The mediating effects of customers’ intimacy perceptions on the trust-commitment relationship

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to draw from intimacy theory in examining the mediating effects of interactive communication and social bonds on the trust–commitment relationship. Design/methodology/approach The study is conducted in the professional services context. Qualitative and quantitative data are gathered from respondents engaged in attorney–client and real estate–client relationships. Unstructured, in-depth interviews are first conducted for use in model development. Study hypotheses are examined and mediation tests are conducted utilizing the serial multiple mediator model proposed by Hayes (2013). Findings Study findings indicate that intimate relationships in the professional services context are characterized by interactive communication and social bonds, and that the variables act as full mediators of the trust–commitment relationship. Though trust has a positive and significant effect on commitment in isolation, this relationship becomes nonsignificant when simultaneously accounting for the effects of the two variables. Practical/implications Study findings suggest a need for programs designed to assist professional service providers in the development of intimate customer relationships. The importance of interactive communications and social bonding should be emphasized in these programs. Originality/value The study is one of the few empirical papers to investigate the role of intimacy in service relationships and the first to illustrate its mediating effects on the trust–commitment relationship.

Influence of Trust on Customer Engagement: Empirical Evidence From the Insurance Industry in Ghana

“…Thus, when customers consider the service provider trusty, the possibility of sharing germane information to foster the sustained progress of the relationship is high. In line with this, research has found that trust promotes interactions between customers and service providers (Ballantyne, 2006;Ponder et al, 2016). It has also been established that a positive relation exists between trust and information sharing (Chai & Kim, 2010;McLeod, 2008).…”

“…Similarly, trust is explained as the belief that the other party will act or perform in a socially responsible way and thus will meet the trusting party's expectations devoid of taking any advantage of its vulnerabilities (Gefen, 2000). Accordingly, trust enables customers to share personal information based on a belief that the information will stay confidential, pay for goods and services, and act on advice (Ponder et al, 2016). When the service provider is regarded as trusty by customers, there is a higher chance that they will share germane information to see to it that the relationship continues to grow and develop (Cazier et al, 2007;Chai & Kim, 2010).…”

“…Trust, explained as a readiness to place reliance on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Moorman et al, 1992), is a fundamental feature that separates economic exchange from relational exchange (Ponder et al, 2016). In this definition, trust is defined as the readiness of one to be vulnerable to another (Cazier et al, 2007).…”

Drawing a Structural Model by the Most Effective Components on Optimal Global Marketing

“…As noted, obtaining customer satisfaction and attraction is one of the most important and essential business plans and also progress in the business process and earnings (Boateng and Narteh, 2016). It is therefore clear that retaining customer loyalty and attracting other customers is the key to successful business (Ponder et al, 2016). Major marketing techniques, and especially mixed marketing, are based on the 3/8 principles of competition, attraction and selection of target society.…”

Value Discipline Dimensions on Organisational Performance and Competitive Advantage: A Study on Pharmaceutical Companies in Diabetes Care

“…While the non-financial performance of organisation was obtained through executing the proper business function in order to give quality customer services (Murby & Gould, 2005). On the other hand, the impact of customer intimacy with organizational performance can rely oncommitment and trust (Yim, Tse, & Chan, 2008;Canning & Hanmer-Lloyd;Morgan & Hunt, 1994;Ponder, Holloway, & Hansen, 2016), information disclosure (Liang, Li, & Turban, 2009), relationship commitment levels (Bugel, Verhoef, & Buunk, 2011), repurchase intentions (Fernandes, Proenca, & Ramboca, 2013;Olaru, Purchase, & Peterson, 2008;Sedianingsih & Prasetyo, 2016), and customer induced word-of-mouth (Villanueva, Yoo, & Hanssens, 2008;Bijmolt et al, 2010).…”