The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes

Abstract

Academic Article Abstract:Channels research has consistently argued that asymmetric channel relationships are more dysfunctional than those characterized by symmetric interdependence. The

Building Trust Among the Clients of Cloud Computing Industry. Case Study of Trello, Inc.

“…Furthermore, the company has got better control over the flow of information on the line customercompany. Meanwhile, the lack of such kind solution might involve more resources and devote more time to simple task which might slow down the communication with users, and then in return, damage the brand (Kumar et al, 1995). That way Trello, Inc. use repeated interaction as well as courtship as a source of developing trust of a buying client (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995).…”

“…Based on marketing and social psychology literature, in B2B context trust is defined as "the perceived credibility and benevolence of a target of trust" (Kumar et al, 1995). Thus, definition of trust in industrial buying context consists of two dimensions -independent and dependent one (McKnight and Chervany, 1996).…”

Evolution of Agricultural Marketing Institutions: A Channel Approach

“…Anderson and Weitz (1989) conclude that interpersonal relationships ensure the continuity of industrial channel dyads. Kumar et al (1995) demonstrate that, "with increasing interdependence asymmetry, the dealer's trust in and commitment to the supplier decline while interfirm conflict increases." Trust between companies in the marketing channels has become an important research subject (see, Geyskens and Steenkamp, 1995).…”

Cooperative Strategies for Improving the Tourism Industry in Remote Geographic Regions: An Addition to Trust and Commitment Theory with one Key Mediating Construct

“…To minimize these risks, firms in successful networks share resources and operations with others they can trust. Trust initially leads to greater interpersonal commitments (Becker, 1960;Axelrod, 1984;Morgan & Hunt, 1994;Wetzels et al, 1998;Garbarino & Johnson, 1999;Varamä ki, 2001;Ylimaz & Hunt, 2001;Ekelund, 2002;Rodriguez & Wilson, 2002;Wong & Sohal, 2002;Mukherjee & Nath, 2003) as does reciprocity (Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp, 1995;Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001). Moreover, interpersonal commitment ultimately influences interorganizational commitment (Yoon, Baker & Ko, 1994;Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001).…”