Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2016

Vol. 24, No. 6, 529–549, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2016.1148762

The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing:

moderation and model validation
Anubhav A. Mishra*

IBS, Business School, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

(Received 17 November 2014; accepted 24 November 2015)

Relationship marketing (RM) theories often emphasize on the role of trust and com-
mitment in affecting seller performance outcomes. We test a recently developed
model in a field experiment that demonstrates that RM investments (RMI) generate
feelings of gratitude depending on the different types of gratitude leveraging acts
and affects purchase intentions. The results confirm the presence of previously
untested relationship between trust and purchase intention. The existing model is
extended by including the moderating effects of the nature of the medium of com-
munication for the seller–customer interaction (i.e. face-to-face vs. telephonic com-
munication), and the varying intangibility of the purchase context (i.e. product vs.
service) on the above relationship. Third, evidence of the moderating influence of
certain individual-level cultural value orientations (i.e. good vs. evil, changeable vs.
unchangeable and doing vs. being) is found. It is also endeavoured to extend and
validate the model to a new culture.
Keywords: gratitude; relationship marketing; individual level cultural values; media
richness theory; product versus service

1. Introduction
It is often acknowledged in marketing theory and practice that one of the most
important objectives of marketing is to build sustainable relationships with customers
(De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Palmatier et al., 2009). Morgan
and Hunt (1994, p. 22) define relationship marketing (RM) as ‘all marketing activities
directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational
exchanges’ and their theory of trust–commitment has served as the basic model for
most RM research. Prior research recognizes that RM investments (RMI; e.g. extra
effort undertaken to meet customer’s demands; modifying policies to the customer’s
advantage; or endowing minute considerations or favours such as a free meal or gift)
by marketers augment customer trust and commitment which in turn affect customer
behaviour (Palmatier et al., 2009). This leads to a better organizational performance that
includes increase in sales growth and profits (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh,
Singh, & Sabol, 2002).
Following their meta-analysis that tested the trust–commitment model of RM,
Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans (2006) concluded that many important mediating
mechanisms between RMI and performance outcomes are being ignored. Towards this
end, a few researchers have proposed theoretical arguments in support of the importance

*Email: anubhav.am@ibsindia.org

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

530 A.A. Mishra

of the principle of reciprocity in RM (e.g. De Wulf et al., 2001; Morales, 2005). Yet,
empirical research that integrates reciprocity into RM models remains limited. Palmatier
et al.’s (2009) seminal study is the only research that has provided a conceptual and
empirical support for the mediating role of customer gratitude in understanding RM
effectiveness.
An extensive review of literature across diverse disciplines such as marketing,
psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics has led to the conclusion that grati-
tude represents the ‘emotional core’ of reciprocity (Emmons, 2004, p. 12) and a major
stimulus that develops and maintains cooperative relational bonds (Bartlett & DeSteno,
2006; DeSteno, Bartlett, Baumann, Williams, & Dickens, 2010; Tsang, 2006). Gratitude
can be said to be an emotional appreciation of a benefit received and is followed by a
desire to reciprocate (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Accordingly, RMI by a seller
will generate feelings of gratitude, and this gratitude will lead to beneficial reciprocal
behaviours (e.g. intention to purchase) whereas failure to repay obligations may lead to
guilt (Dahl, Honea, & Manchanda, 2005). It is the aim of RM programmes to generate
this customer repayment.
Considering the above discussion, and in response to the shortage of empirical
research, the present research intends to add to the existing literature by making three
important contributions. First, it is proposed to empirically test and validate Palmatier
et al.’s (2009) RM model that goes beyond the contributions of trust–commitment and
includes gratitude as a key mediator. The model is tested in a field experiment that
demonstrates that RMI generate feelings of gratitude depending on the different types
of gratitude leveraging acts (i.e. will vs. motive vs. need vs. risk) and has a strong
influence on purchase intentions. Differing from Palmatier et al. (2009), the results con-
firm the presence of previously untested relationship between trust and purchase inten-
tion. Second, as called for (i.e. future research directions) by Palmatier et al. (2009)
and Raggio, Walz, Godbole, and Folse (2014), the existing model is extended to
include the moderating effects of the medium of communication for RM investment
(i.e. face-to-face vs. telephonic communication), and the varying intangibility of the
purchase context (i.e. product vs. service) on the above relationship. Third, evidence of
the moderating influence of certain individual value orientations (i.e. good vs. evil,
changeable vs. unchangeable and doing vs. being) is found. It is also endeavoured to
extend and validate the model to a new culture (Palmatier et al., 2009, p. 15). Finally,
it is imperative to mention that from an epistemological point of view, replications are
an important part of research and scientific progress (Evanschitzky, Baumgarth,
Hubbard, & Armstrong, 2007).

2. Conceptual background and hypothesis development

2.1. Direct effects
Although the already established role of trust and commitment in the RM model is
accepted and as such do not formally hypothesize these paths, yet they are empirically
tested. However, the present study hypothesizes and tests the role of gratitude as a
missing mediator for the effects of RMI on customer’s intention to purchase, parallel to
trust and commitment.
Gratitude is a felt affective response that takes place when an individual receives an
‘act of benevolence’ from another individual. This largesse stimulates the recipient to
reward the giver and is consistent with the ‘moral reinforcer’ role of gratitude which
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 531

increases the possibility for future ‘mutually pleasing’ exchanges (McCullough,

Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). In order to experience feelings of gratitude, the
recipient must recognize that the ‘act of benevolence’ is intentional (Bonnie & de Waal,
2004; Gouldner, 1960). Gratitude can be defined as feelings of gratefulness, thankful-
ness or appreciation for a positive benefit received (Emmons & McCullough, 2003;
Morales, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2009). In spite of being an essential element in theories
of social relationships and reciprocal behaviours, gratitude’s role in RM theories is
conspicuous with its absence.
Very few studies have investigated the role of gratitude on customer behaviour
(Carey, Clicque, Leighton, & Milton, 1976; Morales, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2009;
Raggio et al., 2014; Soscia, 2007) and the lack of empirical research has been acknowl-
edged even in the field of positive psychology (McCullough et al., 2001; Tsang, 2006).
Morales (2005) finds that gratitude motivates customers to reward firms for their extra
effort and mediates the effects of perceptions of seller effort on customer behaviour.
Prior research has empirically confirmed that customers reward their gratitude by modi-
fying their purchase behaviour (Dahl et al., 2005; Morales, 2005). Therefore, in a
buyer–seller context, comprehension of a seller’s intentional RMI (e.g. extra effort
undertaken to meet customer’s demands, gift or some other small courtesy) will lead to
the generation of attributions regarding the motives of the benefactor (Palmatier et al.,
2009). This will engage the customer’s emotional systems (i.e., gratefulness and grati-
tude; Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994) that will in turn lead to feelings of gratitude and will
increase the customer’s intentions to repay the seller (i.e. purchase intention). There-
fore, customer’s recognition of a seller’s RMI will lead to feelings of gratitude and
increased gratitude-based reciprocal behaviours, such as intention to purchase
(Palmatier et al., 2009). Accordingly, the following is hypothesized:
H1. RM investments will positively affect customer gratitude.
H2. Customer gratitude will positively affect intention to purchase.
Emotion and cognition go hand in hand. Gratitude, an emotion, is related closely with
these cognitively focused judgement constructs like trust and commitment and acts in
concordance with them. This interlinking between emotion and cognition often leads to
less rational decision-making than what is expected to be made otherwise. It is also
known that emotions play a very important role in effective human functioning
(Tomkins, 1970) and influences cognitive functions in the development of relationships
(Young, 2006). McAllister (1995) concluded that feelings and emotional bonds often
affect individual judgement like trust.
Algoe, Haidt, and Gable (2008) have confirmed that a feeling of gratitude for
benevolence positively affects the beneficiary’s perception of the benefactor, including
emotional responses like closeness and fondness. Bartlett and DeSteno (2006) as well
as asserted that gratitude contributes to trust, which is likely to develop when a
benefactor engages in acts of generosity. Young (2006) posit that gratitude is a relation-
ship-sustaining emotion that has a significant effect on the maintenance of trust in a
relationship. Of course, trust is essential for the growth of social relationships. For
these reasons, it can be concluded that customers with high levels of felt gratitude
should have high levels of trust and the following hypothesis is put forward:
H3. Customer gratitude will positively affect trust.
532 A.A. Mishra

2.2. Moderating effect 1: types of gratitude leverages

It is also intended to test a set of conditions that might moderate the effects of RMI.
Varying customer perceptions about benefactor’s intention behind the RMI can leverage
feelings of gratitude and in turn improve seller performance outcomes (Palmatier et al.,
2009). In line with Palmatier et al. (2009), four probable leveraging factors are tested.
First, customer’s perception of seller’s free will in making the RMI or acting on his/her
own accord is taken into account.
Free will differs from a contractual behaviour in that it requires a random act of
consideration. RMI that are made non-contractually should generate higher levels of
gratitude (Palmatier et al., 2009). For example, a customer getting a gratis or free pro-
duct with his purchase will elicit less inclination to thank the seller. However, if the
customer gets a gift or a favour which was not expected, will be gratefully accepted
and will elicit gratitude. In comparison with contractual, persuasion or role-based
investment, such discretionary RMI tends to make the recipient feel more grateful
(Morales, 2005; Wood, Maltby, Stewart, Linley, & Joseph, 2008). Therefore, perception
of RMI made out of seller’s free will, rather than contractual or duty-based obligations,
will lead to gratitude (Gouldner, 1960).
Another possible moderator is the customer’s observation of seller’s motive behind
the RMI. Motive is a desire or need that incites action, and individuals often search for
other’s motives for actions (Palmatier et al., 2009). For example, a wife’s showering of
special attention to the husband will beget a question like, ‘Where do you need to
shop?’ Campbell and Kirmani (2000) concluded that customer’s perception about
motives plays an important role in their perceptions of an influence agent (i.e. a sales-
person). Therefore, seller’s with benevolent intentions rather than self-serving or ulte-
rior motives will lead to feelings of gratitude which in turn will affect future behaviour
(Tsang, 2006).
It is also expected that the amount of risk undertaken by the seller in providing the
RMI to affect gratitude. Contractual or non-contractual relationships are built with
investment of time, effort and have some sort of cost involved (Palmatier et al., 2009),
and a risk that the investment may not lead to anticipated reciprocal behaviour (Chiles
& McMackin, 1996). For instance, an out-of-stock seller might go against the company
policy and take the risk to recommend his competitor to the customer, very well aware
that this may endanger his job as well as the possibility of his present and future rela-
tionship with that customer may be lost. This will make the customer perceive the risk
that the seller has undertaken and therefore, will be more obligated and grateful (Wood
et al., 2008).
Finally, it is put forward that customer’s need for the received benevolence should
affect his or her feelings of gratitude. Adler and Fagley (2005) concluded that to appre-
ciate something (e.g. person, behaviour, event or object) an individual should notice
and acknowledge its value and have a feeling of positive emotional connection to it. A
gift that has value for the receiver increases feelings of gratitude (Algoe et al., 2008;
Wood et al., 2008). Gouldner (1960, p. 171) states, ‘the value of the benefit and hence
the debt is in proportion to and varies with – among other things – the intensity of the
recipient’s need at the time the benefit was bestowed’. Therefore, it is proposed that:
H4. The relationship between RM investment and customer gratitude will be significantly
different depending on the customer’s perception of (a) the seller’s free will, (b) the sell-
er’s motive behind the investment, (c) the risk that seller undertakes in making the invest-
ment, and (d) the customer’s need for the benefit received.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 533

2.3. Moderating effect 2: medium of communication for RM investment

Business relationships are formed on the basis of the communication process (Dwyer,
Schurr, & Oh, 1987). Prior research has shown that the credibility and comprehensibility
of any information is dependent on the channel of communication used (Daft & Lengel,
1986). In descending order, credibility has been found to diminish from face-to-face to
telephonic to online media (Zusman & Landis, 2002). The media richness theory (Cable
& Yu, 2006) suggests that a rich medium is the one that can transmit large volume of
information through multiple information cues (Purdy, Nye, & Balakrishnan, 2000). In
this regard, face-to-face communication has been found to be the most effective and
consequently, the richest medium (i.e. can best facilitate changes in understanding) for
conveying information which is highly comprehensible by the receiver (Mehrabian,
1971). Therefore, the richer the media, the higher is the acceptance of information
(Cable & Yu, 2006) and greater is its persuasive power (Hollingshead, 1996). It has been
confirmed that approximately 93% of the meaning in a message is transmitted through
facial and vocal cues (Mehrabian, 1971). As a consequence, indirect communication
channels such as telephonic medium are not able to furnish the cues that are available
for processing in a face-to-face interaction. Hence, compared to telephonic communica-
tion, a more direct verbal interaction such as face-to-face communication or discussion
can evoke a greater sense of understanding for the listener.
At the same time, the source credibility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) suggests
that the influencing capability of a message increases with the increase in perceived
expertise and credibility of a medium. Previous research has provided ample evidence
that face-to-face communication is the most credible source of information (Cable &
Yu, 2006). Hence, it may be opined that if RMI is made through face-to-face interac-
tion, customers may accept the credibility of the investor (i.e. the seller) more readily,
as compared to the same interaction taking place over some other non-personal interac-
tion (e.g. such as a telephonic communication in a call/customer contact centre). The
important role of inter-personal communication in RM approaches has been highlighted
(Dwyer et al., 1987). However, existing studies have not been able to identify the exact
relationship between the effect of the medium of communication (i.e. face-to-face vs.
telephonic) and customer’s feelings of gratitude and trust (Day & Schneider, 2002).
There is also evidence that a richer medium is more successful in developing customer
trust and commitment (DeRosa, Hantula, Kock, & D’Arcy, 2004).
In the context of RM, whether the nature of medium of communication for RMI
creates any difference in feelings of gratitude, trust and commitment has not been
examined. Therefore, it is attempted to understand whether customers’ perception
towards RMI through face-to-face communication is different from that as perceived
through the telephonic medium and address the existing research gap. The nature of
medium of communication for RMI may also create difference in feelings of gratitude
because the cognitive process of customers will depend on the extent of direct cues
they receive from the RM investor. Since RMI via a face-to-face communication is
bound to provide more direct cues to the customer than that through telephonic com-
munication, it is expected that the feelings of gratitude of customers will be different
depending on the nature of the communication medium. Based on this argument, it is
further proposed that:
H5a. The relationship between RM investment and customer gratitude will be significantly
different depending on the nature of communication.
534 A.A. Mishra

H5b. Trust formation due to RM investment will be significantly different depending on

the nature of communication.
H5c. Commitment formation due to RM investment will be significantly different depend-
ing on the nature of communication.

2.4. Moderating effect 3: individual customer differences in feelings of gratitude

The role of value orientations in determining consumption behaviour has received con-
siderable attention (cf. McCarty & Shrum, 1994). Kluckhohn (1951) has defined value
orientation as ‘a generalized and organized conception, influencing behaviour, of nature,
of man’s place in it, of man’s relation to man, and of the desirable and non-desirable as
they may relate to man-environment and inter-human relations (p. 411)’. It is an indi-
vidual’s beliefs about the ways in which people of a certain culture (cross-cultural as
well as intra-cultural) communicate among themselves and their surrounding environ-
ment (Kluckhohn, 1951). Looking up on the personal construct theory, these value
dimensions are the most fundamental set of beliefs shared by people living in any soci-
ety in order to maintain social acceptance and determine human behaviour (Adler &
Gundersen, 2007). These beliefs can also influence their overall cognitive process
regarding their perception towards issues such as preference for economic ideology
(Ralston, 2008).
Several studies have confirmed that these dimensions can affect purchase intention
(Henry, 1976), service quality perception (Furrer, Liu, & Sudharshan, 2000) and
impulse buying decision (Kacen & Lee, 2002). These studies give strong implications
that cultural values may influence human feelings related to gratitude because they
focus on the relationship perceived by individuals with respect to fellow human beings,
their environment and their own actions. Cultural values of customers have been found
to affect their trust towards online shopping (Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky, 1999) as well as
towards consumption choice (McCracken, 1990). It has also been found that values can
affect commitment (Crotts & Erdmann, 2000). Hence, gratitude, trust and commitment
may be dependent on an individual’s latent cultural value orientations which come to
the fore while judging another individual. In line with this logic, cultural values are
included as possible moderating variables in this study.
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) came up with a value orientation framework that
is based on an individual’s basic value premises that are applied by people of different
cultures on a daily basis. It describes five individual value orientations, namely, rela-
tionship with nature, relationship with other people, human activities, relation with time
and human nature. Among these it is proposed that the relationship between RMI and
gratitude will be affected by good vs. evil value orientation of the customers. Individu-
als with good value orientation tend to believe that all human beings are inherently
good and people do not wish ill of each other (Maznevski, Gomez, DiStefano,
Noorderhaven, & Wu, 2002). Therefore, customers with this value orientation will
interpret the action of the RM investor as one prompted by free will or as an outcome
of the investor realizing their need. On the contrary, customers with evil orientation
may reason out that the RM investor has a hidden or ulterior motive behind the RMI
and may not feel convinced by the gratitude leveraging attempt. Hence, customers with
good value orientation may perceive the RMI as a positive action and their gratitude
formation will take place more rapidly when compared with customers who are suspi-
cious of other people’s motives. The formation of gratitude is dependent on the level of
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 535

faith an individual develops towards another individual and to what extent they con-
sider the other person’s nature as inherently good and honest. Since the good vs. evil
value orientation is a vital antecedent for development of such belief, therefore, it may
be opined that people with good value orientation will also be more inclined to trust
the RM investor as an honest individual with no hidden agenda behind the action and
the intention to purchase the product or service may become stronger as an outcome of
such realization. For customers with evil value orientation, the tendency to suspect
others may dilute the effect of the RMI to trigger a higher purchase intention.
While judging the moral character of others, the changeable vs. unchangeable value
orientation can influence an individual’s perception. For those customers who believe
that the basic human nature can never change, the action of the RM investor may
evoke greater feelings of gratitude, trust and commitment considering their logic that
the RM investor is a good person who sincerely wishes to help them not only during
the purchase but even afterwards if any complaint arises. However, customers with an
unchangeable value orientation will be more reserved in their evaluation of the charac-
ter of the RM investor as they may interpret the behaviour to be a part and parcel of
the RM investor’s job description. They may also interpret that after the sale is over,
the same person may not be willing to help them anymore with such sincerity. Hence,
depending on whether the customer possesses changeable or unchangeable value orien-
tation towards human nature, the relationship between RMI and gratitude, trust and
commitment may vary.
The activity value orientation creates a sense of understanding of the basic
motivation that drives one to work. For individuals with a doing value orientation,
motivation is viewed to be beyond their internal desires and the main objective is to
achieve something which is valued by themselves as well as other members of the
society. Therefore, if customers possess a doing value orientation, they may perceive
the RMI offered by the RM investor to be a sincere effort to help them. Therefore,
for doing oriented customers, gratitude, trust and commitment may be higher and con-
sequently there will be higher purchase intention. From a similar argument, people
with being value orientation may perceive that any person’s action is directed towards
self interests. As a consequence, customers with being orientation may interpret the
helpfulness and RMI of the seller to be an outcome of some self profiteering and not
a genuine case of free will or a selfless effort to help them at the risk of company
protocols. Therefore, according to the theory of reasoned action, customers with such
type of value orientation may not gauge the act of RMI with much benevolence but
rather with more circumspection. Hence, the development of gratitude, trust and com-
mitment may take a negative direction. Keeping in line with this logic, it is being
proposed that:
H6. The relationship between RM investment and gratitude will be significantly moderated
by (a) good vs. evil value orientation, (b) changeable vs. unchangeable value orientation,
(c) doing, and (d) being value orientation.
H7. The relationship between RM investment and trust will be significantly moderated by
(a) good vs. evil value orientation, (b) changeable vs. unchangeable value orientation, (c)
doing and (d) being value orientation.
H8. The relationship between RM investment and commitment will be significantly moder-
ated by (a) good vs. evil value orientation, (b) changeable vs. unchangeable value orientation,
(c) doing and (d) being value orientation.
536 A.A. Mishra

2.5. Moderating effect 4: varying intangibility of the purchase context

Prior research has identified quite a few significant differences (SHIP acronym)
between products and services (Iacobucci, 1998), and have concluded that these differ-
ences are equally important in the mechanisms by which customers evaluate them.
Among these differences, the intangible nature of services is recognized as the most
important one (cf., Berry, 1980). The importance of intangibility is due to its impact on
consumer decision-making and perceived risk (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2013).
At the same time, gratitude formation may get affected due to the inherent nature
of the purchase context, i.e. whether the customer intends to buy a product or a service.
It may be so that depending on whether the customer wishes to buy product or service,
his expectations for tangibility may vary (cf., Bolton & Alba, 2006). The perception of
intangible attributes of services reflects a mental construction that is based on the infor-
mation communicated (e.g. atmosphere), while products are perceived directly upon
exposure (e.g. colour, texture) and is also positively associated with perceived evalua-
tion difficulty (Breivik, Troye, & Olsson, 1998). Thus, RMI may trigger different cog-
nitive processing to develop feelings of gratitude with respect to tangible purchase vs.
intangible purchase. Additionally, services are often associated with promotions and
low prices to stimulate demand during lean periods (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 1999),
therefore, the RMI might be considered to be a part of promotion and send the wrong
message. Therefore, on the basis of the identified differences between services and
goods, it is hypothesized that there exists a significant difference in the gratitude forma-
tion mechanisms in a services and a non-services context. Based on the above line of
reasoning, it is proposed that (Figure 1):
H9a. There will be significant differences in the gratitude formation due to RM investment
in a services and a goods context.
H9b. There will be significant differences in the trust formation due to RM investment in a
services and a goods context.
H9c. There will be significant differences in the commitment formation due to RM invest-
ment in a services and a goods context.

3. Research methodology
3.1. Procedure
We test the hypothesized effects by designing a 4 (leverages of gratitude: will vs.
motive vs. need vs. risk) × 2 (intangibility of the purchase context: goods vs. service) ×
2 (nature of medium of communication: face-to-face vs. telephonic) between subjects
full factorial design. A total of 415 students (randomly selected from the overall list of
students) enrolled in a large private university in India participated in the study. Four-
teen surveys had incomplete responses and were dropped from the final analysis. Thus,
the final sample came down to 401 respondents (average age = 22 years, male partici-
pants = 64%). Pilot studies were conducted with three groups of students with an aver-
age group size of 10 to identify the products (the latest version of hi-tech personal
digital assistant) and service purchase contexts (the latest value-added service offered
by a leading mobile service provider). The scenarios were formed to highlight a ficti-
tious relationship manager’s voluntary will, hidden motive, empathy towards customer’s
need and the amount of risk involved behind the RMI (the manager gave a free protec-
tive cell phone cover in the face-to-face scenario and a free ring back tone for the tele-
phonic scenario; see Appendix 1).
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 537

Gratitude Leverages
(Will/Motive/Need/Risk)
&
Medium of Communication
(Face-to-face vs.
Telephonic)

H4 H5a,b c Gratitude H2

H3

H1

Relationship Purchase
Marketing Trust Intention
Investment

H6, H7, H8 H9a,b,c Commitment

Individual Cultural Values

(Good/ Evil, Change/
Unchange, Being/Doing)
&
Type of Purchase
(Goods vs. Service)

Figure 1. The theoretical model.

3.2. Measurement
A survey questionnaire (designed from measures used in previous studies) to measure
the relationships among the variables and to collect demographics characteristics of the
respondents was constructed. A series of multiple item (three items each) seven-point
Likert scale to measure RMI (adapted from Reynolds & Beatty, 1999), gratitude
(adapted from McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002), trust (adapted from De Wulf
et al., 2001), commitment (adapted from De Wulf et al., 2001; Palmatier et al., 2006),
purchase intentions (adapted from Palmatier et al., 2009) and individual-level cultural
values (23 items adapted from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) were used. In order to
gain objective views and guard against faulty assumptions, and detect any shortcomings
in the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted (n = 67). Since, established scales were
employed, the reliability of the constructs was examined using conventional methods.
Cronbach’s alpha of each construct exceeded the suggested cut-off value of .70 (see
Table 1).
538 A.A. Mishra

4. Results
4.1. Hypothesis testing
A covariance based structural equation model was employed to assess the hypothesized
relationship. The fit of the structural model is acceptable, with χ2(82) = 175.99
(p = .006), GFI = .95, CFI = .94, IFI = .94 and RMSEA = .05 (see Table 2). Our model
also replicated existing RM models, with positive and significant paths from RMI to
trust and commitment. Trust (p < .05) and commitment (p < .01) also have a positive
and significant effect on customer’s purchase intentions.
In H1, it was proposed that RMI will positively affect gratitude and the results
confirm this (β1 = .63, p < .01). The second hypothesis (H2) is also supported because
gratitude has a positive effect on customer’s purchase intentions (β2 = .46, p < .01).
Finally, H3 is also supported as gratitude positively affects trust (β3 = .35, p < .01). In
order to evaluate whether the impact of RMI on purchase intentions is fully mediated
by gratitude, trust, and commitment, a path from RMI to purchase intentions was added
and the chi-square difference between the two models was evaluated. The results
(Δχ2(1) = 1.23, not significant [ns]) show that the hypothesized model fully mediates the
relationship between RMI and customer’s purchase intentions.

4.2. Moderation analysis

A series of multiple hierarchical regression analysis (HRA) was performed to test
the moderating effect of the medium of communication, nature of purchase, types of
gratitude leverages and individual-level cultural values on the relationship between
RMI and gratitude, trust and commitment. All the variables were mean centred prior
to entry in order to reduce multicollinearity between the main effects and the inter-
action terms (Aiken & West, 1991). Several interaction variables were created for
RMI with respect to medium of communication (RMI × Media), nature of purchase

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Construct M SD (1)* (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
a
(1) RM investment 5.25 1.15 (.74)
(2) Customer 5.89 .90 .47 (.78)
gratitude
(3) Customer 4.29 1.25 .41 .27 (.76)
commitment
(4) Customer trust 5.14 1.03 .45 .44 .41 (.71)
(5) Customer’s 5.10 .89 .33 .42 .42 .41 (.79)
purchase intention
(6) Good/evil value 4.37 1.37 .35 .31 .25 .22 .31 (.77)
orientation
(7) Change/ 4.28 .92 .32 .45 .38 .34 .26 .29 (.79)
unchange value
orientation
(8) Doing value 5.56 .75 .28 .25 .29 .26 .28 .27 .23 (.82)
orientation
(9) Being value 4.73 .74 .33 .42 .43 .36 .29 .28 .20 .33 (.81)
orientation
a
Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal.
*
All correlations significant at p ≤ .05 (two-tailed); n = 401.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 539

Table 2. Structural model estimates.

Standardized path coefficients

Palmatier et al. (2009) Present Study
Hypothesized path β β SE CR
RMI → CG .58 ***
.63***
.07 6.91
CG → ITP .47*** .46*** .10 3.58
CG → CT .63*** .35*** .12 3.55
CT → CC .35*** .32*** .10 3.44
CT → ITP NT .26** .08 2.03
RMI → CT −.04 .41*** .09 4.01
RMI → CC .64*** .36*** .10 3.62
CC → ITP .37*** .41*** .06 3.66
Fit statistics
χ2 (df) 181.04 (112) 175.99 (82)
P p < .01 .006
GFI .95
CFI .96 .94
IFI .96 .94
RMSEA .06 .05
Notes: RMI = Relationship marketing investment; CG = Customer gratitude; ITP = Intention to purchase;
CT = Customer Trust; CC = Customer commitment; NT = Not tested.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

(RMI × Purchase), gratitude leverages (RMI × Gratitude) and individual-level cultural

values (RMI × Good/Evil, RMI × Changeable/Unchangeable, RMI × Doing and RMI ×
Being). By observing the incremental F-test, we find that both the main-effects and
higher order regressions resulted in a significant increase in the amount of variance
explained for all the three dependent variables (Gratitude model: Fregression 2 = 13.99,
Fregression 3 = 12.71; Trust model: Fregression 2 = 9.90, Fregression 3 = 8.23; Commitment
model: Fregression 2 = 11.7, Fregression 3 = 9.4; p < .001 for all). The results are reported
in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the first HRA reveals (dependent variable: gratitude) a signifi-
cant effect of the interaction between RMI × Purchase (β = −.22, p < .05), RMI × Good/
Evil (β = .10, p < .05), RMI × Doing (β = .09, p < .05), RMI × Being (β = –.12, p < .05)
and RMI × Gratitude leverage (β = –.30, p < .05). However, RMI × Media (β = –.15,
p > .10), and RMI × Changeable/Unchangeable (β = –.06, p > .10) are not significant.
Therefore, H4, H6a, H6c, H6d and H9a received complete support, while, H5a and
H6c were not supported.
The second HRA reveals a significant relationship with trust for the interaction
between RMI × Media (β = –.19, p < .01), RMI × Doing (β = .12, p < .05), and RMI ×
Being (β = −.05, p < .05). However, RMI × Good/Evil (β = −.04, p > .10), RMI ×
Changeable/Unchangeable (β = −.001, p > .10), and RMI × Purchase (β = −.18, p > .10)
are not significant. Hence, H5b, H7c and H7d received complete support, while, H7a,
H7b and H9b were not supported.
While the third HRA reveals a significant relationship with commitment only
for the interaction between RMI × Purchase (β = −.36, p < .01). Hence, H9c
received complete support, while, H5c, H8a, H8b, H8c and H8d were not
supported.
 540

Table 3. Results of moderated hierarchical regression analysis.

Dependent variables
Gratitude Trust Commitment
Variables entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Age .09 .00 .02 −.003 .017 .021 .008 .040 .05
Gender .02 .02 .01 .032 −.028 −.023 −.091 −.140** −.127**
Education .08 −.25* −.26* .078 −.039 −.050 .171** .018 .020
RM investment .41* 1.00* .409* .907* .347* .837*
Nature of purchase (goods vs. service) .02 .05 .010 .027 −.024 −.006
Medium of communication (face vs. telephonic) .04 .09*** .011 .051 −.044 −.011
Types of gratitude leverages (will-motive-need-risk) −.34* −.32* −.011 .004 −.044 −.025
Good/evil value orientation −.13** −.19* −.008 −.007 −.007 .000
Change/unchange value orientation −.02 −.03 .080*** .077 .123** .107***
Doing value orientation .13** .10*** .115** .093*** .133** .109***
Being value orientation .03 .01 .061 .063 .097*** .097***
A.A. Mishra

RMI × Purchase −.22*** −.183 −.361**

RMI × Media −.15 −.194** −.040
RMI × Gratitude leverage −.30**
RMI × Good/evil .10*** −.036 −.064
RM I × Change/unchange −.06 −.001 −.069
RM I × Doing .09*** .121*** −.015
RMI × Being −.12*** −.047*** .003
ΔR2 .018 .284 .086 .007 .227 .056 .041 .225 .053
Total R2 .018 .302 .388 .007 .234 .291 .041 .266 .319
F 1.823 13.989* 12.707* .721 9.904* 8.227* 4.228** 11.701* 9.400*
Note: RMI = RM Investment.
*Significant at p < .001
**Significant at p < .01
***Significant at p < .05.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 541

5. Conclusion and discussion

Palmatier et al.’s (2009) seminal study pioneered the conceptual and empirical support
for the important role of customer gratitude in understanding RM effectiveness. The
findings have validated their model and extended it to include previously called for but
empirically untested moderators. The present research also replicates prior research that
shows the positive effect of RMI on commitment and commitment’s subsequent posi-
tive impact on purchase intentions. However, the findings have differed from Palmatier
et al.’s (2009) findings, by namely, (a) the results showed a direct effect of RMI on
trust and therefore, it is concluded that feelings of gratitude is a partial mediator
(z = 7.17, p = .01), and (b) also confirmed that feelings of gratitude has the strongest
effect on RM outcomes when compared with trust and commitment. Therefore, grati-
tude’s role in RM effectiveness is comparable to, if not more important than, these tra-
ditional constructs. Thus, it is a relationship-sustaining emotion (Young, 2006). In turn,
trust affects performance-enhancing commitment and directly as well as indirectly
affects seller outcomes (purchase intentions).
The findings also show that gratitude leverages partially moderated the relationship
between RMI and gratitude and completely moderated the relationship between RMI
and trust. Therefore, the findings indicate the importance of leveraging the feelings of
gratitude in such a manner so as to trigger the highest level of gratitude and trust for-
mation among the customers. The post hoc test (results are not reported so as to limit
the length of the manuscript but are available with the author on request) indicates that
leveraging gratitude through a reflection of voluntary will to help the customers can
have the most desired effect on gratitude formation, followed by that through motive,
need and risk, respectively. The reason behind such perceptual difference may be attrib-
uted to the fact that if RM investors advocate that their goods or services are not avail-
able with them and rather with the competitor, the customer may perceive the seller to
be ineffective in meeting his needs and may feel negatively about the company and
therefore, may develop a reluctance to associate with them in future. However, they
may acknowledge the fact that the RM investor has helped them in course of such an
action, but they may lose interest in the seller and switch attention towards the com-
petitor instead. Therefore, such a strategy may backfire.
Alternately, RM investor’s voluntary will to help customers may create a sense of
contentment among them, eventually resulting in higher levels of gratitude formation.
This will be considered as a sign of good nature of the RM investors and their commit-
ment to hard work, which will be appreciated by the customers, especially those who
believe in good human nature and doing activity orientations. As for motive-driven
gratitude leverage, customers may perceive that the RM investor is helping them for
their own benefits, but they may also feel that this is a win–win situation for them
where they get additional benefits from the RM investors and the latter also gains
something for his efforts. Need-driven gratitude leverage can have a positive effect on
gratitude formation but it will depend on the value of the need for the buyer and how
well the seller understands that value. Irrespective of individual personal beliefs about
human nature and activity, the voluntary will based leverage creates a sense of appreci-
ation in the minds of customers which triggers highest levels of gratitude. With respect
to commitment as well, the same trend is noticed. Only with respect to trust formation,
there was no visible difference due to different gratitude leveraging acts. However, this
may be due the cross-sectional nature of the study. In practice, training RM investors
to develop their emotional intelligence quotient (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) may help
542 A.A. Mishra

RM investors to realize the specific needs of customers and leverage on such needs.
However, this process needs rigorous experimentation and simulation to make it appli-
cable as a standard practice.
The nature of the medium of communication for RMI was found to create difference
in perceptions regarding trust. Therefore, empirical evidence of the media richness the-
ory is found. However, instead of having a moderating effect on RMI–Gratitude rela-
tionship, it demonstrated a main effect on gratitude. Previous research has identified that
gratitude formation requires the recipient to analyse the reciprocator carefully based on
all the available information to the recipient at the time of reciprocation, which makes it
necessary that there should be sufficient affective cues for the individual to process in
order to consider them as being truly gratified (Chiao, Chiu, & Guan, 2008). Face-to-
face communication can facilitate the formation of gratitude more readily than a tele-
phonic interaction because the customers will receive more affective cues through the
facial expressions of the RM investor before developing gratitude towards the investor.
Medium of communication also completely moderated the relationship between RMI
and trust, indicating that it can be a vital component of trust formation due to RMI.
The results indicated that the nature of purchase completely moderates the relation-
ship between RMI and gratitude and that between RMI and commitment. Therefore,
the formation of gratitude is dependent on the varying intangibility of the purchase con-
text. However, it did not have any effect on RM–Trust relationship; neither did it have
any direct impact on trust. Therefore, contrary to the prior logic, the present study
failed to receive any indication that it creates different trust perceptions among cus-
tomers. This may be due to the fact that trust formation takes into account the quality
of the product or service (Ruyter, Moorman, & Lemmink, 2001) and in this study both
the product (PDA) and service (VAS) may have been perceived to be of high quality
by the customers. Since we did not measure perceived quality for the goods or service,
we could not verify the above introspection. It is also to be noted that this study did
not give the respondents enough cues to process due to the setting of the experiment.
Mobile purchasing does not mandate that customers need to be loyal to a particular
store to continue availing the service or product. The same RMI in a different industry
such as hospitality or healthcare may help in establishing a more robust relationship
between RMI and commitment. Despite not meeting our expectations, we still found
evidence for the main effect of certain value orientations on commitment formation.
Hence, the possibility of receiving different results in a replication of the above study
cannot be ruled out.
We received mixed results for the customer’s individual cultural orientation values.
Out of the two human nature orientation values, good/evil value was found to partially
moderate the relationship between RMI and gratitude. However, it failed to show any
effect whatsoever on the RMI–Trust and RMI–Commitment relationships. A possible
explanation for this may be the fact that trust formation is a long-term process (Wilson,
Straus, & McEvily, 2006) and we were investigating a single encounter phenomenon in
this study which did not allow us to understand the effects of prolonged interaction
between the customer and the RM investor. Future research can make use of a longitu-
dinal data to overcome this shortcoming. It may also be due to the fact that judging
one person as good or evil may require more interactions rather than a one-time meet-
ing with an RM investor. Hence, respondents may not have received enough time to
get acquainted with the RM investor to consider them as good or evil and hence, not
felt like trusting them or feeling committed towards them, though they may have felt
gratitude towards the same for their action.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 543

The other human nature value orientation, changeable/unchangeable value was

found to have no moderating effect on RMI–Gratitude relationship but it completely
moderated the RMI–Trust relationship. It also had a main effect on commitment. This
finding can be explained in light of the fact that this value helps individuals to decide
whether they can trust a person to behave similarly over a prolonged period of time.
This can help them to decide which individuals can be trusted and which not. That is
why, it will relate more to customer’s trust and commitment development rather than
gratitude formation.
As for the activity orientations, doing value was found to partially moderate the
relationship between RMI and gratitude. On the other hand, being value was found to
have complete moderation over RMI–Gratitude relationship. With respect to RMI–Trust
relationship, these activity orientations gave indications of complete moderation, but as
for RMI–Commitment relationship, these values did not show any signs of moderation.
However, there was evidence of direct effect of the same. The findings are more unani-
mous with our proposed model with regards to the activity orientation values as com-
pared to the human nature values. This can be attributed to the fact that the experiment
gave scope for a limited interaction between the seller and the buyer, thus depriving
the latter enough signals to develop a judgement of the former’s nature. At the same
time, the action of RMI on the part of the seller served as a cue for judging the activity
orientation of the RM investor. Hence, the results were more as per expectations for
the activity orientation values since the respondents found sufficient information for
logical processing for their value based judgement.
The findings further imply that the medium of communication may have some indi-
rect effect on the overall perception of the customer. Tele-callers and back office cus-
tomer care representatives should be more careful while interacting with customers
when compared with the front-desk representatives because they will lack the advan-
tage of a more credible medium, i.e. face-to-face communication. As for the nature of
purchase, we found indications that it completely moderates gratitude and commitment
formation. Hence, managers should develop different strategies for RMI to generate
equal levels of gratitude and commitment among their customers. Future studies should
be directed to finding out what exactly needs to be done differently for RMI with
goods or services.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and
meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 79–114.
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International dimensions of organizational behavior.
Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in
everyday life. Emotion, 8, 425–429.
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs
you. Psychological Science, 17, 319–325.
Berry, L. L. (1980). Services marketing is different. Business, 30, 24–28.
544 A.A. Mishra

Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2006). Price fairness: Good and service differences and the role of
vendor costs. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 258–265.
Bonnie, K. E., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2004). Primate social reciprocity and the origin of gratitude.
In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 213–229).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Breivik, E., Troye, S. V., & Olsson, U. H. (1998). Dimensions of intangibility and their impact
on product evaluation. Working paper presented at the annual conference (October) of the
Association for Consumer Research, Montreal, Canada.
Cable, D. M., & Yu, K. Y. T. (2006). Managing job seekers’ organizational image beliefs: The
role of media richness and media credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 828–840.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects
of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 27, 69–83.
Carey, J. R., Clicque, S. H., Leighton, B. A., & Milton, F. (1976). A test of positive reinforce-
ment of customers. Journal of Marketing, 40, 98–100.
Chiao, Y. C., Chiu, Y. K., & Guan, J. L. (2008). Does the length of a customer-provider relation-
ship really matter? The Service Industries Journal, 28, 649–667.
Chiles, T. H., & McMackin, J. F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transac-
tion cost economics. Academy of Management Review, 21, 73–99.
Crotts, J. C., & Erdmann, R. (2000). Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of
travel services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 10, 410–419.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness
and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.
Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). Three Rs of interpersonal consumer guilt:
relationship, reciprocity, reparation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 307–315.
Day, S. X., & Schneider, P. L. (2002). Psychotherapy using distance technology: A comparison
of face-to-face, video, and audio treatment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 499–503.
DeRosa, D. M., Hantula, D. A., Kock, N., & D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual
teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43, 219–232.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude as
moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10, 289–293.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relation-
ships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65, 33–50.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51, 11–27.
Emmons, R. A. (2004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R. A. Emmons &
M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experi-
mental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.
Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research’s
disturbing trend. Journal of Business Research, 60, 411–415.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. S., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture and service
quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation.
Journal of Service Research, 2, 355–371.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociologi-
cal Review, 25, 161–178.
Henry, W. A. (1976). Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, 13, 121–127.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision
making the effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219.
Hovland, C. L., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effec-
tiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
Iacobucci, D. (1998). Services: What do we know and where shall we go? A view from market-
ing. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 7, 1–96.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 545

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Tractinsky, N. (1999). Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(2), 1–36.
Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behav-
ior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 163–176.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in
definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shills (Eds.), Toward a general theory of
action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Oxford: Row,
Peterson.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1999). Marketing for hospitality and tourism. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maznevski, M. L., Gomez, C. B., DiStefano, J. J., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. C. (2002).
Cultural dimensions at the individual level of analysis: The cultural orientations framework.
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2, 275–295.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal coop-
eration in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value ori-
entations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 30, 53–62.
McCracken, G. (1990). Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic character of
consumer goods and activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A concep-
tual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a
moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Oxford: Wadsworth.
Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high‐effort firms.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 806–812.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effec-
tiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.
Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer
gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1–18.
Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. S. (2000). The impact of communication media on
negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162–187.
Raggio, R. D., Walz, A. M., Godbole, M. B., & Folse, J. A. G. (2014). Gratitude in relationship
marketing: Theoretical development and directions for future research. European Journal of
Marketing, 48, 2–24.
Ralston, D. A. (2008). The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39, 27–40.
Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and company consequences of cus-
tomer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75, 11–32.
Ruyter, K. D., Moorman, L., & Lemmink, J. (2001). Antecedents of commitment and trust in
customer–supplier relationships in high technology markets. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 30, 271–286.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, & Personal-
ity, 9, 185–211.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15–37.
Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers’ emotions in predicting post-
consumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 871–894.
Tsang, J. A. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: An experimental test of gratitude. Cogni-
tion & Emotion, 20, 138–148.
Tomkins, S. S. (1970). Affect as the primary motivational systems. In M. B. Arnold (Ed.), Feel-
ings and emotions (pp. 101–110). New York, NY: Academic Press.
546 A.A. Mishra

Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in
computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 99, 16–33.
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A social-cognitive
model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8, 281–290.
Young, L. (2006). Trust: Looking forward and back. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
21, 439–445.
Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. (2013). Services marketing. Ryerson: McGraw-Hill.
Zusman, R. R. & Landis, R. S. (2002). Applicant preferences for Web-based versus traditional
job postings. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 285–296.

Appendix 1. Description of one of the experimental scenarios.

Scenario
Scenario 1: RM investment made by
leveraging free will through face-to-face
conversation for a product
Scenario 2: RM investment made by
leveraging free will through telephonic
conversation for a product
Description
You are walking past a mobile handset retail
outlet and suddenly you notice a banner
advertising the latest personal digital assistant
(PDA) inside the outlet window. When you
enter the store to enquire about the product, the
outlet is about to close. Sheetal, the sales
representative, is about to wrap up for the day,
and asks you if you could come tomorrow
morning because she had shut down her
desktop computer containing the pertaining
information. You look disappointed and request
her if there was a way to get a brief
demonstration about the features of the PDA.
Sheetal is not bound to help customers after her
office hours. She notices your disappointment
and decides to demonstrate the features of the
PDA. She also volunteers to give you a free
mobile handset cover as a token of appreciation
for your interest in the product
You notice an advertisement about the latest
personal digital assistant (PDA) of a leading
telecom service provider in TV and call the
customer service helpline of the company to
inquire about the product. Sheetal, the customer
service representative, is about to wrap up for
the day, when she receives your call. She asks
you if you could call tomorrow morning, since
she had shut down her desktop computer
containing the pertaining information. You
sound disappointed and request her if she could
give you at least some information about the
product. Sheetal is not bound to help customers
after her office hours. She notices your
disappointment and decides to stay back and
describes the features of the PDA in detail. She
also volunteers to give you a free ring-back
tone for your existing mobile handset as a
token of appreciation for your interest in the
product

(Continued)
 Journal of Strategic Marketing
Appendix 1. (Continued).
Scenario
Scenario 3: RM investment made by
leveraging free will through face-to-face
conversation for a service
Scenario 4: RM investment made by
leveraging free will through telephonic
conversation for a service
Note: More scenarios and vignettes are available with the author upon request.
547
Description
You are walking past a telecom service
provider’s customer relationship centre and you
notice a banner advertising the latest value
added service (VAS) inside the customer
relationship centre’s window. When you enter
the customer relationship centre to enquire
about the service, it is about to close. Sheetal,
the customer relationship representative, has
logged out of her desktop computer and is
about to wrap up for the day. You look very
disappointed and request her to give you some
information about the VAS. She is not bound to
help customers after her office hours. She
notices your disappointment and decides to re-
login into her system to give you all the
necessary information. She also volunteers to
give you a free mobile handset cover as a
token of appreciation for your interest in the
scheme
You notice an advertisement on the latest value
added service (VAS) of a leading telecom
service provider in TV and call the customer
service helpline of the company to inquire
about the product. Sheetal, the customer service
representative, is about to wrap up for the day,
when she receives your call. She asks you if
you could call tomorrow morning, since she
had shut down her desktop computer
containing the pertaining information. You
sound disappointed and request her if she could
give you at least some information about the
product. Sheetal is not bound to help customers
after her office hours. She notices your
disappointment and decides to re-login into her
system to give you all the necessary
information. She also volunteers to give you a
free ring-back tone for your existing mobile
handset as a token of appreciation for your
interest in the scheme
548 A.A. Mishra

Appendix 2. Survey items and their source.

Construct and items*

RM Investment (Adapted from Reynolds & Beatty, 1999)

(1) [Target] worked hard to strengthen our relationship

(2) [Target] made significant investments in building a relationship with me
(3) [Target] devoted time and effort to our relationship

Customer’s feelings of gratitude (Adapted from McCullough et al., 2002)

(1) I feel grateful to [Target]

(2) I feel thankful to [Target]
(3) I feel appreciative of [Target]

Customer commitment (Adapted from De Wulf et al., 2001; Palmatier et al., 2006)

(1) I am willing to go the extra mile to work with [Target]

(2) I have a desire to maintain this relationship
(3) I view the relationship with [Target] as a long term partnership

Customer trust (Adapted from De Wulf et al., 2001)

(1) [Target] gives me a feeling of trust

(2) I have trust in [Target]
(3) [Target] is trustworthy

Customer purchase intention (Adapted from Palmatier et al., 2009)

(1) I would be very likely to buy something today

(2) I would come back to this product/ service provider
(3) I would likely buy from this product/ service provider in the future

Nature of human beings (Adapted from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961)

Subscale 1: good/evil value orientation

(1) We should be suspicious of everybody

(2) I cannot trust anyone without proof

Subscale 2: changeable/unchangeable value orientation

(1) Anyone’s basic nature can change

(2) In general, bad people cannot change their ways
(3) It is possible for people whose basic nature is bad to change and become good
(4) If someone is essentially a good person now, she or he will likely always be good
(5) It is possible for people whose basic nature is good to change and become bad

(Continued)
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 549

Appendix 2. (Continued).
Construct and items*
Relationship with work (Adapted from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961)
Subscale 1: Doing orientation

(1) It is human nature to place more importance on work, than on other activities
(2) Accomplishing a great deal of work is more rewarding than spending time in leisure
(3) It is important to get work done before relaxing (r)
(4) Once you set a goal, it is important to work towards it until it is achieved (r)
(5) Sitting around without doing anything is a waste of time
(6) People who work hard are the ones who make society function
(7) Hard work is always commendable
(8) People who work hard deserve a great deal of respect
(9) One should live to work, not work to live (r)

Subscale 2: Being orientation

(1) One should work to live, not live to work (r)

(2) It is important to do what one wants, when one wants
(3) People should take time off to enjoy all aspects of life, even if it means not getting
work done
(4) People shouldn’t worry about working hard when they don’t feel like it
(5) Quality of life is more important than financial accomplishment
(6) It is best to live for the moment
(7) If you don’t like your working environment, you should quit your job

*
Seven-point Likert-type scale.
Copyright of Journal of Strategic Marketing is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.