Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis

  • REVIEW PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses provide clear insights into how service firms can benefit from relationship marketing, whereas investigations of customers’ relational benefits (1) are unclear about the absolute and relative strengths by which different relational benefit dimensions induce different customer responses and (2) have not simultaneously examined the various mediating processes (including perceived value, relationship quality, and switching costs) through which relational benefits reportedly affect customer loyalty. To consolidate extant research on the benefits of relationship marketing for customers, this meta-analysis integrates 1242 effect sizes drawn from 235 independent samples across 224 papers disseminated in the past two decades. The results reveal that all three relational benefits affect loyalty, though confidence benefits and social benefits have the strongest effects. 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. From a service research perspective, this study provides novel empirical generalizations; managerially, the findings suggest that a primary goal for service managers should be strengthening confidence and social benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Several scholars use the term “relationship benefits” (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994; Palmatier et al. 2006; Verma et al. 2016) as a synonym for “relational benefits.” Rather than switch terms, we use “relational benefits” throughout.

  2. Over time, additional relational benefits have emerged, including identity-related benefits (Fournier 1998), respect benefits (Chang and Chen 2007), hedonic benefits (Meyer-Waarden et al. 2013), and quality improvement benefits (Sweeney and Webb 2002). However, these additional benefits have not appeared frequently in empirical studies, so we limit our focus to confidence, social, and special treatment benefits.

  3. The terms “confidence” and “trust” are often used interchangeably. However, confidence explicitly refers to “perceived certainty about satisfactory partner cooperation” (Das and Teng 1998, p. 492) and the belief that the partner will behave in a desired manner (Scheer 2012), so it involves expectations about the partner’s predictable behavior but does not address the underlying reasons. In contrast, “Trust is the belief that one’s partner [a service provider] can be relied upon to fulfill its future obligations and to behave in a manner that will serve the firm’s [customer’s] needs and long-term interests” (Scheer and Stern 1992, p. 134), because the partner is motivated by more than its own immediate, direct self-interest, a motive that should persist in the future. Thus, trust and confidence are not equivalent; confidence may exist, despite a lack of trust. But trust and confidence also can be related, in that trust can generate general confidence in a business partner (Scheer 2012, p. 338).

  4. In several places herein, we refer to this sequential mediation path (relational benefits → perceived value → relationship quality → customer loyalty). Generally, if either perceived value or relationship quality is present, customers perceive them in a positive light, so these factors keep customers in relationships because they want to (cf. switching costs, often viewed in a negative light, such that they keep customers in the relationship because they have to) interact. We use “PV/RQ path” to refer to this sequential mediation path in the remainder of the text.

  5. Over time, firms providing encounter services may learn about the positive effects of relational benefits and move toward a shared industry norm of providing such benefits, tilting the transactional–relational balance more toward a relationship-based setting. Take Starbucks as an example: Buying a cup of coffee once was clearly an encounter service, but Starbucks added relationship elements to its service (e.g., remembering the names and favorite drinks of regular customers). Over time, coffee shops largely adopted these relationship elements, moving the entire industry toward a stronger relationship focus. Still, in the short run and in line with the accessibility–diagnosticity perspective, we predict that confidence, social, and special treatment benefits have stronger relationships with customer outcomes for encounter services than for relationship services.

  6. We are grateful to one of the reviewers for the suggestion to include these additional keywords.

  7. We are grateful to the Associate Editor and a reviewer for their suggestion to include a dummy variable to represent changes in the relationship marketing environment. To define a reasonable time lag between the year of data collection and the year of publication, we calculated the differences between the date a paper was received and the date it was published in the May 2019 volume of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (average: 1.7 years), then added an extra year to account for the manuscript writing process. Therefore, we anticipate an average time lag of about three years, such that a paper published in 2009 likely reflects data collected in 2006. Our results remain stable if we use two- or four-year time lags instead.

  8. We also coded the means and standard deviations of the three relational benefits reported in the 235 samples and recalibrated them to 0–100 scales. The average levels are 67 (SD = 16) for confidence benefits, 51 (SD = 19) for social benefits, and 49 (SD = 18) for special treatment benefits. The t-tests reveal that these average levels do not differ significantly between B2B and B2C contexts (all p > .10). The average level of confidence benefits also does not differ between encounter and relationship services (p > .10), whereas that of social benefits is significantly higher in relationship services (56) than in encounter services (48; t(77) = 2.404, p < .05). The average level of special treatment benefits is marginally significantly higher in relationship services (55) than in encounter services (47; t(77) = 1.929, p < .06). Web Appendix H provides further detail.

  9. Although not hypothesized, the results reveal that the indirect effect from relational benefits to customer loyalty through perceived value and relationship quality (confidence: .14, p < .001; social: .11, p < .001; special treatment: .02, p < .001) is stronger than the indirect effect from relational benefits to customer loyalty through switching costs (confidence: .02, p < .001; social: .01, p < .001; special treatment: .01, p < .001). Imposing equality constraints on these indirect paths significantly worsens model fit (Δχ2(3) = 2590.71, p < .001).

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 167–299). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardissono, L., Goy, A., Petrone, G., Segnan, M., & Torasso, P. (2003). Intrigue: Personalized recommendation of tourist attractions for desktop and hand held devices. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17(8–9), 687–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 272–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blut, M., Frennea, C. M., Mittal, V., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2015). How procedural, financial, and relational switching costs affect customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and repurchase behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(2), 226–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bove, L. L., & Johnson, L. W. (2006). Customer loyalty to one service worker: Should it be discouraged? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. P., & Lam, S. K. (2008). A meta-analysis of relationships linking employee satisfaction to customer responses. Journal of Retailing, 84(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: A typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y.-H., & Chen, F.-Y. (2007). Relational benefits, switching barriers, and loyalty: A study of airline customers in Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(2), 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P.-T., & Hu, H.-H. (2010). The effect of relational benefits on perceived value in relation to customer loyalty: An empirical study in the Australian coffee outlets industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, S., & Chen, C. W. (2018). The influences of relational benefits on repurchase intention in service contexts: The roles of gratitude, trust and commitment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(5), 680–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. J., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilsizian, S. E., & Siegel, E. L. (2014). Artificial intelligence in medicine and cardiac imaging: Harnessing big data and advanced computing to provide personalized medical diagnosis and treatment. Current Cardiology Reports, 16(1), 441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, I., Durand, A., Saab, S., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Baxter, R., & Lee, Y. (2012). The bonding effects of relationship value and switching costs in industrial buyer-seller relationships: An investigation into role differences. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilly, M. C., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1985). The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 353–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M.-E., & Arteaga-Moreno, F. (2011). Value, supplier dependence, and long-term orientation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(5), 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2015). Relational benefits research: A synthesis. In R. M. Morgan, J. T. Parish, & G. Deitz (Eds.), Handbook on research in relationship marketing (pp. 32–74). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (1987). The new marketing – Developing long-term interactive relationships. Long Range Planning, 20(4), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Bhappu, A. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Cherry, B. (1999). Distinguishing between service relationships and encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational benefits in services industries: The customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4, 230–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogreve, J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Twenty years of service guarantee research: A synthesis. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 322–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2013). Missing link in the service profit chain: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 237–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2012). A tribute to forty years of top-level marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2016). Creating enduring customer value. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 36–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2018). Customer relationship management: Concept, strategy, and tools (Third ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

  • Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinbach-Reyhle, N. (2016). Customer loyalty in today’s modern retail world. Forbes, April 20, 2016, Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleleinbachreyhle/2016/04/20/customer-loyalty-in-todays-modern-retail-world/. Accessed 27 June 2019.

  • Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Ruiz, D., Gremler, D. D., Washburn, J. H., & Carrión, G. C. (2008). Service value revisited: Specifying a higher-order, formative measure. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1278–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analysis? The Lancet, 356, 1228–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meldrum, J. T., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2007). Confidence, social, and special treatment benefits as predictors of relationship strength in recreation settings. Leisure/Loisir, 31(1), 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Waarden, L., Benavent, C., & Castéran, H. (2013). The effects of purchase orientations on perceived loyalty programmes’ benefits and loyalty. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 41(3), 201–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moliner, M. A. (2009). Loyalty, perceived value and relationship quality in healthcare services. Journal of Service Management, 20(1), 76–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. B. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Burke Jarvis, C., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2007). Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., & Merunka, D. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pick, D., & Eisend, M. (2014). Buyers’ perceived switching costs and switching: A meta-analytic assessment of their antecedents. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pick, D., & Eisend, M. (2016). Customer responses to switching costs: A meta-analytic investigation of the moderating role of culture. Journal of International Marketing, 24(4), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: Service provider-client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 38–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Molina, M.-E., Gil-Saura, I., & Moliner-Velazquez, B. (2015). Relational benefits, value, and satisfaction in the relationships between service companies. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 14(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A. (2007). The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K. (2012). Trust, distrust, and confidence in B2B relationships. In G. L. Lilien & R. Grewal (Eds.), Handbook on business-to-business marketing (pp. 332–347). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K., Miao, C. F., & Garrett, J. (2010). The effects of supplier capabilities on industrial customers’ loyalty: The role of dependence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K., Miao, C. F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Dependence and interdependence in marketing relationships: Meta-analytic insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(6), 694–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K., & Stern, L. W. (1992). The effect of influence type and performance outcomes on attitude toward the influencer. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhoff, L., & Palmatier, R. W. (2016). Understanding loyalty program effectiveness: Managing target and bystander effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 88–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J. C., & Webb, D. (2002). Relationship benefits: An exploration of buyer-supplier dyads. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(2), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Relationship value and relationship quality: Broadening the nomological network of business-to-business relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Hazée, S., & Costers, A. (2018). Customer participation in service recovery: A meta-analysis. Marketing Letters, 29(4), 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(2), 206–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2008). The impact of marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth customer acquisition on customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. F., Beck, J. T., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(6), 790–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, H. A., Hammerschmidt, M., & Zablah, A. R. (2014). Gratitude versus entitlement: A dual process model of the profitability implications of customer prioritization. Journal of Marketing, 78(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zablah, A. R., Franke, G. R., Brown, T. J., & Bartholomew, D. E. (2012). How and when does customer orientation influence frontline employee job outcomes? A meta-analytic evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 76, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinkhan, G. M. (2005). Scientific status and knowledge use: Two perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 251–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dwayne D. Gremler.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Mark Houston and John Hulland served as special issue editors for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 121 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gremler, D.D., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Brüggen, E.C. et al. Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 565–583 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00701-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00701-6

Keywords

Navigation