The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Poisoning Relationships: Perceived Unfairness in Channels of Distribution
Abstract
Understanding how relationships are damaged is a critical component in building and preserving strong distribution channels. Using longitudinal data from a Fortune 500 firm and its channel members, this research shows that perceived unfairness truly acts as “relationship poison” by directly damaging relationships, aggravating the negative effects of both conflict and opportunism, and undermining the benefits of using contracts to manage channel relationships. Surprisingly, at low levels of perceived unfairness, conflict and opportunism have small or even insignificant effects on channel member outcomes, which implies that research investigating the negative impact of conflict and opportunism on exchange outcomes may need reevaluation because these effects are contingent and may vary depending on the levels of perceived unfairness. In addition, the findings support the premise that using contracts to manage channel relationships represents a double-edged sword that suppresses the negative effects of conflict and opportunism while aggravating the negative effect of unfairness.
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
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
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2011) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119513469 · Cited by 4,639
A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3152082 · Cited by 2,058
TOWARD A THEORY OF MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT
Afzalur Rahim, M. (2002) · International Journal of Conflict Management · doi:10.1108/eb022874 · Cited by 953 · cited 3×
“” Although some research extols the benefits of positive or functional conflict, most authors recommend reducing or resolving it (Rahim 2002).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Resource-based theory in marketing
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0336-7 · Cited by 882
Self-citationCulture's Impact on the Importance of Fairness in Interorganizational Relationships
Lund, D. J., Scheer, L. K., & Kozlenkova, I. V. (2013) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jim.13.0020 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 99-117
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2015333657
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 34.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Poisoning Relationships: Perceived Unfairness in Channels of Distribution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmkg.75.3.99
- The paper
- Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning Relationships: Perceived Unfairness in Channels of Distribution. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.3.99
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.
