The Role of Self-determination Factors for Relationship Development …openaccesslibrary.org/images/ORL249_Taeseok_Rho.pdf · 2010. 3. 23. · is based on the Self-Determination Theory

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


RelationshipStrength


RelatednessRelatedness

Self-Determination Factors in the Relationship

AffectiveCommitment

AffectiveCommitment

AutonomyAutonomy







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



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 Strength5 .863 .150 .007 .109 -.006 .073


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







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







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





RelationshipStrengthRelatedness

Relatedness

AffectiveCommitment

AffectiveCommitment

AutonomyAutonomy





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

Documents

The Role of Self-determination Factors for Relationship Development …openaccesslibrary.org/images/ORL249_Taeseok_Rho.pdf · 2010. 3. 23. · is based on the Self-Determination Theory