Cited by 61Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyGlobal and Cross-Cultural ManagementCultural Differences and Values

Culture's Impact on the Importance of Fairness in Interorganizational Relationships

Open access
Lund, Donald J., Scheer, Lisa K., Kozlenkova, Irina V.·2013·Journal of International Marketing

Abstract

Research on interorganizational relationships is predicated on the idea that fairness is always important. The authors question this assumption because most fairness research has been conducted in Western countries, and mixed empirical support draws into question how important fairness actually is. Drawing on Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, the authors examine culture as an antecedent to the importance of outcome fairness (OF) and procedural fairness (PF) in retailers’ assessments of their relationships with suppliers. The authors also propose that cultural exposure moderates the impact of culture on fairness importance. Using responses from retailers in ten countries analyzed with hierarchical linear modeling, the authors find that uncertainty avoidance enhances the importance of OF and PF, power distance marginally decreases the importance of PF, and long-term orientation increases the importance of both OF and PF. Cultural exposure also positively moderates the impact of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity on both fairness types. The pattern of effects is robust when compared with two alternative models. This study offers a first step in understanding culture's impact on when fairness is more or less important.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1509/jim.13.0020

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most fairness research examines racial and gender biases in models, the two dimensions that dominate American public discourse.

    “The majority of fairness research looks at racial [46,57,121,125,183] and gender biases [42,46,197,219] in models-two dimensions that dominate the American public discourse.”

    From Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond (2021) · cites this paper as [121]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 99 · Cited by 61

Authors
Lund, D. J., Scheer, L. K., & Kozlenkova, I. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Journal of International Marketing
Published
2013-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
21-43
ISSN
  • 1069-031X (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7215
OpenAlex
W2021544805
Cited by
61
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of International Marketing (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Global and Cross-Cultural Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
fairness, interorganizational relationships, cultural dimensions, outcome fairness, procedural justice, retail companies, supplier relationships, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, long-term orientation, masculinity, cultural exposure, Hofstede

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