analysis by comparing chi-square parameters on each path. Global
goodness of fit recorded χ2=49.36(df=6, p=0.00), GFI=0.99,
NFI=0.91, CFI=0.91, IFI=0.92, RMR=0.021 and all values exceed the
recommended level. The paths identified that make a difference on
service type are 1) “autonomy → competence”, 2) “competence →
relatedness”, 3) “relatedness → affective commitment”, 4)
“affective
-
commitment → relationship strength”. Path 1) and 2) have higher
value in beauty services, and 3) and 4) have higher value in
medical services. Detailed values are presented in Table 7. Based
on the findings, in experience service, customers can have a
variety of alternatives because information for decision making is
easy to gather. Thus, when customers conduct decision making or
relationship development, they show more autonomous or
self-determined behavior. In contrast, path estimates about the
relationship development process(relatedness → affective commitment
→ relationship strength path) recorded higher value in medical
services. Although customers have a relatively lower degree of
self-determination, the importance of service type or dependence on
the service provider can affect commitment and relationship
strength. As Deci and Ryan(2002) mentioned, this may be explained
by referring integrated regulation that locus of causality from
extrinsic motivation has been internalized. However, a measurement
of intergrated regulation has not been developed yet. So, futher
research for this concept is needed.
Table 6. The result of moderating effects
Path Freed Restricted χ
2(df) difference Result
Autonomy → Competence
χ2=44.56
(df=6)
χ2=51.54 χ2(1)=6.98 Supported
Competence → Relatedness χ2=45.11 χ2(1)=0.55 Rejected
Autonomy → Relatedness χ2=57.67 χ2(1)=13.11 Supported
Autonomy → Shared Responsibility χ2=48.59 χ2(1)=4.03
Supported
Competence → Shared Responsibility χ2=49.66 χ2(1)=5.10
Supported
Relatedness → Shared Responsibility χ2=44.82 χ2(1)=0.26
Rejected
Autonomy → Affective Commitment χ2=45.47 χ2(1)=0.91 Rejected
Competence → Affective Commitment χ2=46.42 χ2(1)=1.86
Rejected
Relatedness → Affective Commitment χ2=70.05 χ2(1)=25.49
Supported
Shared Responsibility → Affective Commitment
χ2=47.13 χ2(1)=2.57 Rejected
Shared Responsibility → Relationship Strength
χ2=46.53 χ2(1)=1.97 Rejected
Affective Commitment → Relationship Strength
χ2=61.68 χ2(1)=17.12 Supported
Global Goodness of Fit Stastics χ2=49.36(df=6, p=0.00),
GFI=0.99, NFI=0.91, CFI=0.91, IFI=0.92, RMR=0.021
Table 7. Significant paths between medical and beauty
service
Path Medical Beauty
Autonomy → Competence 0.098(1.24) 0.3(5.03)
Competence → Relatedness 0.17(2.25) 0.37(5.54)
Relatedness → Affective Commitment 0.70(12.77) 0.24(2.89)
Affective Commitment → Relationship Strength 0.66(11.09)
0.25(3.67)
-
6. Discussion and Implication
6.1 Conclusion and Implication The purpose of this study is to
investigate the effect of degree of perceived SDT factors on the
relationship development process in the relationship between
customers and service providers. Antecedents explaining the
customer’s motivational sides have not been defined clearly,
Existing variables on the customer’s side, such as relationship
benefit and dependence on seller, are limited in explaining the
customer’s psychological, and motivational side which has an effect
on building and retaining relationships. However, the result of
this research presents that the more a customer is self-determined
the more relational outcome is increased. It must not be ignored in
the current market environment that a customer’s selection or
intention is becoming more important. The conclusions which can be
drawn from this study are these 1)first of all, perception of
autonomy is needed to develop successful relationships, 2)autonomy
and competence affect shared responsibility and affective
commitment through mediating variable ‘relatedness’ and thus,
relationship strength is perceived, and 3)the SDT factors are more
effective in experience than credence service. The results of this
study point to several promising applications for future research
on the motivational side of relationship marketing. Another
argument in SDT is that the quality of the social environment
affects an individual’s motivation and behavior(Deci and Ryan,
2000; Deci and Vanteenkiste 2004; Ryan and Deci, 2006). The quality
of the social environment is identified whether autonomy supportive
or controlled. The effect of the autonomy supportive environment is
verified in health(Ryan et al., 1991), education(Ryan et al.,
2000), and social relationships(Ryan and Connel, 1989;
www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT) research field. An individual’s
motivation can be influenced by their autonomous environment(Deci
and Ryan(2002). Self-determination is an important factor in
deciding intrinsic motivation. “if pressure to act for specific
behavior is given, intrinsic motivation is decreased.” and “giving
a chance to have options and useful information for effective
interaction with environment increase intrinsic motivation.”(Deci
and Ryan, 1985). Communication is classified into two styles;
informational and controlling. Informative meaning “allowing
options(no unnecessary pressure)” and informative communication is
“presenting information for effective interaction with
environment”(Deci and Ryan, 1985). So, if an employee used the
informational communication style, customers translate information
from him or her into informational meaning. And then the customer’s
intrinsic perception of locus of control will be generated. In
other words, self-determination will be increased. Another factor
influencing the perception of autonomy is perception of
personalization. It is refered to as the degree of understanding
for each customer’s needs(Komiak and Benbasat, 2006).
Personalization reduces a user’s information overload and increases
accuracy for decision making. So, it presents appropriate
information so that the customer can have adequate options. It is a
similar concept with Deci(1985)’s;“useful information for
individual’s effective interaction with environment”. Thus, by
improving an employee’s informational communication skill and
providing personalized options, a customer’s self-determination or
autonomy will be increased and then it will contribute to a
tangible or intangible outcome for organizations.
-
6.3 Limitation and further research The results should be viewed
in light of the constraints of the study. Thus, several limitations
of this study need to be acknowledged. Base on these limitations,
we recommend futher research tasks. First, the bias from selecting
respondents in this study is yet another limitation. Although 355
customers participated in this study, almost all of the respondents
were in their twenties. Further research efforts are needed in
collecting samples to avoid bias. Second, although this study
demonstrated generalizability across two service types(i.e,.
medical, beauty), future research should be directed to achieve a
greater generalizability of empirical findings. Third, although,
this study started with well-validated measurements from
psychologic literatures, they have limitation on measurement for
correct emotional status. Further research efforts are needed in
developing additional measurement items of emotional variables.
Finally, in this study, we did not considered the customer’s
relationship level with the service provider. Thus, considering the
relationship life cycle(Jap and Anderson, 2007) would be a
meaningful and necessary task for future research.
-
References Anderson, E. and B. Weitz(1992), "The Use of Pledges
to Build and Sustain Commitement
in Distribution Channels," Journal of Marketing Research,
29(Feb), 18-34. Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing(1988),
"Structural Equation Modeling in Practice : A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Baumeister, R. and M. R. Leavy(1995), “The need to belong :
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation,” Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Beatty, S. E., M. Mayer, J. E. Coleman, K. E. Reynolds, and
Jungki Lee(1996), "Customer-Sales Associate Retail Relationships,"
Journal of Retailing, 72(3), 223-247.
Berry, L.(1995), "Relationship Marketing of Services-Growing
Interest, Emerging Perspective," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23(4), 236-245.
_________, A. Parasuraman, and V. A. Zeithaml(1988), "The
service-quality puzzle," Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43.
Berschieid, E., M. Snyder, and A. M. Omoto(1989), "The
Relationship Closeness Inventory : Assessing the Closeness of
Interpersonal Relationships," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 792-807.
Bove, L. L. and L. W. Johnson(2001), "Customer Relationship with
Service Personnel : Do We Measure Closeness, Quality or
Strength?.", Journal of Business Research 54, 189-197.
Crosby, L. A. and N. Stephens (1987), "Effects of Relationship
Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life
Insurance Industry," Journal of Marketing Research, 24(Nov),
404-411.
___________, K. R. Evans, and D. Crowles (1990), "Relationship
Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence
Perspective," Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 68-81.
De Charms, R.(1968), Personal causation. New York : Academic
Press. Deci, E.L.(1980), "The Psychology of Self-determination,"
Lexington, MA: DC Health. _________ and R. M. Ryan(1985),
"Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior," New York : Plenum Press. _________ and R. M.
Ryan(2000), "The 'what' and 'Why' of goal pursuits : Human needs
and
the self-determination of behavior," Psychological Inquiry,
11(4), 227-268. _________ and R.M. Ryan(2002), "Reflection and
Future directions." In E.L. Deci and
Ryan(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination(pp.431-441).
Rochester, NY : The University of Rochester Press.
_________ and M. Vansteenkiste(2004), "Self-determination theory
and basic need satisfaction : Understanding human development in
positive psychology," Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(10), 23-40.
Dwyer, F. R., P. H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh(1987), "Developing
Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 51(April),
11-27.
Edgett, S. and S. Parkinson(1993), "Marketing for service
industries- a review," The Service Industries Journal, 13(3),
19-29.
Evans, J. R. and B. Berman(1984), Service & Non-profit
American Marketing, New York : Marcmillan Publishing Company.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen(1975), "Belief Attitude, Intention and
Behavior : An Introduction to Theory and Research," Reading, MA :
Addison Weslry.
Gronroos, C.(1994), "From marketing mix to relationship
marketing : towards a paradigm shift in marketing," Management
Decision, 32(2), 4-20.
Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black(1998),
"Multivariate Date Analysis with Readings," Prentice Hall.
Harter, S.(1978), “Effectance motivation reconsidered : Toward a
developmental model,” Human Development, 1, 661-669.
-
Hausman, A.(2001), "Variations in Relationship Strength and Its
Impact on Performance and Satisfaction in Business Relationships,"
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(7), 606-616.
Hayamizu, T.(1997), "Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
: Examination of reasons for academic study based on the theory of
internalization," Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 98-108.
Hewett, K. R., M. M. Bruce, and S. Sharmar(2006), "National
Culture and Industrial Buyer-Seller Relationship in the United
States and Latin America," Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(3), 386-402.
Barnes, J. G.(1997), "Closeness, Strength, and Satisfaction :
Examining the Nature of Relationships between Providers of
Financial Service and Their Retail Customers," Psychology &
Marketing, 14(8), 765-790.
Komiak, S.Y.X., and L. Benbasat(2006), "The Effects of
Personalization and Familiarity on Trust and Adoptation of
Recommendation Agents," MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 941-960.
Kumar, N., L. K. Scheer, and J. Benedict and E. M
.Steenkamp(1995), "The Effect of Perceived Interdependence on
Dealer Attributes," Journal of Marketing Research, 32(Aug),
348-356.
La Guardia, J. G., R. M, Ryan, C. E. Couchman, and E. L.
Deci(2000), “Within-Person Variation in Security of Attachment : A
Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Attachment,
Need-Fullfillment and Well-being,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79(Sep), 367-384.
Lawler, E. J.(2001), "An Affect Theory of Social Exchange,"
American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 321-352.
Lengick-Hall, C.(1996), "Customer Contributions to Quality: A
Different View of the Customer-Oriented Firm," Academy of
Management Review, 21(3), 791-824.
Levesque, C., A. N. Zuehlke, L. R Stanekk, and R. M. Ryan(2004),
"Autonomy and competence in German and American university students
: A comparative study based on self-determination theoty," Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 68-84.
Lovelock, C. H.(1983), "Classifying Services to Gain Strategic
Marketing Insights," Journal of Marketing, 47(Summer), 9-20.
Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen(1991), "A Three-component
Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment," Human Resource
Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Mittal, B. and W. M. Lasser(1996), "The Role of Personalozation
in Service Encounters," Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 95-109.
Morgan, R. M. and S. D. Hunt (1994), "The Commitment-Trust
Theory of Relationship Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 58( July),
20-38.
Netemeyer, R.G., J.S. Boles, R. McMurrian., And DO McKee(1997),
"An Investigation into The Antecedents of Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context," Journal of
Marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
Palmatier, R. W, R. P. Dant, D. Grewal, and K. R. Evans(2006),
"Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing :
A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 70(Oct), 136-153.
Patterson, P. G. and T. Smith(2001), "Modeling Relationship
Strength across Service Types in an Eastern Culture," International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(2), 90-113.
Regan, W. J.(1963), "The service revolution," Journal of
Marketing, 27(3), 57-62. Reis, H. T.(1994), “Domains of experience
: Investigating relationship processes from three
perspectives. In R. Erber and R. Gilmour(Eds.),” Theoretical
frameworks for personal relationships (pp.87-110). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
___________, K. M. Sheldon(2000), "Daily Well-being : the role
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness," Personal and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
-
Robert, K., S. Varki, and R. Brodie(2003), "Measuring the
Quality of Relationships in Consumer Services: An Empirical Study,"
European Journal of Marketing, 37(1/2), 169-196.
Ryan, R. M. and Grolnick, W.S.(1986), "Origins and pawns in the
classroom : self-report and projective assessment of individual
differences in children's perceptions," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.
___________, V. Mims, and R. Koestner(1983), "Relation of reward
contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation : A
review and test using cognitive evaluation theory," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.
___________ and J. P. Connell(1987), "Perceive locus of
causality and internalization : Examining reasons for acting in www
domain," Journal of Personality and Social Psychilogy,
57,749-761.
___________, J. Kuhl, and E. L. Deci(1997), “Nature and autonomy
: Organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of
self-regulation in behavior and development,” Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 701-728.
___________ and E. L. Deci(2000), "Intrinsic and extrisic
motivations : Classic definition and new direction," Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
___________ and E. L. Deci(2000), "Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being.", American Psychologist, 55, 68-78
___________ and E. L. Deci(2006), "Selfregulation and the
problem of human autonomy : Does psychology need choice,
self-determination, and will?," Journal of Personality, 74(6),
1557-1585..
Jap, S. D. and E. Anerson(2007), “Testing a Life Cycle Theory of
Cooperating International Relationships,” Management Science,
53(2), 260-275.
Scarpello, V.(1994), "New Paradigm Approaches in Strategic Human
Resource Management," Group & Organization Management,
19/2(June), 160-164.
Schwanz, R. M.(1989), "Participative Decision Making," Group
& Organizational Studies, 14(1), 104-122.
Sierra, J. J. and S. McQuitty(2005), "Service providers and
customers: social exchange theory and service loyalty," Journal of
Services Marketing, 19(6), 392-400.
Standage, M., J. L. Duda, and N. Ntoumanis(2003), "A Model of
Contextual motivation in physical education : Using constructs from
self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict
physical activity intentions," Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 97-110.
Dholakia, U. M.(2006), "How Customer Self-Determination
Influence Relationship Marketing Outcomes : Evidence from
Longitudinal Field Studies," Journal of Marketing Research, 43,
109-120.
Vallerand, R. J. and R. Bissonnette(1992), "Intrinsic, extrinsic
and amotivational styles as predictors of behaviors : A respective
study," Journal of Personality, 60, 559-620.
White, R. W.(1963), “Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory,”
Newyork : International University Press.
1. Introduction2. Literature Review2.1 Self-Determination
Theory2.2 Shared Responsibility2.3 Relationship Commitment2.4
Relationship Strength2.4 Transfer Barrier and Type of Services
3. Research model and Hypothesis Development3.1 Research
Model3.2 Hypothesis Development
4. Method4.1 Sample4.2 Measure
5. Analysis and Results5.1 Validity and Reliability Analysis5.2
Hypothesis Tests
6. Discussion and Implication6.1 Conclusion and Implication6.3
Limitation and further research
References