The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 117 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis
Open accessOverview
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of 224 papers, 235 independent samples, 97,803 respondents, and 1242 correlations, including published and unpublished studies from 1998 onward that examined at least one of confidence, social, or special treatment benefits and at least one outcome: perceived value,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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
129 Own result · 96 Not checked yet · 24 Own interpretation · 21 Own method · 8 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirectn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The t -tests reveal that these average levels do not differ significantly between B2B and B2C contexts (all p > .10).”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“19% of the variance in switching costs”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inspection of the pairwise correlations among the three relational benefits reveals that they range from .51 to .55”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average levels are 67 (SD = 16) for confidence benefits”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“36% of the variance in firm sales performance”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“49 (SD = 18) for special treatment benefits”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“51 (SD = 19) for social benefits”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model in Figure 2 accounts for 46% of the variance in perceived value”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hypothesized model fits the data well ( χ ²(11) = 1850.99, p < .001; CFI = .96, TLI = .90, SRMR = .05).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 78
- Probably not a substantial claim. 83
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results reveal that all three relational benefits affect loyalty, though confidence benefits and social benefits have the strongest effects.”
plaindirectn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies focusing on encounter services in which customers interact with a different service provider each time account for 49% of our sample”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“while 37% refer to relationship services in which customers interact with the same employee for each service provision (Gutek et al. 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gutek et al. 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eighty-six percent of studies examine relational benefits in a single industry.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study participants are students in 7% of the studies”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three relational benefits correlate significantly with perceived value, switching costs, relationship quality, customer loyalty, and firm sales performance.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining 14% of studies examine relational benefits in multiindustry settings.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This procedure resulted in a set of 224 papers, some of which included more than one independent sample.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, this meta-analysis thus covers 235 independent samples, with a combined total of 97,803 respondents.”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“confidence and social benefits increase customers' relationship dependency”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“raise the costs of switching to another organization”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which improves relationship quality and customer loyalty”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2010+ | 135 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Percentage of samples studying two of the three benefits | | | 33% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Social benefits | 20 | 9% |”
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Other (Dutch, French, German, Portuguese) | 4 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Social benefits + Special treatment benefits | 57 | 24% |”
plainn = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Marketing journals a | 60 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Other journals | 25 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Korean | 2 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Working papers | 3 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Percentage of samples studying one of the three benefits | | | 30% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Service journals b | 35 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Special treatment benefits | 36 | 15% |”
plainn = 36- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Percentage of samples studying all three relational benefits | | | 37% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2000's | 85 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Confidence benefits + Social benefits + Special treatment benefits | 88 | 37% |”
plainn = 88- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Indonesian | 2 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Confidence benefits + Social benefits | 7 | 3% |”
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Year of publication | H12a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | .04 | (.04) | n.s. | .10 | (.04) | ** |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Hospitality and Tourism journals c | 25 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Total number of papers | 224 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Student (versus non-student) sample | | .15 | (.07) | * | .12 | (.08) | + | .12 | (.08) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| English | 213 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Relationship (versus encounter) services | H10a,b,c | -.03 | (.05) | n.s. | -.04 | (.04) | n.s. | -.08 | (.04) | * |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Conference proceedings | 19 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Management journals d | 25 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Bachelor and master dissertations | 5 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Spanish | 3 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| B2B (versus B2C) setting | H11a,b,c | .11 | (.07) | + | .05 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Doctoral dissertations | 9 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Confidence benefits | 14 | 6% |”
plainn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Confidence benefits + Special treatment benefits | 13 | 6% |”
plainn = 13- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Pre-2000 | 4 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Unpublished (versus published) research | | .01 | (.06) | n.s. | .03 | (.05) | n.s. | .10 | (.05) | * |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Multiple (versus single) industries | | .15 | (.06) | ** | .04 | (.05) | n.s. | .08 | (.06) | + |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Information Technology journals e | 18 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference appears significant, as the confidence intervals for confidence benefits do not overlap with the confidence intervals for social and special treatment benefits.”
hedgedn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only about one-third of studies reported this information.”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chang and Chen 2007 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morgan and Hunt 1994 source
- Not checked yetcites Reichheld 1996
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Emerson 1976 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adams 1965
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lam et al. 2004 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) assert that relational benefits increase customer-perceived switching costs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Ravald and Grönroos (1996) similarly propose that relationships develop because of the value that customers extract from a relationship with a service provider.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ravald and Grönroos 1996 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Several scholars propose a relationship between relational benefits and perceived value (e.g., Chen and Hu 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen and Hu 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Villanueva et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.'”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lam et al. 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gummesson (1987) accordingly considers relationship quality a consequence of an accumulation of value over multiple interactions between a customer and a provider.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gummesson 1987 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chou and Chen 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geiger et al. 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zeithaml 1988 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burnham et al. 2003 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lam et al. (2004) conceptualize value as a cognition-based construct and suggest perceived value influences customer loyalty through a cognition-affect-behavior model.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lam et al. 2004 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Wulf et al. 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ulaga and Eggert 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Fishbein and Ajzen 1975
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Lam 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used several approaches to retrieve published and unpublished articles examining relational benefits.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palmatier et al. 2006 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“two independent reviewers coded the moderators using a predefined coding scheme (see Web Appendix E), with an agreement rate of 98%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Watson et al. 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Giving up valuable and high-quality relationships may be difficult and increase switching costs.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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%.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Field 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used the harmonic mean of the cumulative sample sizes across all relationships as the sample size for the analysis ( n = 11,633).”
plainn = 11,633- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hox 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Customers also place greater emphasis on convenience and the value the organization adds beyond the core service (Kumar and Reinartz 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar and Reinartz 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, customers of encounter services generally have weaker bonds with the service provider, and social interactions are less frequent (Brown and Lam 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Lam 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Herr et al. 1991 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The harmonic mean assigns less weight to larger samples, so it offers a more conservative test than the arithmetic mean.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If this information is missing, the sample size-weighted mean reliability provides an approximation (Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar and Reinartz 2018
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A multivariate approach thus is becoming increasingly common in meta-analyses in marketing (e.g., Pick and Eisend 2016; Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2018).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar and Reinartz 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pick and Eisend 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, methodological concerns cannot be ruled out completely”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of papers in our meta-analysis have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which assures a certain level of quality.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, differences in the strengths of the effects of the relational benefit variables could be attributed to measurement issues.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we use publication year as a proxy for the year of data collection, which typically is not reported.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that they are distinct constructs-both conceptually and empirically”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that even though both paths have direct effects on customer loyalty, the PV/RQ path also reinforces the switching costs path.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our moderator analysis relies on a multivariate approach, which enhances its statistical power.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“this meta-analysis includes only customer loyalty toward an organization as an insufficient number of studies examine customer loyalty toward a frontline employee.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palmatier et al. (2007) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we identify seven distinct relational benefits in prior literature but had to exclude four that do not appear in a sufficient number of studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the path to loyalty from relational benefits is stronger through the PV/RQ path.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Moreover, other mediating mechanisms may be at work, such as gratitude and entitlement (Wetzel et al. 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wetzel et al. 2014 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifth, factors such as products versus services or contractual versus non-contractual settings also could affect the results.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analysis draws inferences from existing studies on relational benefits that have not addressed these context factors fully.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, relatively few studies examine antecedents of customer relational benefits, so we could not include them in the current study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our meta-analysis is limited in that we must rely on statistics reported by other authors in their papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, we consider relational benefits independent”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Virtually all these studies examine only the main effects of relational benefits, so we cannot include interaction effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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”
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have revealed that switching costs are diverse and multidimensional in nature (Barroso and Picón 2012; Gremler et al. 2020; Kuo 2020).”
From Health insurance policy renewal: an exploration of reputation, performance, and affect to understand customer inertia (2022) · cites this paper as Gremler et al. 2020
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Path model results
“whereas that of social benefits is significantly higher in relationship services (56) than in encounter services (48; t(77) = 2.404, p < .05).”
§ Web Appendix H: Average levels of relational benefits
“| Relationship services | 69 | 57 | 55 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ REFERENCES
“Full results of the pairwise analyses can be found in Web Appendix E.”
§ A Meta-Analysis
“Web Appendix G: Results of the pairwise analyses”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Table 3: Mediation analysis
“| Confidence benefits → Customer loyalty | Switching costs | H5a | .02*** | Yes |”
§ H7: Switching costs mediate the relationships of (a) confidence, (b) social, and (c) special treatment benefits with customer loyalty.
“H7: Switching costs mediate the relationships of (a) confidence, (b) social, and (c) special treatment benefits with customer loyalty.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis
“Njoku, B. P. (2009). The role of emotional relational behaviors on interpersonal consumer service loyalty. Doctoral Dissertation , Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University.”
§ Web Appendix F: Sample characteristics
“| Njoku (2009) | 204 | - | - | ✓ | Encounter services | B2C | Published | Nonstudents |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Web Appendix B: List of papers included in the meta-analysis
“Varela-Neira, C., Vázquez-Casielles, R., & Iglesias, V. (2010). Lack of preferential treatment: Effects on dissatisfaction after a service failure. Journal of Service Management, 21 (1), 45-68.”
§ Web Appendix F: Sample characteristics
“| Varela-Neira et al. (2010) | 344 | - | - | ✓ | Encounter services | B2C | Unpublished | Nonstudents |”
Citations
Cites
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298805200302 · Cited by 18,292
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · Cited by 14,779
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research
Fournier, S. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209515 · Cited by 7,542
Multilevel analysis techniques and applications
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2002) · Cited by 6,006
Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420 · Cited by 5,765
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299906300205 · Cited by 4,899
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meta‐analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how?
Paul, J., & Barari, M. M. (2022) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21657 · Cited by 640
Hulland, J. S., & Houston, M. B. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-020-00721-7 · Cited by 343
A meta‐analysis of customer engagement behaviour
Barari, M. M., Ross, M., Quach, S., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2020) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12609 · Cited by 305
Vieira, V. A., Rafael, D., & Agnihotri, R. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.030 · Cited by 121
Consumer Trust: Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Empirical Research
Khamitov, M., Rajavi, K., Huang, D.-W., & Hong, Y. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad065 · Cited by 115
Thaichon, P., Quach, S., Barari, M. M., & Nguyen, M. (2022) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1177/14413582231167664 · Cited by 112
40 years of loyalty programs: how effective are they? Generalizations from a meta-analysis
Belli, A., O’Rourke, A.-M., Carrillat, F. A., Pupovac, L., Melnyk, V., & Napolova, E. (2021) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-021-00804-z · Cited by 132
The effects of supplier B2B sustainability positioning on buyer performance: The role of trust
Casidy, R., & Li, Y. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.02.005 · Cited by 70
Digital transformation and value-based selling activities: seller and buyer perspectives
Alamäki, A. V., & Korpela, P. (2021) · Baltic Journal of Management · doi:10.1108/bjm-08-2020-0304 · Cited by 101
Magatef, S. G., Al‐Okaily, M., Ashour, L. M., & Abuhussein, T. (2023) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100149 · Cited by 94
Alagarsamy, S., Mehrolia, S., & Singh, B. (2021) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2020.1868213 · Cited by 47
Vieira, V. A., Wolter, J. S., Araújo, C. F., & Frio, R. S. (2022) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.09.002 · Cited by 48
Antecedents and outcomes of open innovation over the past 20 years: A framework and meta‐analysis
Zhang, H., Ma, Z., Liang, X., & Garrett, T. C. (2023) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12710 · Cited by 44
An empirical investigation of the factors affecting customer lifetime value
Dandis, A. O., Eid, M. A. H., Robin, R., & Wierdak, N. (2021) · International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · doi:10.1108/ijqrm-12-2020-0412 · Cited by 57
Miao, Y., Du, R., & Ou, C. X. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103558 · Cited by 45
The effect of brand experiences and relational benefits on loyalty in the fast-food restaurants
Dandis, A. O., Wallace-Williams, D. M., Ni, A. K., Wright, L. T., & Siam, Y. I. A. (2022) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-03-2022-0091 · Cited by 46
Utkarsh, N. A., & Gupta, R. K. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102879 · Cited by 41
Menidjel, C., & Bilgihan, A. (2021) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2021.1900342 · Cited by 44
A meta‐analysis on peer‐to‐peer accommodation adoption
Ashaduzzaman, M., Weaven, S. K., Ross, M., Jebarajakirthy, C., Surachartkumtonkun, J., & Maseeh, H. I. (2023) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21916 · Cited by 33
Big data analytics and the use of artificial intelligence in the services industry: a meta-analysis
Ladeira, W. J., Santini, F. D. O., Rasul, T., Cheah, I., Elhajjar, S., Yasin, N., & Akhtar, S. (2024) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2024.2374990 · Cited by 38
Halabi, M. E., & Trendel, O. (2024) · Journal of services research · doi:10.1177/10946705241248242 · Cited by 28
Examining the consequences of customer-oriented deviance in retail
Mortimer, G., Fazal‐e‐Hasan, S. M., & Strebel, J. E. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102315 · Cited by 31
A meta-model of customer brand loyalty and its antecedents
Desveaud, K., Mandler, T., & Eisend, M. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114589 · Cited by 60
Vieira, V. A., Liu, R. L., & de Mello, V. G. (2021) · The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/10696679.2021.2004379 · Cited by 31
Online service failure: how consumers from emerging countries react and complain
Rohden, S. F., & de Matos, C. A. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-01-2021-4366 · Cited by 28
Relationships among actors within the sharing economy: Meta-analytics review
Barari, M. M., Paul, J., Ross, M., Quach, S., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2022) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103215 · Cited by 31
Fifteen Years of Research on Customer Loyalty Formation: A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Model
So, K. K. F., Yang, Y., & Li, X. (2024) · Cornell Hospitality Quarterly · doi:10.1177/19389655241276506 · Cited by 40
Freedom restriction and non-member customers’ response to loyalty programs
Ding, A., Legendre, T. S., Han, J., & Chang, H. “. (2020) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102809 · Cited by 27
Kautish, P., Khare, A., & Sharma, R. (2022) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-021-00134-7 · Cited by 25
Dandis, A. O., Eid, M. A. H., Griffin, D., Robin, R., & Ni, A. K. (2023) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-08-2022-0248 · Cited by 46
Vieira, V. A., Araújo, C. F., & Groening, C. (2025) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1177/1069031x251316551 · Cited by 24
Credibility and price premium-based competitiveness for industrial brands
Leckie, C., Dwivedi, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103418 · Cited by 24
Owing to interactivity: a meta-analysis on consumer-brand responses in the digital context
Fan, X., Li, H., & Jiang, X. (2025) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-09-2024-0457 · Cited by 21
How firms can create delightful customer experience? Contrasting roles of future reward uncertainty
Zou, L. W., Yim, C. K., & Chan, K. W. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.031 · Cited by 17
Hobeika, J., Khelladi, I., & Orhan, M. A. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2301 · Cited by 17
Singh, J., & Bridge, R. (2023) · Journal of services research · doi:10.1177/10946705231177385 · Cited by 22
Karami, M., Eyüpoğlu, Ş. Z., & Ertugan, A. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13070565 · Cited by 28
Can marketing reduce inequality? Evidence from marketing science
Ashik, F., Lim, W. M., Vassallo, J. P., & Voola, R. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115053 · Cited by 18
How Attitudes Translate to Loyalty: An Integrative Model in Service Relationship Marketing
Akhgari, M., & Bruning, E. R. (2024) · Journal of Relationship Marketing · doi:10.1080/15332667.2024.2368323 · Cited by 27
Relationship Norm Moderates Observers’ Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment
Chark, R., & Wang, J. (2023) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875231175076 · Cited by 15
Shukla, A., Varshney, J., & Raj, A. (2024) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.04.010 · Cited by 17
Benitez, M., León-Pérez, J., Orgambídez, A., & Medina, F. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18158137 · Cited by 11
Loyal customers’ tipping points of spending for services: a reciprocity perspective
Teichmann, K. (2021) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2019-0781 · Cited by 14
Rehman, F. U., Zahid, H., Qayyum, A., & Jamil, R. A. (2025) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer20030223 · Cited by 20
The determinants of retail customers' purchase intent
Menidjel, C., & Bilgihan, A. (2022) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12802 · Cited by 13
Swani, K., Labrecque, L. I., & Markos, E. (2024) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.03.007 · Cited by 15
Saragih, H. S. (2024) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-04-2023-0201 · Cited by 13
Sheikh, S. E., Halim, Y. T., Hamdy, H. I., & Hamdy, M. A. (2020) · مجلة جامعة الإسکندرية للعلوم الإدارية · doi:10.21608/acj.2020.121770 · Cited by 13
Bui, H. T., Filimonau, V., & Sezerel, H. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2025.2519732 · Cited by 12
Smart service value: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation in the retailing context
Roy, S. K., Singh, G., Hollebeek, L. D., Shabnam, S., Japutra, A., Doorn, S. V., Ray, S., & Appio, F. P. (2024) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103097 · Cited by 12
Affective commitment recipes for wine clubs: Value goes beyond the vine
Krishen, A. S., Berezan, O., Agarwal, S., & Kachen, S. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113464 · Cited by 12
Customer relational benefit: A second‐order meta‐analysis and an alternative framework
Vieira, V., Araújo, C. F., & de Almeida, M. I. S. (2023) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12987 · Cited by 11
Enhancing the impact of literature reviews: guidelines for making meaningful contributions
van Riel, A. C. R., & Snyder, H. (2024) · Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC · doi:10.1108/sjme-05-2024-0125 · Cited by 11
Can entrepreneurial marketing compensate for late market entry? A moderated mediation analysis
Arshi, T., Pleshko, L. P., Begum, V., & Butt, A. S. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15808 · Cited by 11
The direct and interactive effects of retail community engagement
Lund, D. J., Hansen, J. D., Robicheaux, R. A., & Oreja, C. C. (2021) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2020-0071 · Cited by 11
Building loyalty in the fast fashion market: The key role of customer brand identification
Resino, J. J. B., Martínez‐Ruiz, M. P., & Tajvidi, R. (2024) · Journal of Global Fashion Marketing · doi:10.1080/20932685.2024.2396620 · Cited by 10
Najjar, H., & Najar, C. (2022) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-022-00178-3 · Cited by 10
Improving Blood Donor Retention and Donor Relationships with Past Donation Use Appeals
Shehu, E., Veseli, B., Clément, M., & Winterich, K. P. (2023) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705231202244 · Cited by 10
Nelson, C. A., Wang, X., & Cui, A. P. (2024) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.12.022 · Cited by 15
Steiner, B., & Brandhoff, M. (2020) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2018-0703 · Cited by 11
Dubey, P., Bajpai, N., Guha, S., & Kulshreshtha, K. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101275 · Cited by 9
Zikienė, K., Kyguolienė, A., & Kisieliauskas, J. (2024) · Creativity Studies · doi:10.3846/cs.2024.20130 · Cited by 8
Developing a strategic typology of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)
Boukis, A., & Restuccia, M. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2025.2515075 · Cited by 8
Hằng, N. P. T., Nguyen, N. T. T., & Huynh, T. B. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-01043-3 · Cited by 9
Li, C., Swaminathan, S., & Kim, J. (2024) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705241246341 · Cited by 7
Moon, J.-H., Lee, S.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105162 · Cited by 7
Pratt, A. B., Robinson, S. G., Voorhees, C. M., Wang, Y., & Giebelhausen, M. D. (2022) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00907-1 · Cited by 9
Rooting for the green: consumers and brand love
Hamouda, M., & Aissaoui, A. (2023) · Journal of Business Strategy · doi:10.1108/jbs-02-2023-0028 · Cited by 7
Yue, Y., Zettna, N., Cheng, S., & Nguyen, H. (2023) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-08-2022-0253 · Cited by 6
Does patient empowerment matter in building loyalty?
Mohd‐Any, A. A., Sundramohana, M., & Sarker, M. (2021) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12718 · Cited by 9
A meta-analytic comparison of scent effect between retailing and hospitality
Fong, L. H. N., Wang, E. Y., Ricaforte, B. G. R., & da Costa, R. A. (2024) · International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · doi:10.1108/ijrdm-08-2023-0508 · Cited by 6
Mittal, S., & Maity, M. (2022) · Journal of Indian Business Research · doi:10.1108/jibr-11-2021-0375 · Cited by 6
Hudson, K., & Morgan, R. E. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115118 · Cited by 5
Zhang, H., Liu, W., Wang, M., & Wang, L. (2025) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.22199 · Cited by 8
Haj‐Salem, N., Damra, Y., Hamouche, S., Ishaq, M. I., & Raza, A. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2025.2518456 · Cited by 6
Ganaie, T. A., & Bhat, M. A. (2023) · Journal of Relationship Marketing · doi:10.1080/15332667.2023.2260661 · Cited by 5
Conceptualising Customer Value in Physical Retail: A Marketing Perspective
Leroi‐Werelds, S. (2021) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-579-020211002 · Cited by 5
Consumer engagement and place identity in online travel forums
Chen, C., White, C. J., & Ting, W.-H. (2022) · Tourism Recreation Research · doi:10.1080/02508281.2022.2143623 · Cited by 6
Hall, K. K. L., Michel, E. J., Kepes, S., Qi, J., Weinzimmer, L. G., Wheeler, A. R., & Leon, M. R. (2023) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-07-2022-0229 · Cited by 5
Power in Third-Party Logistics
Taha, A., & Reynolds, P. L. (2023) · Operations and Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.31387/oscm0540395 · Cited by 6
Gao, C., Li, G., Du, Y., & Yaru, W. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152015137 · Cited by 4
Integrating green image with relationship marketing: A moderating role of green image
Cho, B.-K., Lee, D., Kim, W. G., Kim, E., & Lee, Y. (2024) · Tourism and Hospitality Research · doi:10.1177/14673584241299735 · Cited by 4
Relational Benefits as Predictors of Relationship Quality Outcomes in Online Retailing
Maduku, D. K., & Mathaba, R. L. (2022) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.305737 · Cited by 4
Vieira, V. A., Rafael, D., & Ou, Y. (2024) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-08-2022-0601 · Cited by 4
Chefor, G. L., & Chefor, E. (2025) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-05-2024-0128 · Cited by 3
Well-Timed Social-Emotional Support Can Enhance Consumer-to-Business Relationships
Raciti, M. (2021) · Services Marketing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15332969.2021.1982852 · Cited by 3
“More CSR versus more benefits”: how members' motives influence loyalty toward cooperatives
Lécuyer, C., Béal, M., Capelli, S., & Sabadie, W. (2022) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2021-0011 · Cited by 3
Nair, A. J., Manohar, S., & Mittal, A. (2025) · International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management · doi:10.1108/ijppm-06-2024-0362 · Cited by 4
Relational Benefits on Customer Satisfaction: Sharia Empirical Study in Indonesia
Kusumawati, A., Wusko, A. U., Suharyono, S., & Pangеstuti, Е. (2021) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 3
KONCEPCJA ZARZĄDZANIA RELACJAMI Z KLIENTAMI — ISTOTA, CELE, ZAKRES
0000-0003-1123-2555, Moczydłowska, J. M., & Bitkowska, A. (2020) · Marketing i Rynek · doi:10.33226/1231-7853.2020.9.1 · Cited by 3
Glasenapp, T. S., Rohden, S. F., Dorneles, L., & Pizzutti, C. (2022) · RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie · doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eramg220401.en · Cited by 2
Schofield, P., & Reeves, P. (2025) · Journal of Political Marketing · doi:10.1080/15377857.2025.2491328 · Cited by 2
Ali-Alsaadi, A. A., Cabeza‐Ramírez, L. J., Santos-Roldán, L. M., & González‐Mohíno, M. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251339805 · Cited by 2
Lin, J., Lin, C.-Y., & Wu, C. (2026) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-05-2025-0346 · Cited by 2
O impacto da experiência de consumo na percepção e no comportamento dos clientes de bancos digitais
Rohden, S. F., & Rode, J. S. (2023) · Retail Management Review · doi:10.53946/rmr.v3i1.22 · Cited by 2
Customer-Centric Contract Changes
Wiseman, P., Alavi, S. H., Habel, J., & Ehlig, P. A. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/00222437251314024 · Cited by 2
Mejía, V. D. (2025) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-024-01075-0 · Cited by 2
Vickery, S. K., Castel, M. J., Narayanan, S., & Nicolae, M. L. (2025) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.70019 · Cited by 5
Amro, A., & Rehman, A. U. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6794207/v1 · Cited by 2
Determinantes de la lealtad en la relación entre la Liga Antioqueña de Tenis de Campo y sus clientes
Ávila-Rodríguez, O. E., Correa-Henao, S., Colorado, L. C. H., Monroy-Escudero, H. A., & Ortíz, J. I. B. (2021) · Revista CEA · doi:10.22430/24223182.1811 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- 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.
- Venue
- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
- Published
- 2019-10-29
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 565-583
- ISSN
- 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7824
- 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 › Marketing › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
