The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism
Open accessAbstract
Opportunism is a central construct in exchange theory. Economists contend that despite the firm's best efforts to erect governance structures that reduce opportunism and preserve outcomes, there is always some opportunism that remains once the transaction is in place. Despite this, there are few studies that systematically investigate the safeguarding efficacy of relationship attributes in the presence of such ex post opportunism. In this research, we develop a theoretical framework and provide a longitudinal test of the ability of various relationship safeguards to preserve performance outcomes and future expectations given varying levels of ex post opportunism in the relationship. Our survey results from over 300 buyers and suppliers indicates that given lower levels of opportunism, bilateral idiosyncratic investments and interpersonal trust enhance performance outcomes and future expectations, while goal congruence has no discernable effect. However, at higher levels of opportunism, goal congruence becomes a more powerful safeguard, while interpersonal trust becomes less effective. Bilateral idiosyncratic investments continue to preserve performance outcomes and future expectations even at higher levels of opportunism. Implications for the long-term management of interorganizational alliances are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix
Steiger, J. H. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245 · Cited by 4,621 · cited 1×
“If the ceiling effect does not hold in the other group, a difference in the impact of governance mechanism across opportunism levels may appear.”
BackgroundThe use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379202900103 · Cited by 3,431
Self-citationInteraction Effects in Multiple Regression
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003) · doi:10.4135/9781412984522 · Cited by 1,797
Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker, O. C. (1992) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299205600301 · Cited by 1,105
Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1998) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/s0167-8116(98)00002-0 · Cited by 890
Cited by
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148783 · Cited by 2,646
The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective⋆
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001 · Cited by 1,018
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424 · Cited by 477
Developing successful trust-based international exchange relationships
Katsikeas, C. S., Skarmeas, D., & Bello, D. C. (2009) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400401 · Cited by 349
Metadata
- Authors
- Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1684-1701
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W3124528066
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 16.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.49.12.1684.25112
- The paper
- Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.12.1684.25112
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
