Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and...

Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732–742

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust,identification and commitment☆

Hean Tat Keh ⁎, Yi Xie 1

Department of Marketing, Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

☆ The authors are listed in alphabetical order. We are gand Jill Zhang for their research assistance during the daalso thank the editor and three anonymous reviewersencouragement.⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6275 6281; fax:

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.T. Keh), x1 Tel.: +86 10 5276 7726.

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 28 March 2007Received in revised form 12 December 2007Accepted 12 February 2008Available online 8 April 2008

How does corporate reputation influence customer behavioral intentions? This article proposes a model withcustomer trust, customer identification and customer commitment as the key intervening factors betweencorporate reputation and customer purchase intention and willingness to pay a price premium. We testthe model by using data from 351 customers of three Chinese B2B service firms. Results indicate thatcorporate reputation has positive influence on both customer trust and customer identification. Customercommitment mediates the relationships between the two relational constructs (customer trust and customeridentification) and behavioral intentions. Customer identification and customer commitment relate closely,but they are distinct constructs in the B2B setting.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Corporate reputationCustomer trustCustomer identificationCustomer commitmentBehavioral intentions

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.If you think about that, you'll do things differently. Warren Buffett

1. Introduction

The issue of corporate reputation grabs headlines. For example,Fortune magazine conducts an annual ranking of the most admiredcompanies. A survey conducted by PRWeek Magazine reveals thatalmost 75% of the CEOs interviewed expressed concern about threatsto their organizations' corporate reputation (Capozzi, 2005). Whilegood corporate reputation takes a long time to build, it is easilydismantled. The rise and fall of Enron is a prominent example of thecreation, use of and destruction of a corporate reputation.

According to the resource-based view of the firm, corporate re-putation can be considered to be a valuable strategic resource thatcontributes to a firm's sustainable competitive advantage (Dierickx& Cool, 1989; Capozzi, 2005). The formation of a good reputation is along-term process inside an organization, thus it is an intangibleasset that is difficult for competitors to imitate. While some studiesdocument a positive relationship between corporate reputation and

rateful to Helen Lin, Jimmy Xueta collection for this study. Wefor their helpful feedback and

+86 10 6275 [email protected] (Y. Xie).

l rights reserved.

financial performance (e.g., Podolny, 1993; Fombrun, 1996; Roberts& Dowling, 1997, 2002) and try to explain the underlying mecha-nisms and consequences of corporate reputation (e.g., Cretu & Brodie,2007; Dowling, 2006), existing research in the marketing litera-ture says little about whether corporate reputation can contribute tointerorganizational relationship marketing, which we address in thisstudy. Specifically, we postulate that three important relationalfactors—customer trust, customer identification and customer com-mitment—are the bridges between corporate reputation and custo-mer behavioral intentions.

The present research proposes a model that adds to the literaturein three ways. First, the model explores the underlying mechanism bywhich corporate reputation influences customer behavioral inten-tions. This increases our understanding of how corporate reputationcontributes to competitive advantage by building relational benefits.Second, the model incorporates customer identification into the B2Bcontext and examines corporate reputation and customer trust asantecedents of customer identification. Third, the constructs of iden-tification and commitment have traditionally been confused in termsof conceptualization and measurement, giving rise to concerns re-garding the discriminant validity between them (Edwards, 2005). Thisstudy distinguishes identification from commitment both concep-tually and operationally, thus providing a solution to the debate onconstruct redundancy.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews theliterature to understand the main constructs. Section 3 presents aresearch framework and testable hypotheses, followed by a descrip-tion of the data, data analysis, and discussion of our findings. Finally,Section 4 summarizes the contributions and concludes with thelimitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501

733H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732–742

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Corporate reputation

The concept of corporate reputation draws academic attentionfrom the management, economics, sociology, and marketing areas(Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006). In general, researchers con-ceptualize corporate reputation from either an economics perspec-tive that regards corporate reputation as insiders' or/and outsiders'expectations and estimations of specific organizational attributes (e.g.,Weigelt & Camerer, 1988), or builds from institutional theory thatcharacterizes it as a global impression reflecting the perception of acollective stakeholder group—for example, customers, employees, andinvestors (Deephouse, 2000; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Olins, 1990).Consistent with the institutional view, we define corporate reputationas an overall evaluation of the extent to which a firm is substantial-ly “good” or “bad” (Weiss, Anderson, & MacInnis, 1999; Roberts &Dowling, 2002).

In order to have a well-rounded understanding of reputation, weneed to examine both its antecedents and consequences. In thecontext of MBA education, Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, and Sever(2005) find resource signals (quality of inputs and quality of pro-ductive assets), certifications from institutional intermediaries (mediarankings and certifications of achievement) and affiliation with high-status institutions to be key antecedents of organizational reputation.However, the narrow research context limits the generalizability oftheir model. In another study, Carmeli and Tishler (2005) investigatethe roles of product quality and customer satisfaction in predictingreputation.

Past research indicates that corporate reputation has a positiveeffect on financial performance (e.g., Podolny, 1993; Fombrun, 1996;Roberts & Dowling,1997). In addition, a favorable corporate reputationcan greatly benefit firms in other ways, including (1) delaying rivalmobility in the industry, (2) charging price premium on customers, atleast in highly uncertain markets, (3) attracting higher-quality andlarger amounts of investments from the stock market, (4) maintaininga high spirit among employees, (5) enjoying a cost advantage dueto less contracting and monitoring costs with suppliers and lowerremuneration rate among employees, and (6) supporting and en-hancing new product introduction and recovery strategies in theevent of a crisis (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Carmeli & Tishler, 2005;Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996; Rindova et al., 2005;Roberts & Dowling, 2002).

Yet, a good reputation is not a cure-all. In a recent study, Page andFearn (2005) suggest that while a bad reputation makes buildingbrand equity difficult, a good reputation does not guarantee strongbrands. Having strong corporate reputation has a downside, par-ticularly when firms get into trouble. Rhee and Haunschild (2006)illustrate the liability of good reputation through a study of productrecalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Specifically, their findingsreveal that firms with good reputation suffer more than those withpoor reputation when they make mistakes, which may be due to thecontrast effect from disconfirmation of high expectation (Herr, 1989).

2.2. Customer commitment and trust

Commitment and trust are central factors that contribute to suc-cessful relationshipmarketing because of their ability to lead indirectlyto cooperative behavior and produce outcomes that promote effi-ciency, productivity and effectiveness (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

From its root in social exchange theory (Cook & Emerson, 1978),commitment is one of the key concepts in relationship marketingresearch (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, &Gremler, 2002). Commitment is an exchange party's long-termdesire to maintain a valuable ongoing relationship with another(Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Berry and Parasuraman (1991) suggest that, in the services marketingarea, relationships are built on the basis of mutual commitment.Following the literature, we define customer commitment as anexchange partner's willingness to maintain an important enduringrelationship (Garbarino & Johnson,1999; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002).

The literature recognizes trust as a prerequisite to building cus-tomer relationships and as a preceding state for the development ofcommitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).Morgan and Hunt (1994) note that trust will occur when one party hasconfidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity. Becauseof its salience in the context of uncertainty, trust plays a criticalrole for service providers and B2B marketers (Hennig-Thurau et al.,2002; Moorman et al., 1992). In particular, Berry and Parasuraman(1991, p. 144) note that “effective services marketing depends on themanagement of trust because the customer typically must buy aservice before experiencing it.” In this study, we define customer trustas the customer's overall perception towards the ability (i.e., skills andcompetencies of the trustee), benevolence (i.e., the extent to which atrustee is perceived as being willing to take the other party's interestsinto account when making decision), and integrity (i.e., the truster'sbelief that the trustee is honest and fulfills its promises) of the pro-vider (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

2.3. Customer identification

Customer identification is an important but underutilized con-struct (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).Customer identification helps explain the relationship between em-ployees and their organization (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright,2006; Kramer, 1999), as well as the relationship between customersand their consumed brands (Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). Inparticular, brand researchers suggest that customer identificationwith a brand community (i.e., specialized, non-geographically boundcommunity, based on a structured set of social relations amongadmirers of a brand) will exert influence on brand-related purchasebehaviors and community duration (Algesheimer, Dholakia, &Herrmann, 2005).

Based on social identity theory and organizational identifica-tion theory, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) suggest that some of thestrongest customer–company relationships occur when customersidentify with the companies that satisfy one or more of their key self-definitional needs (e.g., self-continuity, self-distinctiveness and self-enhancement). The underlying premise is that people typically gobeyond their personal identity to develop a social identity with thehope of articulating their sense of self (Brewer, 1991) and that peoplemay also identify with organizations even when they are not formalmembers of those organizations (Pratt, 1998; Scott & Lane, 2000).

Organizations are entities with their own image, personality andidentity (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Mokhiber & Weissman,2003; Simoes, Dibb, & Fisk, 2005). Therefore, organizational custo-mers also have the need for self-definition and may express them-selves through developing social identifying relationships. Products,services, brands, and companies are key components of an individual'ssocial identity, and constitute valid targets for identification amongrelevant customers because of their roles in self-referral and self-definition (Kleine, Klein, & Keman, 1993; Underwood et al., 2001).Analogously, in the B2B market environment, transaction partnerscomprise a significant part of organizational customers' social identityand form suitable identification targets.

Customer–company identification is a distinct concept fromcustomers' identification with a company's brand, its target marketsand its prototypical consumer. To illustrate, when companies imple-ment a multi-brand strategy for all products or services (e.g., P&G) oroperate in a wide range of business areas (e.g., GE), customers' iden-tification towards a company will differ greatly from their identifi-cation towards its specific brand. A company with high customer

734 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732–742

identification can benefit through customers' loyalty to existing prod-ucts, willingness to try new products, spreading positive word-of-mouth, and resilience to negative information associated with thecompany (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

In spite of the desirable benefits of customer identification andits critical role in building and maintaining “deep, committed, andmeaningful relationships” (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, p. 76), empiricalresearch is scarce on the existence, nature, antecedents and con-sequences of customer identification towards companies (Cardador &Pratt, 2006; Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). Oneexception is Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen's (2005) study, inwhich they identify both antecedents (i.e., construed external imageof the company, perceived salesperson characteristics and perceivedcompany characteristics) and consequences (i.e., customer extra-rolebehaviors and customer product utilization) of customer–companyidentification. In particular, addressing customer identification in theB2B context is meaningful.

2.4. Behavioral intentions

Customer behavioral intentions are signals of actual purchasingchoice, and thus are desirable to monitor (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasura-man, 1996). There are different ways of operationalizing behavioralintentions in the literature. For example, Bansal, Irving, and Taylor(2004) investigate the role of consumer commitment on switchingintentions. Mittal, Kumar, and Tsiros (1999) measure customers'intention to recommend, and find an asymmetric as well as dynamiccrossover effect of product and service satisfaction in determiningcustomer intentions towards product manufacturers and serviceproviders. Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggest a multidimensional behavioralintention structure based on the Servqual scale. Each method has itsown advantages and weaknesses, the choice among which may welldepend on specific research purposes.

This study focuses on two specific behavioral intentions—purchaseintention and willingness to pay a price premium of existing custom-ers, which have direct and critical influences on brand and organiza-tional performance (Ailawadi, Neslin, & Lehmann, 2003; Zeithamlet al., 1996). The behavioral intentions of existing customers in the B2Bmarket are particularly salient as it is more difficult to attract newcustomers due to the higher risk and complexity of organizational

Fig. 1. Conceptual model a

buying decisions (Katrichis, 1998). A customer exhibiting higherpurchase intentions and willingness to pay a price premium is morelikely to stay longer with the supplier firm and have lower sensitivityto price changes. In particular, researchers are recognizing the cri-tical role of price premium as a favorable characteristic of customercommitment as well as an important contributor to firm revenue(e.g., Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004; Kumar, Bohling, & Ladda,2003).

3. Research framework and hypotheses

Building on the preceding literature review, the following modellinks a firm's corporate reputation, through three relational constructs(customer trust, customer identification and customer commitment),to customer purchase intention and willingness to pay a price pre-mium (see Fig. 1).

3.1. Corporate reputation and customer trust

Highly reputable companies are likely to gain customer trust in threeways. First, both economic and institutional perspectives of reputa-tion recognize its valuable role in reducing the uncertainty stakehold-ers encounter when they evaluate firms (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999;Rindova et al., 2005), because positive corporate reputation is based onsuperior performance over a certain period of time. As confidence is animportant factor in the creation of relational trust (Morgan & Hunt,1994), high reputation can strengthen customers' confidenceand reducerisk perceptions when they make judgment on organizational per-formance and quality of products or services. Thus customers aremore likely to perceive companies with highly favorable reputations astrustworthy. Second, customers are more likely to perceive companieswith good reputations by several interrelated features—credibility,reliability, responsibility, and trustworthiness (Fombrun, 1996), as wellas perceived quality and prominence (Rindova et al., 2005), which canenhance customers' expectation of corporate capability in providingexcellent products or services, and integrity in fulfilling formal contractsor announced promise. In particular, during the initial stages of therelationship when there has been no previous transaction betweenboth parties, a good reputation signals the seller's competence and/orgoodwill (Campbell,1999). As a result, buyersmaybase their trust on the

nd results (Model 1).


seller's reputation to evaluate the cost and benefit of transacting withthis seller (Barone, Manning, & Miniard, 2004).

Finally, corporate reputation is often viewed as a “fragile resource,”which requires considerable time and investment to develop but iseasily destroyed (Hall, 1993). Thus, reputable companies are expectedto behave well and are less likely to engage in negative behaviors,which strengthen customers' confidence in their integrity and re-liability. For example, Doney and Cannon (1997) find that confidencein the supplier's reputation is one of the important cognitive process-es through which industrial buyers develop trust in a supplier firm.Accordingly, we propose that:

H1. Corporate reputation relates positively to customer trust.

3.2. Corporate reputation and customer identification

Customers identifywith an organizationbased on their perceptionsof its defining characteristic or perceived identity (Dutton, Dukerich, &Harquail, 1994). Corporate reputation is such a key characteristic. Acritical antecedent of customer identification is the attractiveness ofthe corporate identity, which in turn depends on identity similarity,identity distinctiveness and identity prestige (Bhattacharya & Sen,2003). Corporate reputation has a positive influence on the develop-ment of customer identification because of its ability to underscoreidentity attractiveness of the focal company.

Several explanations may account for the perception of highly re-putable companies as being attractive. First, companies with high repu-tation tend to have superior financial profitability, products or services,and frequent media coverage, which subsequently enhance their rela-tive advantage and distinctive identity in the marketplace, which in turncontribute to their identity attractiveness. Second, as favorable reputationdirectly denotes high prestige, corporate reputation is directly related toidentity attractiveness of the company (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).According to social identity theory, buyers are willing to identify or buildconnectionwith highly-regarded sellers, just as individual customers arewilling to identify with reputable companies, which can facilitate theirself-definition process and satisfy the need for self-distinctiveness andself-enhancement (Pratt, 1998; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). In a recentstudy, Ahearne et al. (2005) find that the external image of a company,which is similar and closely related to reputation, plays an important rolein leading to customer–company identification. Accordingly:

H2. Corporate reputation relates positively to customer identification.

3.3. Customer trust, customer commitment and behavioral intentions

Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that commitment involves vul-nerability, thus parties are motivated to seek trustworthy partners.The findings by Moorman et al. (1992) indicate that trust in theirservice providers significantly influences customer commitment tothe relationship. Achrol (1991) also claims that trust is among themajor determinants of relationship commitment. The positive rela-tionships between relational constructs (i.e., trust and commitment)and favorable behaviors are well-documented in the marketing litera-ture (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). In par-ticular, Doney and Cannon (1997) indicate that the buying firm'strust in a supplier firm is positively related to the buying firm's an-ticipation of future interaction with the supplier. Commitment hasbeen shown to be positively related to favorable intentions such asrepeat purchases, making recommendations, acts of price insensitivityand cross-buying (Musa, Pallister, & Robson, 2005). In addition, thereis also evidence indicating that the linkage between trust andbehavioral intentions is often fully or partially mediated by commit-ment (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Bansal et al., 2004). This leads to the followinghypotheses:

H3. Customer trust relates positively to (a) purchase intention and (b)willingness to pay a price premium.

H4. Customer commitment mediates the relationship betweencustomer trust and (a) purchase intention and (b) willingness to paya price premium.

3.4. Customer trust, customer identification and customer commitment

Mutual trust is a key characteristic of successful social exchanges,both between persons and between organizations. Thus, companiesconsider building a trustworthy identity among the various stake-holders—customers, investors and other bodies—as a crucial task. Tocommunicate their self-definition and enhance their self-esteem,customers are likely to identify with trustworthy organizations. Inidentifying with the trusted party characterized as being competent,benevolent and honest, customers tend to portray a similar profile tothem. That a buyer will perceive a linkage between its self-identity andits seller when the buyer distrusts the seller is difficult to imagine.Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose that the extent to which con-sumers perceive the company identity as trustworthy will determinetheir response to it. Further, as a key factor in building long-term andclose relationships (i.e., committed relationships), trust should also bean antecedent of identified relationships. Thus, we propose that:

H5. Customer trust relates positively to customer identification.

Favorable consequences of customer identification include custo-mers being more loyal, more likely to try new products or services,spread positive word-of-mouth about the company and being resilientto negative information associated with it (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003;Einwiller et al., 2006). Ahearne et al. (2005) find that identificationimpacts both in-role behavior (i.e., product utilization) as well as extra-role behavior (i.e., citizenship) evenwhen the effect of brand perceptionis controlled. Besides purchase intention, we explore the effect ofcustomer identification on willingness to pay a price premium. Thereasoning is that customerswho identifywitha companyaremore likelyto be proudof the association, and theymakeextra effort to advocate thecompany (i.e., citizenship) aswell as being less sensitive to higher pricesfor the products or services of their identified company.

H6. Customer identification relates positively to (a) purchase inten-tion and (b) willingness to pay a price premium.

Organizational identification and commitment are closely relat-ed and easily confused constructs, as they both describe the stronglinkage between the individual and the organization. Cheney andTompkins (1987) differentiate these two concepts by noting that“identification is the appropriation of identity and commitment is thebinding to action” (p. 8) and they explicitly suggest commitment as anoutcome of an individual's identificationwith a collective over time. Ina similar vein, Edwards (2005) argues that identification is limited to aspecific subjective state of the individual, while commitment is a moreinclusive construct, encompassing certain psychological states thatwould occur subsequently if a person identifies with an organization.Studies on the interaction between employees and their organiza-tions provide evidence for the role of organizational identification as adeterminant of employee commitment (Wiener, 1982; Pratt, 1998).The marketing literature also indicates that identification is a keyfactor for building customer commitment (Fullerton, 2005). Forexample, in the context of channel management, Morgan and Hunt(1994) indicate that higher shared values between retailers and theirsuppliers increase retailers' commitment toward the ongoing rela-tionship. As a result, we expect that customer identification can en-hance customer commitment. Furthermore, while both commitmentand identification can affect behavioral intentions, as commitmentis a more immediate antecedent to action, we posit that customer


commitment plays a mediating role between customer identificationand behavioral intentions.

H7. Customer commitment mediates the relationship betweencustomer identification and behavioral intentions.

4. Methods

4.1. Sample and data collection

An empirical study examines the model in the B2B context asprevious research indicates that firms tend to build customer rela-tionships at an organizational level. A focal firm's organizationalcustomers are more likely to depend on the name of the firm than ona specific brand name in making purchase decisions (Rao, Agarwal, &Dahlhoff, 2004). Data were collected in the following manner. First,the study obtained support and assistance from three Chinese com-panies in different B2B service industries. The first company (Firm A)is a well-known, publicly-listed, computer network firm. The secondcompany (Firm B) is a state-owned firm providing professionaltranslation services. The third company (Firm C) is a medium-sizedSino-foreign joint venture whose trading businesses are located inShenzhen and Hong Kong. The distinct backgrounds of the three focalcompanies provide adequate variation in the measurement ofcorporate reputation.

The three focal firms then provided their customer lists as well astelephone numbers of key contact persons in customer organizationswho played critical roles in determining the ongoing relationshipsbetween the service providers and their customers. Three trainedresearch assistants telephoned the key informant of each customer–company to explain the purpose of this research and elicit their coop-eration. Respondents were assured that their identities would remainanonymous and that only aggregated results would be reported. Theexpected incentive for participation in this survey was that the find-ings would help advance managerial knowledge related to corporatereputation and customer relationships. Out of a total of 996 contacts,353 customer companies agreed to participate in this study. Thequestionnaireswere sent to these cooperative informants bymail or e-mail. After a week, a total of 208 responses were received, and withfollow-up calls the remaining 145 responses were received. However,two of them were unusable due to missing data. The final sample foranalysis consisted of 351 observations (203 organizational customersof Firm A, 68 of Firm B and 80 of Firm C). The overall response rate is35.2% (Firm A 40.4%, Firm B 29.1%, and Firm C 30.7%).

The first part of the questionnaire describes the objectives ofour study and instructed respondents on how to answer the ques-tions. To reduce potential common method bias, this research assuresrespondents that their answers as well as the names of the involved

Table 1Measurement items for trust and commitment in this study.

Variables Items

Customer trust 1 We trust that the focal company is competent at what they ar2 My company feels generally that the focal company is trustwo3 My company feels generally that the focal company is of very4 My company feels generally that the focal company is very res5 My company feels generally that the focal company will respond

Customer commitment 1 My company does not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to the2 It would be very hard for my company to leave the focal comp3 The company deserves my company's loyalty.4 It would not be too costly for my company to leave the focal c5 My company would not leave the focal company right now be6 My company have too few options to consider leaving the focal c7 My company does not feel like “part of the family” with the comp

Italicized items are deleted in the final analysis due to low factor loadings.a Reverse coded item.

companies will be used anonymously and for academic purposes only,and requests that respondents answer the questions as accuratelyas possible (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Thenext section consists of items relating to the main constructs of thisresearch, such as the corporate reputation of the focal company, andthe respondent company's identification towards the focal company,whose order is counter-balanced in the questionnaire. Finally, therespondents indicate the background profiles of their companies. Thecustomer companies in the sample cover a wide range of industries,which avoids industry bias. Industries represented included bothmanufacturing (e.g., automobile parts, garment, pharmaceutical,electronic equipment, toys and heavy machinery) and non-manufac-turing (e.g., telecommunications, banking and insurance, logistics,advertising, supermarket retailing, hotel, real estate development,restaurant, tourism, IT and education) sectors. The respondents weremainly males (58%), and over half of them were middle-level man-agers or above in their companies (52%). A multi-t test on responses ofthe key constructs between managers and non-manager respondentsindicates that none of the key constructs was significantly differentbetween the two groups. In addition, the respondents have beenwith their companies for more than 5 years, on average. Thus, therespondents were able to give authoritative comments on issues ofinterest.

4.2. Measures

All measures were adopted or adapted from previous research.To ensure conceptual equivalence and word-clarity, we conductedtranslation and back-translation. The translated questionnaire wasevaluated by two bilingual faculty members to examine its face andcontent validities. Before the main study, 26 MBA students havingsimilar backgrounds with people in the sample were recruited topretest the questionnaire in order to avoid vague concepts and keepthe questions as simple, specific, and concise as possible (Podsakoffet al., 2003). Feedback from this process was used to improve themeasuring instrument. All the items were measured using a seven-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”).

Corporate reputation was measured using the scale adopted fromWeiss et al. (1999). For the variable of customer identification, weadapted the well-established measurement of organizational identi-fication (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and selected the relevant items tomeasure organizational customer identification towards the focalcompany.

In the literature, researchers have used both the unidimension-al (e.g., Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002) andmultidimensional views of commitment (e.g., Gundlach, Achrol, &Mentzer, 1995; Bansal et al., 2004), as well as the unidimensional(e.g., Mayer et al., 1995; Selnes & Sallis, 2003) and multidimensional

Source

e doing. Selnes and Sallis (2003)rthy. Selnes and Sallis (2003)high integrity. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002)ponsive to customers. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002)with understanding in the event of problems. Selnes and Sallis (2003)focal company.a Bansal et al. (2004)any right now, even if we wanted to. Bansal et al. (2004)

Bansal et al. (2004)ompany in the near future.a

cause we have a sense of obligation to them. Bansal et al. (2004)ompany. Bansal et al. (2004)any.a Bansal et al. (2004)

Table 3Correlations and descriptive statistics of key constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean (S.D.)

1. Corporate reputation 1 5.30 (1.07)2. Customer commitment .45(⁎⁎) 1 4.63 (1.24)3. Customer identification .42(⁎⁎) .73(⁎⁎) 1 4.48 (1.35)4. Customer trust .61(⁎⁎) .55(⁎⁎) .45(⁎⁎) 1 5.44 (1.07)5. Purchase intention .56(⁎⁎) .79(⁎⁎) .68(⁎⁎) .65(⁎⁎) 1 4.93 (1.19)6. Price premium .41(⁎⁎) .74(⁎⁎) .67(⁎⁎) .47(⁎⁎) .76(⁎⁎) 1 4.55 (1.44)

⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2Final measurement items.

Variables Items AVE Factor loadingsin CFA

Alpha

Corporate reputation 1 The focal company is a highly-regarded company. .76 .86 .912 The focal company is a successful company. .863 The focal company is a well-established company. .90

Customer commitment 1 My company does not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to the focal company.a .65 .77 .902 It would be very hard for my company to leave the focal company right now, even if we wanted to. .763 The company deserves my company's loyalty. .884 It would not be too costly for my company to leave the focal company in the near future.a .775 My company would not leave the focal company right now because we have a sense of obligation to them. .83

Customeridentification

1 This organization's successes are my company's successes. .71 .64 .902 My company is very interested in what others think about the focal company. .893 If a story in the media criticized this organization, my company would feel embarrassed. .924 When someone praises the focal company it feels like a compliment of my company. .88

Customer trust 1 We trust that the focal company is competent at what they are doing. .81 .83 .942 My company feels generally that the focal company is trustworthy. .933 My company feels generally that the focal company is of very high integrity. .954 My company feels generally that the focal company is very responsive to customers. .87

Purchase intention 1 My company will buy most of relevant products/services from the focal company in the future. .74 .85 .892 My company will consider the focal company the first choice from which to buy products/services. .883 My company will do more business with the focal company in the next few years. .84

Price premium 1 My company will continue to do business with the focal company even if its prices increase somewhat. .83 .89 .902 My company will pay a higher price than competitors charge for the benefits currently received from the focal company. .93

a Reverse coded item.


views of trust (e.g., Kingshott, 2006). Multidimensional operationali-zations can reflect different sources of the construct, while unidimen-sional operationalizations regard the construct as an overall judgment.In this research, we took an overall perspective and operationalizedcustomer trust and customer commitment unidimensionally. Fouritems adapted from Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) and Selnesand Sallis (2003)wereused tomeasure customer trust,which capturedthe three components of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Commit-ment was measured using five items from Bansal et al. (2004) andAllen and Meyer (1990), which included affective, continuance andnormative components (see Table 1 for detailed measurement itemsfor trust and commitment).

Finally, purchase intentionwasmeasured using items from Zeithamlet al. (1996) and Doney and Cannon (1997), and willingness to pay aprice premium was measured using items from Zeithaml et al. (1996).

After deletion of items that have low item-to-total loadings or high-cross loadings in the confirmatory factory analysis, all remaining mea-ures had Cronbach alphas greater than the cut-off point of .7 suggestedby Nunnally (1978) (see Table 2), indicating that the measures for themain constructs exhibited good internal consistency.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Model estimation

Before testing the hypotheses, the study examined a correlationmatrix of the composite scales for the key constructs, as shown inTable 3. The signs of the bivariate correlations indicated patternsconsistent with the expected relationships. To test the hypotheses, theanalysis employs structural equation modeling with the maximumlikelihood estimation method, using the framework Fig. 1 shows asthe base model (model 1). To explore the mediating role of customercommitment between the two relational constructs and behavioralintentions, the analysis follows Baron and Kenny's (1986) proceduresand comparesmodel 1 (with customer commitment as the intermediatevariable) againstmodel 2 (without the linkages between customer trust/identification and customer commitment). Specifically, model 1suggests that customer trust and customer identification can influencebehavioral intentions indirectly through customer commitment, whichis indicated by the linkages between customer trust/customer identi-fication and customer commitment; while model 2 suggests that

customer trust and customer identification have only direct effects onbehavioral intentions, as indicated by the lack of connections betweencustomer trust/customer identification and customer commitment. Ifthe comparison results suggest that relationships between the tworelational constructs and behavioral intentions aremore significant and/or stronger in model 2 than in model 1, then the mediating role ofcommitment is supported (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

5.2. Construct validity

The analysis follows Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) two-stepapproach for structure equation modeling, whereby the estimationof a confirmatory measurement model precedes the simultaneousestimation of the measurement and structural models. Therefore, theanalysis evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of thefocal constructs by estimating a six-factor confirmatory measurementmodel, in which all the six constructs were latent variables and eachitem loaded only onto its latent construct. The latent constructs areallowed to correlate with each other, and the measurement items andtheir error items are allowed to be uncorrelated. The model indicatesan acceptable fit of the data (χ2=551.75, df=174, pb .001; CFI= .99;TLI= .98; IFI= .99; NFI= .98; and RMSEA=.08), confirming the uni-dimensionality of the measures (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Inaddition, all indicators loaded significantly onto the respective latentconstructs (pb .001) with the values varying from .64 to .95, and theaverage variance extracted (AVE) indices all exceeded the recom-mended standard of .5 (see Table 2), thus confirming good convergentvalidity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).


To assess the discriminant validity of the measures, chi-squaretests for all the constructs in pairs (15 tests) are conducted to de-termine whether the restricted model (correlation fixed as 1) wassignificantly worse than the unrestricted model (correlation esti-mated freely). All chi-square differences, except that betweencustomer identification and purchase intention which was marginallysignificant (p= .065), were significant (pb .05), providing acceptableevidence of discriminant validity for the measures (Anderson &Gerbing,1988). We are interested in the discriminant validity betweencustomer identification and customer commitment. Results of thespecific chi-square difference test for customer identification andcustomer commitment (Δχ2 [1]= 11.8, pb .001) indicated that thesetwo closely-related constructs differed significantly. In addition, theAVE is greater than the squared correlation of any pair of twoconstructs, further supporting the discriminant validity of theconstructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For example, the squaredcorrelation between customer identification and purchase intention(.46) is less than the AVE of customer identification (.71) and the AVEof behavioral intention (.74), which provides some evidence fordiscriminant validity between these two constructs.

In testing for the existence of commonmethod bias, Harman's one-factor method was used. An exploratory analysis of the data indicatedthe absence of a single factor accounting for the majority of varianceamong themeasures, thus commonmethod bias was not a problem inthis study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In summary, all measures havegood construct validities and desirable psychometric properties.

5.3. Hypotheses testing

Before pooling the data, the analyses includedMANOVAs on all themeasures and there were significant differences in some measure-ment items among the three focal companies. Therefore, two dummyfirm variables were used to represent the origin of the respondentsand the three focal companies were coded as firm A (1,0), firm B (0,0)and firm C (0,1). Compared with firm B, firm A has higher score oncorporate reputation (r=.189, pb .001) and customer identification(r= .334, pb .001), and lower score on customer trust (r=− .212,pb .001) and purchase intention (r=− .081, pb .01), while firm C hashigher score on customer identification (r=.260, pb .001) and lowerscore on purchase intention (r=− .068, pb .05).

Fig. 2. Results of Model 2 (without the linkages be

The method includes regressing the dummy variables, along withkey antecedents indicated in the conceptual framework, onto allconstructs when estimating the structural model (Atuahene-Gima &Murray, 2004). Through this procedure, the origin of the respon-dents was controlled for, which enabled us to pool the data collectedfrom customers of the three focal companies together. The analysisproceeds to examine the overall model fit. While the chi-squarestatistic (χ2=863.19, df=209, pb .001) is significant, all the baselinecomparison indices (CFI= .98, NFI= .97, IFI= .98, RFI= .96, TLI= .97, andRMSEA=.10) indicate an acceptable fit of the data, as shown in Fig. 1.

The results show that corporate reputation has positive directeffects on both customer trust (r= .68, pb .001) and customer iden-tification (r= .16, pb .01), in support of H1 and H2. Comparing thevalues of the two coefficients, it appears that corporate reputation hasgreater influence on customers' perception of corporate trustworthi-ness than on customers' judgment about whether to identify with acompany. In addition, corporate trust is positively related to customeridentification (r= .36, pb .001), which supports H5.

H3 and H6 examine the impact of customer trust and customeridentification on the two behavioral intentions. The estimation re-sults of model 2 (see Fig. 2) reveal that corporate trust has positiveeffect on purchase intention (r= .37, pb .001) and moderate effect onprice premium (r= .09, pb .05), whereas customer identification hassignificant effect on purchase intention (r= .31, pb .001) and pricepremium (r= .38, pb .001), respectively. Thus, both H3 and H6 aresupported.

To test H4 and H7, that is, the mediating role of commitment in thelinkages between customer trust and behavioral intentions, as well asbetween customer identification and behavioral intentions, wecompare the standardized path coefficients of the two models withand without the mediating relationships. According to Baron andKenny (1986), with the addition of amediator (customer commitment)into the model, the contribution of a previously significant indepen-dent variable (in model 2) should drop significantly (in model 1)for partial mediation and become insignificant for full mediation.Therefore, we compare the results in Figs. 1 and 2 to assess H4 and H7.First, Fig. 2 shows that the overall model fit of model 2 (χ2=1165.75,df=211; CFI= .96, NFI= .96, IFI= .96, RFI= .94, TLI= .95 andRMSEA=.11) isdissatisfactory and worse than that of model 1 (Δ χ2 [2] =302.56,pb .001), which suggests that the mediating role of customer

tween trust/identification and commitment).


commitment cannot be neglected. In addition, the results of model 2indicate that customer trust, customer identification and customercommitment all have significant positive impact on both purchaseintention and price premium, respectively (all p'sb .05). When cus-tomer trust and customer identification are linked to customer com-mitment (as in model 1), the standardized path coefficients betweentrust/identification and behavioral intentions are all affected tovaryingextents. Specifically, the positive effect of customer trust on purchaseintention remains significant, but the strength decreases from .37 to.25, whereas the positive effect of customer trust on price premium isfully mediated by customer commitment and becomes insignificant inmodel 1. The linkages between customer identification and behavioralintentions become insignificant and drop to nearly zero.

Sobel tests are conducted to further support the mediating role ofcustomer commitment in the linkages between customer trust/customer identification and the two behavioral intentions (Baron &Kenny, 1986). Results show that the mediating effect of customercommitment on the relationship between customer trust and pricepremium and relationships between customer identification and thetwo behavioral intentions are significant (Z's equal to 8.07, 7.70, and6.73 respectively, pb .05), while the mediating effect of customercommitment on the connection between customer trust and purchaseintention is marginally significant (Z equals to 1.89, p= .06). Thisimplies that customer commitment (1) fully mediates the relationshipbetween customer identification and both behavioral intentions, and(2) fully mediates the relationship between customer trust and pricepremium, and partially mediates the relationship between customertrust and purchase intention. Therefore, H4 receives partial supportand H7 receives full support.

In addition, customer commitment relates positively to corporatetrust (r= .24, pb .001) and customer identification (r=.75, pb .001).Although previous research indicates that trust is a key antecedent ofcommitment, our results reveal that customer identification hasrelatively stronger influence on customer commitment, which furtherconfirms the notion that identification and commitment are closely-related constructs.

To assess whether corporate reputation influences the twobehavioral intentions through the paths of customer trust, customeridentification and customer commitment,we compare the direct effectof corporate reputation on purchase intention and price premiumwhen the three relational constructs are included and when they arenot. The results indicate that the incorporation of the three relation-al constructs reduces the direct effect of corporate reputation onpurchase intention from .67 (pb .001) to .24 (pb .001) and the directeffect of corporate reputation on price premium from .50 (pb .001) toinsignificance (r=.06, pN .1).

The analyses include estimating a competing model by adding alinkage between corporate reputation and customer commitment inmodel 1. The results do not show improvement in the model fit(χ2=861.05, df=208, pb .001; CFI= .98, NFI= .97, IFI= .98, RFI= .96,TLI= .97, and RMSEA=.10) compared to our original model (Δχ2 [1]=2.14, pN .05), and the relationship between corporate reputation andcustomer commitment is small and insignificant (r= .08, pN .05).Therefore, the additional linkage is unwarranted and the analysisvalidates the parsimonious model.

6. Discussion and implications

The study investigates the underlying mechanism through whichcorporate reputation influences customer behavioral intentions. Muchof previous research on corporate reputation emphasizes the directeffects of corporate reputation on behavioral intentions or on cor-porate financial performance, and our study provides an explanationfor the process. The results indicate that companies with favorablereputations benefit from building trust and identification amongcustomers, which, in turn, positively influence customer commitment.

Moreover, customer commitment plays a mediating role between theother two relational constructs and behavioral intentions.

A reputable corporate name conveys various signals to the market(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Customers are more likely to believe thathighly-regarded companies are competent, act honestly in their dailyoperations, and consider interests of both parties in the relationshipwhen making decisions, which contribute to the trustworthiness ofthese firms. Customers are also more willing to associate themselveswith companies of high repute, as part of self-articulation and self-enhancement. As such, the development of a favorable corporatereputation is important for relationship-oriented firms. Due to thesignificance of relationship marketing in industrial firms, internal-to-the-relationship reputation is especially critical for them. It would bemyopic for industrial firms to gain favorable reputation from onlyinvestors and the general public but neglect their perceived reputationamong customers. This implies that highly-regarded companies canbenefit from their reputable names, and should carefully manageimportant relational resources resulting from having a goodreputation.

By conducting surveys, managers can know if corporate reputationleads to attitudinal and psychological influences on their customers,and regular measurements of customer commitment can reveal theeffectiveness of corporate reputation on attracting favorable beha-viors. These processes are more complex for industrial firms, becausethe purchase decisions of customers are usually determined by groupsof individuals in buying centers rather than by a single person.Members in the buying center may hold various perceptions towards afocal supplier and emphasize different criteria in making evaluationand selection. Therefore, it is important to know whether corporatereputation is important for all buying center members or for whom itis important, the gate keeper or the final decision-maker.

As for the effects of the three relational constructs on behavioralintentions, we find that the two behavioral intentions have varyingsensitivities to relational strength, and willingness to pay a pricepremium is founded on closer customer–company relationships. Spe-cifically, the results in Fig. 2 (model 2 without linkages between trust/identification and commitment) imply that customer trust has muchstronger effect on purchase intention than on price premium, whilecustomer identification, which represents a close bonding betweencustomers and companies, has larger influence than customer truston price premium. In addition, the results in Fig. 1 (model 1 withcommitment as a mediator) reveal that trust still has significant in-fluence on purchase intention even after controlling for the effect ofcommitment, while customer commitment is the only significantinfluence on price premium. Customers who have deep trust in theirproviders tend to continue the relationship, while only customerswhoare strongly committed towards their suppliers are willing to payhigher prices.

This finding is consistent with the notion that there are differ-ent stages in a relationship, from “strangers” to “acquaintances” to“friends” to “partners” (Johnson & Selnes, 2004). When the relation-ship between the customer and the supplier evolves from strangers topartners, customers may experience reputation-based certainty, thentrust-based repurchase intention, and finally identification/commit-ment-based willingness to pay price premium. Therefore, the abilityto attract price premium from customers can be regarded as an in-dicator of an industrial firm's relationship quality with its customersin general. A buying firm's inclination to continue its present re-lationship with a supplier does not necessarily mean that it is alsowilling to pay higher prices for the supplier's offerings. Managersof reputable companies should have a good understanding of theircompanies' relationships with key customers. In managing rela-tionships, it is worthwhile for firms to cultivate trust, identificationand commitment gradually among their customers, and subsequent-ly maintain high-quality relationships. In addition, there are alsodifferent levels of favorable relationships. For example, customers


regarding the supplier as a preferred vendor tend to have higherexpectations and demands in terms of “inputs” and “outputs” fromeach side during successful transactions, compared with those re-garding the supplier merely as an authorized vendor. Although it isgenerally difficult for firms to charge a higher price, especially whenfaced with rigorous competition, preferred vendors are more likelyto succeed in asking for higher prices from their customers thanauthorized vendors, and also less likely to suffer from negative per-ceptions. This may be attributed to the different norms underlying thekey relational constructs in the relationships.

This study also contributes to the organizational identification liter-ature by empirically showing that the identified psychological statetoward suppliers is closely related to, but distinct from, commitment (seealso Brown, Barry, Dacin, &Gunst, 2005). In order to successfullymanageorganizational identification, Cardador and Pratt (2006) suggest threebasic mechanisms: relational, behavioral and symbolic. The presentresearch, in the context of industrial business market, empiricallyconfirms the relational mechanism by linking customer–companyidentification with two relational factors (i.e., trust and commitment),as well as the behavioral mechanism by identifying its direct effect (inmodel 2) and indirect effect (in model 1) on customer behavioralintentions. The results show that corporate reputation and trust arecritical antecedents of customer identification toward companies.

Much of previous research on relationship marketing in theindustrial context highlights the role of trust in building customercommitment and inducing favorable behaviors (e.g., Morgan & Hunt,1994; Kumar et al., 2003). However, this study indicates that therelationship between identification and commitment is stronger thanthe relationship between trust and commitment, which implies thatidentification is a more immediate antecedent of commitment. Inother words, customers identifying with the supplier are more likelyto be committed to it and maintain the relationship than customerswho simply trust it, due to the shared identity and similar valuesystem. Therefore, managers should realize that trust is fundamentalto buying–selling relationships, while identification is more effectiveto retaining customers. Actions that facilitate identification buildingamong customers deserve special attention and efforts. For example,when suppliers design marketing programs aimed at reinforcingcustomer loyalty, besides offering additional benefits and showingtrustworthiness, it is also meaningful to communicate organizationalidentity and create the notion of identification among customers.

As perceived prestige, similarity and uniqueness of organizationalimage all contribute to the development of customer identification,suppliers should monitor their internal-to-the-relationship reputa-tion, which is probably more important than the market's perception.In addition, a thorough understanding of the nature of customers'identity building will enable suppliers to position themselves stra-tegically. For example, comparable operational procedures may en-hance customer belief that the supplier has functional identity similarto themselves, while compatible organizational cultures would faci-litate smoother communication and intimate relationships betweenthe buyer and the seller.

The Chinese context of this study also provides other interestingimplications. As China transitions into a more international market,native and western management philosophies coexist, interplay andjointly guide market behaviors. The Chinese business thinking issignificantly influenced by two kinds of indigenous cultural forces,namely the Chinese stratagems and Confucianism (Fang, 1999). As anold Chinese saying—“the marketplace is just like the battlefield”—indicates, the Chinese stratagems are often applied in solving a varietyof business issues, and help Chinese entrepreneurs to obtain materialand psychological advantages over their opponents. It will be moredifficult for organizations that regard Chinese stratagems as thedominant principle in treating business partners and implementingmarket activities to form identified relationships with their partners.It is possible that the higher reputation its partner has, the more

threats the company will perceive, which may partially account forthe variance in customer identification towards similarly reputablecompanies.

The Confucian tradition in Chinese culture, which emphasizes theimportance of interpersonal relationships (i.e., Guanxi), avoidance ofconflict and the concept of face (i.e., Mianzi), highlights the key rolesof individual and social trustworthiness in the Chinese B2B context(Fang, 1999). Different from relationship marketing characterized byimpersonal and universalistic relationships, Guanxi involves personaland particularistic relationships and serves as a major determinant ofsuccess in the Chinese B2B market (Wang, 2007). This implies that afirm's identity in a Chinese business network is largely based on thebusiness' social network, while a firm's identity in a western businessnetwork is mainly dependent on its own operations. Therefore, socialidentities of the top management and other key personnel are criticalto their corporate identity in the Chinese market and should becarefully managed. Our findings indicate a strong relationship be-tween organizational reputation and customer trust, which may beattributable to: (1) respondents are inclined to give a more favorableevaluation of partner firms' reputation due to the notion of Mianzi,and (2) companies are more likely to have a superior perception of theextent towhich the partner is generally “good” or “bad” because of theharmonious cooperative atmosphere formed through interpersonalefforts. Therefore, adding constructs reflecting connections and trustat the individual level may strengthen the explanatory power of theproposed price-premium model in the Chinese B2B market.

When interpreting the findings of this research, we also need totake the cross-cultural variance into account. National culture canimpact the linkage between relationship strength and behavioralintentions in the B2B settings. For example, comparing responses fromfirms in the United States and Latin America, Hewett, Money, andSharma (2006) find that the uncertainty avoidance dimension ofnational culture moderates the effect of relationship strength onrepurchase intention. Similarly, the high level of uncertainty avoid-ance in Chinese culture may strengthen the relationships betweencustomer commitment and purchase intention and price premium inour study.

7. Limitations and future research

Although most of our hypotheses are supported, this study has afew limitations that present opportunities for further research. First,the survey research may lead to self-generated validity, which refersto the effect of the questionnaire structure on indicated correlationsamong constructs due to respondents' observation of relationshipsamong measures (Feldman & Lynch, 1988). Second, the study assessesresponses of customer companies towards only three focal companiesin B2B service industries. Although the three focal companies aswell as their customers have different profiles in terms of firm size,business type and reputation, the external validity of these findingsrequires additional studies involving other industries and countriesfor further substantiation. Third, other antecedents and consequencesof corporate reputation (e.g., perceived product/service quality, andcustomer satisfaction) can be included in future studies to form amore comprehensive framework, and provide additional insights intothe development, management and benefits of corporate reputation.Fourth, the survey method employed in this study is unable to elicitrespondents' thoughts in situations with suppliers holding differentlevels of reputation and trustworthiness. Therefore, further researchcan use qualitative approaches such as focus group, which can pro-vide complementary findings to the results of this study. Fifth, asrespondents in this study are merely required to indicate the extentto which they are likely to pay a price premium for their sup-pliers, conjoint experiments or choice experiments would be useful inexamining variations in price preference among highly, medium andlowly reputable suppliers. Sixth, the effect of respondent companies'


management style (native style, western style or mixture of the two)is not taken into account in our analysis, which maymake a differencein the results and should be investigated in future studies. Finally, thelack of multidimensional items for measuring commitment and trust,which constrains our operationalizations, is also a limitation of thisstudy.

Other interesting directions for future research relate to customeridentification. Beyond corporate reputation and trust, future researchcan incorporate other antecedents or factors influencing the attrac-tiveness of corporate identity (e.g., identity similarity and corporateinnovativeness). Since the study is among the initial ones in exam-ining organizational identification in the marketing literature, furthertesting in other contexts should enable us to validate and refine thecustomer identification measure.

References

Achrol, R. S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: new forms for turbulentenvironments. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 77−93.

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences ofcustomer–company identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574−585.

Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcomemeasure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1−17.

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brandcommunity: evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19−34.

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continu-ance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63(1), 1−18.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:a review of recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),411−423.

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2004). Antecedents and outcomes of marketingstrategy comprehensiveness. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 33−46.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74−94.

Bansal, H. S., Irving, G. P., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of customercommitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,32(3), 234−250.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173−1182.

Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Miniard, P. W. (2004). Consumer response to retailers'use of partially comparative pricing. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 37−47.

Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-businessmarket. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371−380.

Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the Californiawine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 563−589.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment andgroup self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555−577.

Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identification, andrelationship through social alliance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,34(2), 128−137.

Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services. New York: Free Press.Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao,H., &Glynn,M.A. (1995).Understanding the bondof identification:

an investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing,59(4), 46−57.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: a frameworkfor understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing,67(2), 76−88.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475−482.

Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading theword: investigatingantecedents of consumers' positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in aretailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123−138.

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image,construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggestedterminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99−106.

Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences.Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187−199.

Capozzi, L. (2005). Corporate reputation: our role in sustaining and building a valuableasset. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 290−293.

Cardador, M. T., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Identification management and its bases: bridgingmanagement andmarketing perspectives through a focus on affiliation dimensions.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 174−184.

Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizationalperformance: an empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. CorporateReputation Review, 8(1), 13−30.

Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identificationand commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1−15.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchangenetworks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721−739.

Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputationwhere manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230−240.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of masscommunication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091−1112.

Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitiveadvantage. Management Science, 35, 1504−1511.

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–sellerrelationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35−51.

Dowling, G. (2006). How good corporate reputations create corporate value. CorporateReputation Review, 9(2), 134−143.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational image and memberidentification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(34), 239−263.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journalof Marketing, 51(2), 11−27.

Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: a conceptual and operationalreview. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207−230.

Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is enough!When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185−194.

Fang, T. (1999). Chinese business negotiating style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of

measurement onbelief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,73(3), 421−435.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and cor-porate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233−258.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equationmodelswith unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39−50.

Fullerton, G. (2005). How commitment both enables and undermines marketingrelationships. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1372−1388.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, andcommitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70−87.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment inexchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78−92.

Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainablecompetitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607−618.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationshipmarketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230−247.

Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: prior knowledge and context effects. Journal ofConsumer Research, 16(1), 67−75.

Hewett, K., Money, R. B., & Sharma, S. (2006). National culture and industrial buyer–seller relationships in the United States and Latin America. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 34(3), 386−402.

Johnson, M. D., & Selnes, F. (2004). Customer portfolio management: toward a dynamictheory of exchange relationships. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 1−17.

Katrichis, J. M. (1998). Exploring departmental level interaction patterns in organiza-tional purchasing decisions. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(2), 135−146.

Kingshott, R. P. J. (2006). The impact of psychological contracts upon trust andcommitment within supplier–buyer relationships: a social exchange view. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 35(6), 724−739.

Kleine, R. E., Klein, S. S., & Keman, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: asocial identification perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 209−235.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspective,enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569−598.

Kumar, V., Bohling, T. R., & Ladda, R. N. (2003). Antecedents and consequences ofrelationship intention: implications for transaction and relationship marketing.Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 667−676.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of thereformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13(2), 103−123.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model oforganizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(30), 709−734.

Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity: acategorization from the practitioners' perspectives. European Journal of Marketing,40(7/8), 846−862.

Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions over time. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 88−101.

Mokhiber, R., & Weissman, R. (2003). Multiple corporate personality disorder: the 10worst corporations of 2003. Multinational Monitor, 24(12), 9−21.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers andusers of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations.Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314−328.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994, July). The commitment–trust theory of relationshipmarketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20−38.

Musa, R., Pallister, J., & Robson, M. (2005). The role of perceived value, perceived equityand relational commitment in a disconfirmation paradigm framework: an initialassessment in a “relationship-rich” consumption environment. Advances inConsumer Research, 32(1), 349−357.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Olins, W. (1990). Corporate identity: making business strategy visible through design.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


Page, G., & Fearn, H. (2005). Corporate reputation: what do consumers really careabout? Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 305−313.

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal ofSociology, 98(4), 829−871.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879−903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self report in organizational research: problemsand prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531−544.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: central questions in organizational identification.In David A. Whetten, & Paul C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: buildingtheory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategyrelated to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68(4),126−141.

Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. (2006). The liability of good reputation: a study of productrecalls in the U. S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101−117.

Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or beingknown: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and conse-quences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6),1033−1049.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (1997). The value of a firm's corporate reputation: howreputation helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate ReputationReview, 1(1), 72−76.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superiorfinancial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077−1093.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity.Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43−62.

Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3),80−95.

Simoes, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, R. P. (2005). Managing corporate identity: an internalperspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 153−168.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty inrelational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15−37.

Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity:lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(1),1−12.

Wang, C. L. (2007). Guanxi vs. relationshipmarketing: exploring underlying differences.Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 81−86.

Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recenttheory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), 443−454.

Weiss, A. M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D. J. (1999). Reputation management as amotivation for sales structure decisions. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 74−89.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy ofManagement Review, 7(3), 418−428.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences ofservice quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31−46.

Hean Tat Keh (PhD, University of Washington) is an Associate Professor of Marketingat the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. His research on servicesmarketing, brand management, strategic marketing, and cross-cultural studies hasbeen published in J. of Retailing, Marketing Letters, J. of Advertising, J. of InternationalMarketing, J. of Business Venturing, etc.

Yi Xie is a PhD candidate in the Department of Marketing, Guanghua School ofManagement, Peking University. Her current research interests include corporateassociations, customer-brand relationship management, customer trust repair andcross-cultural consumer psychology and behavior.

Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and...

Documents

Transcript of Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and...