CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyService and Product InnovationCustomer churn and segmentation

Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis

Open access
Gremler, Dwayne D., Van Vaerenbergh, Yves, Brüggen, Elisabeth C., Gwinner, Kevin P.·2020·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1007/s11747-019-00701-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This meta-analysis integrates 1242 effect sizes from 235 independent samples across 224 papers to show that confidence and social relational benefits are stronger drivers of customer loyalty than special treatment benefits. It also finds that the sequential path through perceived value and relationship quality is stronger than the switching-costs path.

Key findings

  • All three relational benefits significantly affect customer loyalty, but confidence and social benefits have the strongest effects; special treatment benefits are consistently weaker. In the path model, confidence benefits (.42, p < .001), social benefits (.31, p < .001), and special treatment benefits (.06, p < .001) relate to perceived value; relationship quality relates to customer loyalty at .66 (p < .001), and customer loyalty relates to firm sales performance at .60 (p < .001).
  • The perceived value/relationship quality mediation path is stronger than the switching-costs path: indirect effects on customer loyalty via perceived value and relationship quality are .14 for confidence, .11 for social, and .02 for special treatment benefits (all p < .001), versus .02, .01, and .01 via switching costs (all p < .001).
  • Moderators: special treatment benefits have a weaker relationship with customer outcomes in relationship versus encounter services (γ = -.08, p < .05); confidence (γ = .11, p < .10) and special treatment (γ = .08, p < .10) benefits are marginally stronger in B2B than B2C settings; special treatment benefits are stronger in papers published in or after 2009 (γ = .10, p < .01).
  • Student samples show stronger effects for confidence benefits (γ = .15, p < .05), with marginal effects for social (γ = .12, p < .10) and special treatment (γ = .12, p < .10) benefits; confidence benefits are stronger in multiple-industry samples (γ = .15, p < .01).

Methods

  • Meta-analysis of 224 papers, 235 independent samples, 97,803 respondents, and 1242 correlations, including published and unpublished studies from 1998 onward that examined at least one of confidence, social, or special treatment benefits and at least one outcome: perceived value, relationship quality, switching costs, customer loyalty, or firm sales performance.
  • Effect sizes were reliability-corrected and sample-size-weighted using random-effects models; Fisher z-transformation was not applied. A structural path analysis used a meta-analytic correlation matrix with harmonic mean sample size n = 11,633.
  • Moderators were tested with multivariate, multilevel meta-regressions, with three models—one per relational benefit—including type of service, B2B versus B2C, publication year, student sample, number of industries, and publication status.

Limitations

  • Stated: meta-analysis is limited by available statistical information; four of seven identified relational benefits were excluded for insufficient studies; relational costs, loyalty toward frontline employees, antecedents of relational benefits, and interaction effects could not be examined.
  • Stated: measurement differences may affect effect sizes; most studies rely on survey methods, so experimental designs are needed for causal inference; moderated mediation and other service classifications could not be tested, and publication year is only a proxy for data-collection year.
  • Evident from the text: the meta-analytic, correlational input and dominance of cross-sectional surveys limit causal claims, as the authors themselves note in calling for experimental and longitudinal work.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11747-019-00701-6

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 117 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § ABSTRACT

    Among the three identified mediation paths through which relational benefits influence customer loyalty, the sequential path through perceived value and relationship quality is the strongest.

    “Among the three identified mediation paths through which relational benefits influence customer loyalty, the sequential path through perceived value and relationship quality is the strongest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Path model results

    The average levels of relational benefits do not differ significantly between B2B and B2C contexts (all p > .10).

    “The t -tests reveal that these average levels do not differ significantly between B2B and B2C contexts (all p &gt; .10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Path model results

    The model accounts for 19% of the variance in switching costs.

    “19% of the variance in switching costs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Analysis of pairwise relations

    The pairwise correlations among the three relational benefits range from .51 to .55.

    “An inspection of the pairwise correlations among the three relational benefits reveals that they range from .51 to .55”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Path model results

    The average level of confidence benefits is 67 (SD = 16) on a 0-100 scale.

    “The average levels are 67 (SD = 16) for confidence benefits”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 78
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 83
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § ABSTRACT

    All three relational benefits affect loyalty, though confidence benefits and social benefits have the strongest effects.

    “The results reveal that all three relational benefits affect loyalty, though confidence benefits and social benefits have the strongest effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    Of the 224 papers, about 84% were published in academic journals and 16% were unpublished.

    “Of the 224 papers, about 84% were published in academic journals; the remaining 16% include unpublished doctoral dissertations, master's theses, working papers, or conference proceedings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    49% of studies focus on encounter services.

    “Studies focusing on encounter services in which customers interact with a different service provider each time account for 49% of our sample”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation
    § Coding of studies

    37% of studies refer to relationship services.

    “while 37% refer to relationship services in which customers interact with the same employee for each service provision (Gutek et al. 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gutek et al. 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    Eighty-six percent of studies examine relational benefits in a single industry.

    “Eighty-six percent of studies examine relational benefits in a single industry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    Study participants are students in 7% of the studies.

    “The study participants are students in 7% of the studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis of pairwise relations

    The three relational benefits correlate significantly with perceived value, switching costs, relationship quality, customer loyalty, and firm sales performance.

    “The three relational benefits correlate significantly with perceived value, switching costs, relationship quality, customer loyalty, and firm sales performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    The remaining 14% of studies examine relational benefits in multiindustry settings.

    “The remaining 14% of studies examine relational benefits in multiindustry settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Coding of studies

    In the final sample, 30% of studies include only one of the three relational benefits, 33% include two, and 37% examine all three simultaneously.

    “Thirty percent of the studies include only one of the three relational benefits in their research models, 33% include two relational benefits, and the remaining 37% examine all three relational benefits simultaneously.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § METHOD Literature search and criteria for inclusion

    The search procedure resulted in a set of 224 papers, some of which included more than one independent sample.

    “This procedure resulted in a set of 224 papers, some of which included more than one independent sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § METHOD Literature search and criteria for inclusion

    The meta-analysis covers 235 independent samples with a combined total of 97,803 respondents.

    “Overall, this meta-analysis thus covers 235 independent samples, with a combined total of 97,803 respondents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Managerial implications

    Confidence and social benefits increase customers' relationship dependency.

    “confidence and social benefits increase customers' relationship dependency”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Managerial implications

    Confidence and social benefits raise the costs of switching to another organization.

    “raise the costs of switching to another organization”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Managerial implications

    Perceived value improves relationship quality and customer loyalty.

    “which improves relationship quality and customer loyalty”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Managerial implications

    Both the perceived value/relationship quality path and the switching costs path drive the effect of relational benefits on customer outcomes.

    “Both processes for realizing the impact of relational benefits (PV/RQ path and switching costs path) drive the effect of relational benefits on customer outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 135 were published in 2010 or later.

    “| 2010+ | 135 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    33% of samples studied two of the three relational benefits.

    “| Percentage of samples studying two of the three benefits | | | 33% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    20 samples studied social benefits, representing 9% of studies.

    “| Social benefits | 20 | 9% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 4 were published in other languages (Dutch, French, German, Portuguese).

    “| Other (Dutch, French, German, Portuguese) | 4 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    57 samples studied social benefits and special treatment benefits, representing 24% of studies.

    “| Social benefits + Special treatment benefits | 57 | 24% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 60 were published in marketing journals.

    “| Marketing journals a | 60 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of unpublished (versus published) research on the third relational benefit relationship is 0.10 (SE = .05) and is statistically significant at p < .05.

    “| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 25 were published in other journals.

    “| Other journals | 25 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 2 were published in Korean.

    “| Korean | 2 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of student (versus non-student) sample on the third relational benefit relationship is 0.12 (SE = .08) and is statistically significant at p < .10.

    “| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of multiple (versus single) industries on the third relational benefit relationship is 0.08 (SE = .06) and is statistically significant at p < .10.

    “| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of B2B (versus B2C) setting on the third relational benefit relationship is 0.08 (SE = .06) and is statistically significant at p < .10.

    “| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of relationship (versus encounter) services on the third relational benefit relationship is -0.08 (SE = .04) and is statistically significant at p < .05.

    “| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 3 were working papers.

    “| Working papers | 3 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    30% of samples studied one of the three relational benefits.

    “| Percentage of samples studying one of the three benefits | | | 30% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 35 were published in service journals.

    “| Service journals b | 35 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    36 samples studied special treatment benefits, representing 15% of studies.

    “| Special treatment benefits | 36 | 15% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of relationship (versus encounter) services on the second relational benefit relationship is -0.04 (SE = .04) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    37% of samples studied all three relational benefits.

    “| Percentage of samples studying all three relational benefits | | | 37% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of year of publication on the third relational benefit relationship is 0.10 (SE = .04) and is statistically significant at p < .01.

    “| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 85 were published in the 2000s.

    “| 2000's | 85 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    88 samples studied confidence benefits, social benefits, and special treatment benefits, representing 37% of studies.

    “| Confidence benefits + Social benefits + Special treatment benefits | 88 | 37% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of year of publication on the second relational benefit relationship is 0.04 (SE = .04) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of B2B (versus B2C) setting on the first relational benefit relationship is 0.11 (SE = .07) and is statistically significant at p < .10.

    “| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 2 were published in Indonesian.

    “| Indonesian | 2 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    7 samples studied confidence benefits and social benefits, representing 3% of studies.

    “| Confidence benefits + Social benefits | 7 | 3% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of year of publication on the first relational benefit relationship is -0.03 (SE = .05) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 25 were published in hospitality and tourism journals.

    “| Hospitality and Tourism journals c | 25 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    The meta-analysis included 224 papers.

    “| Total number of papers | 224 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of student (versus non-student) sample on the first relational benefit relationship is 0.15 (SE = .07) and is statistically significant at p < .05.

    “| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of student (versus non-student) sample on the second relational benefit relationship is 0.12 (SE = .08) and is statistically significant at p < .10.

    “| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 213 were published in English.

    “| English | 213 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of relationship (versus encounter) services on the first relational benefit relationship is -0.03 (SE = .05) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 19 were conference proceedings.

    “| Conference proceedings | 19 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 25 were published in management journals.

    “| Management journals d | 25 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 5 were bachelor and master dissertations.

    “| Bachelor and master dissertations | 5 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 3 were published in Spanish.

    “| Spanish | 3 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of B2B (versus B2C) setting on the second relational benefit relationship is 0.05 (SE = .05) and is not statistically significant.

    “| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 9 were doctoral dissertations.

    “| Doctoral dissertations | 9 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    14 samples studied confidence benefits, representing 6% of studies.

    “| Confidence benefits | 14 | 6% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix D: Breakdown of type of benefits studied in literature

    13 samples studied confidence benefits and special treatment benefits, representing 6% of studies.

    “| Confidence benefits + Special treatment benefits | 13 | 6% |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 4 were published before 2000.

    “| Pre-2000 | 4 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of multiple (versus single) industries on the second relational benefit relationship is 0.04 (SE = .05) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of unpublished (versus published) research on the second relational benefit relationship is 0.03 (SE = .05) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of unpublished (versus published) research on the first relational benefit relationship is 0.01 (SE = .06) and is not statistically significant.

    “| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Table 4: Moderator analyses results

    The moderating effect of multiple (versus single) industries on the first relational benefit relationship is 0.15 (SE = .06) and is statistically significant at p < .01.

    “| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    Of the 224 papers, 18 were published in information technology journals.

    “| Information Technology journals e | 18 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix H: Average levels of relational benefits

    The difference between confidence benefits and social and special treatment benefits appears significant, as the confidence intervals for confidence benefits do not overlap with the confidence intervals for social and special treatment benefits.

    “This difference appears significant, as the confidence intervals for confidence benefits do not overlap with the confidence intervals for social and special treatment benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Web Appendix H: Average levels of relational benefits

    Only about one-third of the 235 independent samples reported average levels and standard deviations of confidence benefits, social benefits, and special treatment benefits.

    “Only about one-third of studies reported this information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § ABSTRACT

    The concept of relational benefits was introduced more than two decades ago, and many studies have investigated it since then.

    “Although the concept of relational benefits was introduced more than two decades ago, and many studies have investigated it since then (Hult and Ferrell 2012; Zinkhan 2005), several issues continue to limit our understanding of customer relational benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hult and Ferrell 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Zinkhan 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § ABSTRACT

    Perceived value helps strengthen customer-firm relationships and improve customer loyalty.

    “On the relationship quality path, research has shown that relational benefits contribute to the perceived value that customers receive from firms (e.g., Martin-Ruiz et al. 2008), which helps strengthen customer-firm relationships and improve customer loyalty (e.g., Gil-Saura et al. 2011; Ruiz-Molina et al. 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gil-Saura et al. 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ruiz-Molina et al. 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § ABSTRACT

    Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) report a stronger effect of confidence benefits on customer outcomes relative to social or special treatment benefits, whereas Meldrum and Kaczynski (2007) find a stronger effect of social benefits.

    “For example, Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) report a stronger effect of confidence benefits on customer outcomes, relative to social or special treatment benefits, whereas Meldrum and Kaczynski (2007) find a stronger effect of social benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meldrum and Kaczynski 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

    An overwhelming majority of studies examine relational benefits as antecedents of customer loyalty, though Gwinner et al. (1998) originally conceptualized them as a consequence of customers' demonstrations of loyalty.

    “An overwhelming majority of studies examine relational benefits as antecedents of customer loyalty (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002), though Gwinner et al. (1998) originally conceptualized them as a consequence of customers' demonstrations of loyalty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gwinner et al. 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Special treatment benefits imply better deals or lower prices for loyal customers, so if they switch, they would have to give up these benefits.

    “Finally, special treatment benefits imply better deals or lower prices for loyal customers, so if they switch, they would have to give up these benefits (Chang and Chen 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chang and Chen 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § ABSTRACT

    Extant literature has not examined the extent to which the two paths simultaneously drive the connections between relational benefits and customer loyalty, which path has a stronger influence, or how the three mediators relate.

    “To date, extant literature has not examined the extent to which these two paths simultaneously drive the connections between relational benefits and customer loyalty, which path has a stronger influence, or how these three mediators relate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Relationship quality

    Investing time, effort, and other resources creates psychological bonds and cultivates mutual understanding, trust, satisfaction, and commitment.

    “Investing time, effort, and other resources create psychological bonds (De Wulf et al. 2001) and cultivate mutual understanding, trust, satisfaction, and commitment (e.g., Gwinner et al. 1998; Palmatier et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites De Wulf et al. 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gwinner et al. 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Palmatier et al. 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Relational benefits in services

    The reasons firms would want to form relationships with customers had been well-documented, but customers' reasons and the benefits that they might derive had not been as well articulated prior to Gwinner et al. (1998).

    “The reasons firms would want to form relationships with customers had been well-documented (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Reichheld 1996), but customers' reasons and the benefits that they might derive had not been as well articulated prior to that study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Morgan and Hunt 1994 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Reichheld 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value as a mediator between relational benefits and relationship quality

    Emerson's value and rationality propositions suggest that if the outcome and process of an exchange is valuable, people engage in more exchanges.

    “Emerson's (1976, p. 340) value proposition (i.e., the more valuable the exchange is to a person, the more likely he or she is to perform that action) and rationality proposition (i.e., people tend to choose options with higher value and a higher chance of occurring) both suggest that if the outcome and the process of an exchange is valuable, people engage in more exchanges.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Emerson 1976 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value as a mediator between relational benefits and relationship quality

    Value is a core concept in social exchange theory, because each actor evaluates the input and output of another actor against his or her own input and output during an interaction.

    “Value is a core concept in social exchange theory, because each actor evaluates the input and output of another actor, against his or her own input and output, during an interaction (Adams 1965).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Adams 1965

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Lam et al. (2004) predict higher switching costs when customers have developed well-known routines and procedures for dealing with a certain organization, which we consider confidence benefits.

    “In particular, Lam et al. (2004) predict higher switching costs when customers have developed well-known routines and procedures for dealing with a certain organization, which we consider confidence benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) assert that relational benefits increase customer-perceived switching costs.

    “Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) assert that relational benefits increase customer-perceived switching costs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value as a mediator between relational benefits and relationship quality

    Ravald and Grönroos (1996) propose that relationships develop because of the value that customers extract from a relationship with a service provider.

    “Ravald and Grönroos (1996) similarly propose that relationships develop because of the value that customers extract from a relationship with a service provider.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ravald and Grönroos 1996 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value

    Several scholars propose a relationship between relational benefits and perceived value.

    “Several scholars propose a relationship between relational benefits and perceived value (e.g., Chen and Hu 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen and Hu 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value

    Utility theory holds that customers derive value according to the difference between the utility provided by buying a certain service and the disutility represented by the price paid or the sacrifices made.

    “This relationship is theoretically rooted in utility theory, which holds that customers derive value according to the difference between the utility provided by buying a certain service (or engaging in a certain activity) and the disutility represented by the price paid or the sacrifices made to attain the service (or engaging in that particular activity) (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 200”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Competitors often use price discounts or other promotions to attract new customers, making it easier for customers to attain similar special treatment benefits by switching to a competitor.

    “In contrast, competitors often use price discounts or other promotions to attract new customers (Villanueva et al. 2008), making it easier for customers to attain similar special treatment benefits by switching to a competitor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Villanueva et al. 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Lam et al. (2004) suggest that switching decisions may involve loyalty benefits that have to be given up when the relationship with the service provider ends.

    “Lam et al. (2004, p. 297) suggest that switching decisions 'may involve loyalty benefits that have to be given up by a customer when his or her relationship with the service provider ends.'”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Customers who enjoy social benefits due to friendly relations with employees often express loyalty toward a particular employee, which makes it harder to switch.

    “Similarly, customers who enjoy social benefits due to friendly relations with employees often express loyalty toward a particular employee (Bove and Johnson 2006; Palmatier et al. 2007), which makes it harder to switch (Jones et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bove and Johnson 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Palmatier et al. 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jones et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value as a mediator between relational benefits and relationship quality

    Gummesson (1987) considers relationship quality a consequence of an accumulation of value over multiple interactions between a customer and a provider.

    “Gummesson (1987) accordingly considers relationship quality a consequence of an accumulation of value over multiple interactions between a customer and a provider.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gummesson 1987 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Relational benefits in services

    Confidence benefits are derived from an intimate relationship with the service provider and make a customer feel more secure, escalating the customer's trust level.

    “Confidence benefits are derived from an intimate relationship with the service provider and make a customer feel more secure, escalating the customer's trust level (Chou and Chen 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chou and Chen 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Customers maintain relationships not only because they want to but also because they have to (switching costs perspective).

    “Customers maintain relationships not only because they want to (PV/RQ perspective) but also because they have to (i.e., switching costs perspective; Geiger et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Geiger et al. 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived value as a mediator between relational benefits and relationship quality

    Perceived value primarily captures the utilitarian outcomes of being in a relationship with a service provider.

    “Typically conceived of as the result of a rational decision-making process (Zeithaml 1988), perceived value primarily captures the utilitarian outcomes of being in a relationship with a service provider.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zeithaml 1988 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

    For relational benefits to be provided, customers need to exhibit some level of patronage; experiencing relational benefits from such patronage then reinforces that loyalty.

    “For relational benefits to be provided, customers need to exhibit some level of patronage; experiencing relational benefits from such patronage then reinforces that loyalty (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Switching costs

    Customers planning to switch from an organization risk not only incurring direct financial costs but also losing knowledge, forgoing special benefits, and perhaps relinquishing personal relationships.

    “Customers planning to switch from an organization risk not only incurring direct financial costs (i.e., set-up costs and monetary losses) but also losing knowledge (i.e., learning the service provider's processes), forgoing special benefits (e.g., customized services), and perhaps relinquishing personal relationships (Burnham et al. 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Burnham et al. 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Relationship quality as a mediator between perceived value and customer loyalty

    Lam et al. (2004) conceptualize value as a cognition-based construct and suggest perceived value influences customer loyalty through a cognition-affect-behavior model.

    “Lam et al. (2004) conceptualize value as a cognition-based construct and suggest perceived value influences customer loyalty through a cognition-affect-behavior model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Relationship quality

    Prior conceptualizations of relationship quality typically include satisfaction, trust, and commitment as indicators.

    “Although debate continues about which dimensions constitute relationship quality, prior conceptualizations typically include (relationship) satisfaction, trust, and commitment as indicators (e.g., De Wulf et al. 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites De Wulf et al. 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Relationship quality as a mediator between perceived value and customer loyalty

    Ulaga and Eggert (2006) rely on the theory of reasoned action to predict that the effect of perceived value on loyalty is mediated by relationship quality.

    “In a similar manner, Ulaga and Eggert (2006) rely on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action to predict a relationship between customer value and loyalty, such that the effect of the cognitive variable (i.e., perceived value) is mediated by an affective variable (i.e., relationship quality) to result in a behavior (i.e., customer loyalty).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ulaga and Eggert 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fishbein and Ajzen 1975

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Type of service: Encounter versus relationship

    In relationship services, customers seek out and mostly interact with the same service provider over an extended period of time, which provides more opportunities for the diffusion of affect and creation of social bonds.

    “In relationship services, customers seek out and mostly interact with the same service provider over an extended period of time, which provides more opportunities for the diffusion of affect and creation of social bonds (Brown and Lam 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown and Lam 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § METHOD Literature search and criteria for inclusion

    The meta-analysis retrieved published and unpublished articles examining relational benefits using several search approaches.

    “We used several approaches to retrieve published and unpublished articles examining relational benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § POTENTIAL MODERATORS

    Relational benefits have been studied in both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) domains, with potential implications for relationship marketing outcomes.

    “Moreover, relational benefits have been studied in both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) domains, with potential implications for the relationship marketing outcomes (e.g., Palmatier et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palmatier et al. 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Coding of studies

    Two independent reviewers coded the moderators using a predefined coding scheme with an agreement rate of 98%.

    “two independent reviewers coded the moderators using a predefined coding scheme (see Web Appendix E), with an agreement rate of 98%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Consequences of customer loyalty

    Watson et al. (2015) report a significant effect of a higher-order construct of customer loyalty, which includes both attitudinal and behavioral elements, on performance.

    “Watson et al. (2015) report a significant effect of a higher-order construct of customer loyalty, which includes both attitudinal and behavioral elements, on performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Watson et al. 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § H7: Switching costs mediate the relationships of (a) confidence, (b) social, and (c) special treatment benefits with customer loyalty.

    Giving up valuable and high-quality relationships may be difficult and increase switching costs.

    “Giving up valuable and high-quality relationships may be difficult and increase switching costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Effect size integration

    Fisher z-transformation was not applied because it would underestimate the actual variance and overestimate the effect size of heterogeneous correlations typical in marketing studies by 15% to 45%.

    “we did not apply a Fisher z-transformation when integrating effect sizes, because these correlations would underestimate the coefficients' actual variance and overestimate the effect size of heterogeneous correlations (as are typical in marketing studies) by 15% to 45%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Field 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Effect size integration

    The paper corrected correlation coefficients for measurement error by dividing them by the product of the square root of the reliabilities for both constructs.

    “we first correct the correlation coefficients for measurement error by dividing them by the product of the square root of the reliabilities for both constructs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Path model estimation

    The harmonic mean of the cumulative sample sizes across all relationships was used as the sample size for the analysis (n = 11,633).

    “We used the harmonic mean of the cumulative sample sizes across all relationships as the sample size for the analysis ( n = 11,633).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § H7: Switching costs mediate the relationships of (a) confidence, (b) social, and (c) special treatment benefits with customer loyalty.

    Lam et al. (2004) consider switching costs independent of the PV/RQ perspective; Scheer et al. (2010) support a bidimensional model with separate paths from benefit-based dependence and cost-based dependence to loyalty.

    “Lam et al. (2004) consider switching costs independent of the PV/RQ perspective; Scheer et al. (2010) support a bidimensional model, with separate paths from benefit-based dependence (i.e., relational benefits) versus cost-based dependence (i.e., switching costs) to loyalty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Scheer et al. 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Type of market: B2B versus B2C

    Relative to B2C customers, B2B customers tend to exhibit lower levels of customer loyalty, more carefully consider the trade-offs between costs and benefits, and focus more on long-term benefits.

    “Relative to B2C customers, B2B customers tend to exhibit lower levels of customer loyalty, more carefully consider the trade-offs between costs and benefits, and focus more on long-term benefits (Lam et al. 2004; Palmatier et al. 2006; Ulaga and Eggert 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lam et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Palmatier et al. 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ulaga and Eggert 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Moderator analysis

    Multiple effect sizes provided by one sample cannot be considered independent, and ignoring these dependencies can lead to an underestimation of standard errors.

    “Multiple effect sizes provided by one sample cannot be considered independent (Hox 2010), and ignoring these dependencies can lead to an underestimation of standard errors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hox 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Year of publication

    Customers place greater emphasis on convenience and the value the organization adds beyond the core service.

    “Customers also place greater emphasis on convenience and the value the organization adds beyond the core service (Kumar and Reinartz 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar and Reinartz 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Type of service: Encounter versus relationship

    Customers of encounter services generally have weaker bonds with the service provider, and social interactions are less frequent.

    “For example, customers of encounter services generally have weaker bonds with the service provider, and social interactions are less frequent (Brown and Lam 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown and Lam 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Type of service: Encounter versus relationship

    The accessibility-diagnosticity perspective suggests that information that is more diagnostic and clearly discriminates among alternate categorizations strongly informs judgments and choice.

    “The accessibility-diagnosticity perspective also suggests that information that is more diagnostic and clearly discriminates among alternate categorizations strongly informs judgments and choice (e.g., Herr et al. 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Herr et al. 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Path model estimation

    The harmonic mean assigns less weight to larger samples, so it offers a more conservative test than the arithmetic mean.

    “The harmonic mean assigns less weight to larger samples, so it offers a more conservative test than the arithmetic mean.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Effect size integration

    When reliability information is missing, the sample size-weighted mean reliability provides an approximation.

    “If this information is missing, the sample size-weighted mean reliability provides an approximation (Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § POTENTIAL MODERATORS

    During the 20-year period in which research on relational benefits has emerged, a variety of relationship marketing practices also have emerged.

    “During the 20-year period in which research on relational benefits has emerged, a variety of relationship marketing practices also have emerged (Kumar and Reinartz 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar and Reinartz 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning
    § POTENTIAL MODERATORS

    A multivariate approach is becoming increasingly common in meta-analyses in marketing.

    “A multivariate approach thus is becoming increasingly common in meta-analyses in marketing (e.g., Pick and Eisend 2016; Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pick and Eisend 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Year of publication

    In recent years, marketplaces have changed dramatically, with increased competition due to globalization, technology allowing better comparisons, increasing customer expectations, and lower customer loyalty.

    “In recent years, marketplaces have changed dramatically. Competition has increased significantly due to globalization, technology allows customers to make better comparisons across competitors, customers have increasing expectations regarding services, and customers are less loyal than ever (Kumar and Reinartz 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar and Reinartz 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § H7: Switching costs mediate the relationships of (a) confidence, (b) social, and (c) special treatment benefits with customer loyalty.

    Pick and Eisend (2014) propose a path from relationship quality to switching costs, suggesting that customers lose the benefits from their relationship with a firm when they leave.

    “In contrast, Pick and Eisend (2014) propose a path from relationship quality to switching costs-suggesting that customers lose the benefits from their relationship with a firm when they leave.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pick and Eisend 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations and further research

    Methodological concerns cannot be ruled out completely.

    “However, methodological concerns cannot be ruled out completely”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Theoretical implications

    Relational benefits may engender switching costs, but switching costs also entail other perceptions of the quality of the customer-firm relationship beyond relational benefits.

    “Thus, relational benefits may engender switching costs, but it appears that switching costs also entail other perceptions of the quality of the customer-firm relationship, beyond its relational benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Limitations and further research

    The majority of papers in our meta-analysis have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which assures a certain level of quality.

    “The majority of papers in our meta-analysis have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which assures a certain level of quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    Differences in the strengths of the effects of the relational benefit variables could be attributed to measurement issues.

    “Second, differences in the strengths of the effects of the relational benefit variables could be attributed to measurement issues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    The effect of relational benefits has changed over time; relationships between special treatment benefits and customer outcomes appear stronger in more recent studies.

    “Our findings also indicate that the effect of relational benefits has changed over time. Specifically, relationships between special treatment benefits and customer outcomes appear stronger in more recent studies”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    All three relational benefits strengthen customer perceived value and thus relationship quality, which in turn increases customer loyalty.

    “With respect to the PV/RQ path, all three relational benefits strengthen customer perceived value and thus relationship quality, which in turn increases customer loyalty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations and further research

    We use publication year as a proxy for the year of data collection, which typically is not reported.

    “we use publication year as a proxy for the year of data collection, which typically is not reported.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    Confidence and social benefits are equally important across encounter and relationship services, but special treatment benefits provide a differential advantage for encounter services.

    “It thus seems that confidence and social benefits are equally important across encounter and relationship services, but special treatments benefits provide a differential advantage for encounter services.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Theoretical implications

    Relational benefits and switching costs are distinct constructs both conceptually and empirically.

    “Our findings suggest that they are distinct constructs-both conceptually and empirically”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    Even though both paths have direct effects on customer loyalty, the perceived value/relationship quality path also reinforces the switching costs path.

    “Our findings suggest that even though both paths have direct effects on customer loyalty, the PV/RQ path also reinforces the switching costs path.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    Both confidence and social benefits exert significant impacts on loyalty through perceived value, relationship quality, and switching costs, each of which serves as a mediator.

    “Both confidence and social benefits exert significant impacts on loyalty, through customer perceived value, relationship quality, and switching costs-each of which serves as a mediator in the relationships.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    Our moderator analysis relies on a multivariate approach, which enhances its statistical power.

    “Our moderator analysis relies on a multivariate approach, which enhances its statistical power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Limitations and further research

    This meta-analysis includes only customer loyalty toward an organization because an insufficient number of studies examine customer loyalty toward a frontline employee.

    “this meta-analysis includes only customer loyalty toward an organization as an insufficient number of studies examine customer loyalty toward a frontline employee.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palmatier et al. (2007) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Limitations and further research

    Seven distinct relational benefits were identified in prior literature, but four were excluded because they did not appear in a sufficient number of studies.

    “we identify seven distinct relational benefits in prior literature but had to exclude four that do not appear in a sufficient number of studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications

    The path to loyalty from relational benefits is stronger through the perceived value/relationship quality path than through the switching costs path.

    “the path to loyalty from relational benefits is stronger through the PV/RQ path.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Limitations and further research

    Other mediating mechanisms may be at work, such as gratitude and entitlement.

    “Moreover, other mediating mechanisms may be at work, such as gratitude and entitlement (Wetzel et al. 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wetzel et al. 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    Factors such as products versus services or contractual versus non-contractual settings could affect the results.

    “Fifth, factors such as products versus services or contractual versus non-contractual settings also could affect the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations and further research

    Our meta-analysis draws inferences from existing studies on relational benefits that have not addressed these context factors fully.

    “Our meta-analysis draws inferences from existing studies on relational benefits that have not addressed these context factors fully.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    Relatively few studies examine antecedents of customer relational benefits, so we could not include them in the current study.

    “Fourth, relatively few studies examine antecedents of customer relational benefits, so we could not include them in the current study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    Our meta-analysis is limited in that we must rely on statistics reported by other authors in their papers.

    “our meta-analysis is limited in that we must rely on statistics reported by other authors in their papers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations and further research

    In this study, we consider relational benefits independent.

    “In this study, we consider relational benefits independent”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations and further research

    Virtually all studies examine only the main effects of relational benefits, so we cannot include interaction effects.

    “Virtually all these studies examine only the main effects of relational benefits, so we cannot include interaction effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis

    The authors asked native speakers of foreign languages (or people very fluent in a particular language) to help code articles in a different language.

    “We asked native speakers of the foreign languages (or people who are very fluent in a particular language) to help coding articles in a different language.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
135 of 135

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Customers often value their social relationships with frontline service providers that result from repeated, interpersonal interactions.

    “Customers often value their social relationships with frontline service providers that result from repeated, interpersonal interactions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When customers switch, they must become familiar with a new organization, which invokes psychological (increased anxiety) and economic costs.

    “When they switch, customers must become familiar with a new organization, which invokes psychological (i.e., increased anxiety) and economic costs.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Confidence benefits and social benefits build up gradually over the course of multiple interactions between customers and service providers, and both are very difficult for competitors to mimic when acquiring a new customer.

    “Confidence benefits and social benefits build up gradually over the course of multiple interactions between customers and service providers, and both are very difficult for competitors to mimic when acquiring a new customer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The interactions with different employees create greater variability and uncertainty in service performance.

    “The interactions with different employees create greater variability and uncertainty in service performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Customers of relationship services likely know what to expect.

    “Customers of relationship services likely know what to expect.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Customers face more and more time constraints, meaning they do not always have time to engage in an extensive comparison of alternatives.

    “First, customers face more and more time constraints, meaning they do not always have time to engage in an extensive comparison of alternatives.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Marketing activities involve fewer customer-employee interactions (e.g., technology replacing customer-employee interactions).

    “Second, marketing activities involve fewer customer-employee interactions (e.g., technology replacing customer-employee interactions), so social benefits may become more important to customers seeking a personal connection.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Customers are increasingly price sensitive, looking for good deals and ways to save money.

    “Third, customers are increasingly price sensitive, looking for good deals and ways to save money.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Studies of relational benefits differ in their use of a student or non-student sample.

    “Second, studies of relational benefits differ in their use of a student or non-student sample.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Approaches to relationship marketing changed notably around 2005/2006 due to changes in technology, consumer behavior, and markets.

    “Approaches to relationship marketing changed notably around the midpoint of the time of our sample (i.e., 2005/2006), due to the various changes in technology (e.g., introduction of Facebook and Twitter), consumer behavior, and markets, as we noted previously.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The average time lag between data collection and publication is about three years, such that a paper published in 2009 likely reflects data collected in 2006.

    “we anticipate an average time lag of about three years, such that a paper published in 2009 likely reflects data collected in 2006.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Special treatment benefits can be copied easily by competitors.

    “Because these benefits generally can be copied easily by competitors”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Special treatment benefits can be expensive to provide.

    “these benefits can be expensive to provide”
13 of 13

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Relationship-service social-benefit mean differs between text and appendix

    Minor

    The footnote reports a mean of 56 for social benefits in relationship services, while Web Appendix H reports 57 for the same group.

  • Table 2 points to the wrong web appendix

    Minor

    Table 2 says the full pairwise analyses are in Web Appendix E, whereas the appendix headings place those results in Web Appendix G.

  • Switching-cost mediation is assigned the wrong hypothesis number in Table 3

    Minor

    Table 3 labels the confidence-benefits switching-cost mediation test H5a, but H5 concerns whether benefits are associated with switching costs. The mediation hypothesis is H7; the same mislabeling affects the social and special-treatment rows.

  • A doctoral dissertation is coded as published research

    Minor

    Web Appendix B identifies Njoku (2009) as a doctoral dissertation, but Web Appendix F codes it as Published. The paper's publication-status definition places dissertations in the unpublished category.

  • A journal article is coded as unpublished research

    Minor

    Web Appendix B lists Varela-Neira et al. (2010) as an article in the Journal of Service Management, but Web Appendix F codes the study as Unpublished.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gremler, D. D., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Brüggen, E. C., & Gwinner, K. P.
Affiliations
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Gremler, Dwayne D.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-10-29
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
565-583
ISSN
  • 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-019-00701-6
OpenAlex
W2982458389
Semantic Scholar
6f4068c80c0f161e3b44179a6f533aee3113a172
Cited by
148
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Arizona State University Center for Services Leadership (Leading Edge Service Research Award)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer churn and segmentation
Keywords
relationship marketing, customer loyalty, confidence benefits, social benefits, perceived value, relationship quality, switching costs, service marketing, mediation pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review