We examine the effects of pre-existing organizational attitudes on consumer response to cause- related marketing (CRM) alliances, using a Balance Theory framework. Two experimen
The review should be one page, double spaced. The review should be a ½ page summary of the article, and a ½ page application of the material to the real world.
Please, see attached the article to review and a document with two samples of two articles review so you can have a better idea how I want the review.
Thank You.
ATTITUDINAL BALANCEBASIL AND HERR
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 16(4), 391–403 Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Attitudinal Balance and Cause-Related Marketing: An Empirical Application of Balance Theory
Debra Z. Basil University of Lethbridge Centre for Socially Responsible Marketing
Paul M. Herr University of Colorado at Boulder
We examine the effects of pre-existing organizational attitudes on consumer response to cause- related marketing (CRM) alliances, using a Balance Theory framework. Two experiments dem- onstrate that balanced attitudes (either both positive or both negative) resulted in perceptions of appropriateness, but did not necessarily lead to positive affect. The positive balance scenario led to a synergistic attitudinal boost when both pre-existing attitudes were positive. Attitudinal contamination was evident when either pre-existing attitude was negative. Fit operated within the balance scenario to enhance perceptions of the strength of the CRM alliance, leading to more positive responses.
Cause-related marketing (CRM) involves the pairing of a firm and a charity in a marketing effort. Alliances are often formed by well-known firms pairing with well-known orga- nizations, as in American Express’ CRM alliance with the Ronald McDonald House. American Express donates to the Ronald McDonald House for every transaction made on an American Express card. Presumably, both American Express and the Ronald McDonald House hope to benefit from ally- ing with an organization for which consumers hold positive pre-existing attitudes.
CRM alliances continue to grow in popularity (Cone/ Roper, 1999; PMA/Gable Group, 2000). The body of re- search addressing CRM issues is also growing, but many questions remain. Attitudes toward the CRM alliance and the alliance partners have been examined, but the exact nature of these attitudes has yet to be assessed. Does affect toward CRM alliances depend on the perceived appropriateness of the alliance, or are these issues independent? Pre-existing or- ganizational attitudes impact attitude toward the CRM alli- ance, but little if any research has examined the dynamic na- ture of this impact. For instance, how do these attitudes jointly influence CRM attitude? Fit between the allying orga- nizations influences attitude toward the alliance, but, again, the mechanism remains unknown. Our goal is to clarify the
Correspondence should be addressed to Debra Z. Basil, Associate Pro- fessor, University of Lethbridge Centre for Socially Responsible Marketing, Lethbridge, Alberta CANADA, T1K 3M4. E-mail: [email protected]
role of pre-existing organizational attitudes and fit in determining consumer response to CRM alliances, using a Balance Theory framework. Balance Theory addresses situa- tions where an individual evaluates the pairing of two sepa- rate elements—precisely the situation with CRM.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETIC FRAMEWORK
CRM enhances product choice (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004; Yechiam, Barron, Erev, & Erez, 2003,). However, socially oriented messages are perceived differently, depending upon the sponsor (Szykman, Bloom, & Blazing, 2004), and percep- tions of a firm’s motive for forming the CRM partnership can impact resulting attitudes (Barone et al., 2000). Tying nega- tive information to the firm moderates response to CRM (Dean, 2003/2004; Deshpande & Hitchon, 2002), as do con- sumers’ elaboration levels (Menon & Kahn, 2003). More- over, CRM may negatively influence the charity (Basil & Herr, 2003). Hence, CRM alliances should be considered carefully, as alliances may not only influence immediate pur- chase decisions, but attitudes toward the partners as well.
Previous research has examined the impact of pre-existing firm and charity attitudes on attitude toward the CRM alli- ance, as well as attitude change toward the alliance partners (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004). Pre-existing firm and
392 BASIL AND HERR
charity attitudes, and attitude toward the CRM alliance, are positively correlated. A similar relationship exists for atti- tude change toward the alliance partners. Although these re- sults offer insight into the impact of pre-existing attitudes, they do not address attitude dynamics. How do pre-existing organizational attitudes interact to impact CRM alliance atti- tude? We address this question.
Fit between the organizations also influences response to CRM alliances. “Fit” has been addressed in the branding lit- erature. Good fit between a brand extension and the firm’s current brand offerings (Aaker & Keller, 1990), and similar- ity, typicality, or relatedness between the extension and the core brand (Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Boush & Loken, 1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Dacin & Smith, 1994; Herr, Farquhar, & Fazio, 1996) foster more favorable con- sumer attitudes toward a brand extension. Similarly, when two organizations’ brands and products are viewed as “fit- ting” together, consumer attitudes toward a cobranding effort are more favorable (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Likewise, fit be- tween an event and its sponsor influences consumer response (Speed & Thompson, 2000).
Fit is important in cause-related marketing alliances, as well (Basil & Herr, 2003; Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Lafferty et al., 2004; Menon & Kahn, 2003; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Different types of fit have been proposed (e.g. Lafferty et al., 2004). Although fit matters, the means by which fit impacts CRM attitudes has received scant attention. Our goal is to clarify the process by which fit impacts attitude toward the CRM alliance.
CRM attitude measures vary dramatically in the literature. Some researchers report attitude toward the CRM alliance as a summary evaluation (Basil & Herr, 2002). Others report a blend of affective and cognitive measures, such as whether the alliance is good, positive, and favorable (Lafferty et al., 2004). Still others take a behavioral approach to measuring CRM alliance attitude (Barone et al., 2000; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). Although behavioral responses to CRM alli- ances have been extensively examined, no research has ad- dressed the distinction between cognitive and affective re- sponses to CRM alliances. Do these attitudinal responses differ? We also address this issue.
Three primary factors are common to CRM alliances. These include consumers’ pre- existing attitudes toward the firm, pre-existing attitudes toward the charity, and percep- tions of an alliance between these two. In some cases, con- sumers may be unfamiliar with one or the other organization (see Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005), but such alliances are not the focus of this research. Rather, we examine CRM alliances involving organizations familiar to the individual, for which attitudes exist.
Different theoretical approaches have been used to exam- ine responses to CRM alliances, such as information integra- tion (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004), cognitive elabora- tion (Menon & Kahn, 2003), and identification (Lichtenstein et al., 2004). Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.
We sought a parsimonious framework that effectively ad- dresses the three issues of interest: (1) the interactive effects of firm and charity pre-existing attitudes, (2) the mechanism by which fit impacts responses, and (3) differences between affective and cognitive attitudinal responses. None of the the- ories above addresses all of these issues. Balance Theory par- simoniously addresses each issue and guides hypothesis for- mation. Hence, we rely exclusively on Balance Theory to generate and test our specific research hypotheses.
Balance Theory
Balance Theory (Heider, 1946, 1958) examines relational tri- ads. Relationships between three individuals may be exam- ined, from the perspective of one of the individuals. For ex- ample, the relationship between Bob, Brad, and Bill’s attitude toward Bob and Brad’s relationship, as well as Bill’s attitude toward Bob and Brad individually, may be examined. Heider (1946, 1958) proposed that individuals seek balance among their interpersonal relationships and among attitudes toward these relationships. Balance may be ascertained by multiplying the signs in a triad of relationships (Cartwright & Harary, 1956). A positive result indicates balance (see Figure 1a).
Balance triads may contain relations between entities other than people. Relationships between people are referred to as sentiments, whereas relationships between entities are referred to as unit relationships (Heider, 1958). In a CRM scenario, the relationship between a firm and a charity is thus a unit relationship.
FIGURE 1 Balance Theory Triads.
ATTITUDINAL BALANCE 393
Jordan (1953) proposed that balance leads to a judgment of propriety or conforming to expectations, but for a situation to be pleasant both balance and a positive interpersonal rela- tionship are required. Hence, although two negative attitudes represent balance, the situation is not deemed pleasant. Judg- ments of unpleasantness require only the perception of im- balance or the perception of a negative relationship. Cacioppo and Petty’s (1981) findings that balance contrib- utes to a sense of propriety, whereas agreement and attraction between the individuals contribute to positive affect, further support this position.
These findings provide a foundation for hypothesizing consumer responses to CRM alliances. Cognitive and affec- tive responses to CRM alliances are expected to differ ac- cordingly. Previous research suggests that affect impacts judgments, but this area has not been thoroughly researched (Olsen & Pracejus, 2004; Pham, 2004). Consumers are ex- pected to judge as “appropriate” alliances for which their pre-existing attitudes yield balance. Judgments of propriety represent the cognitive element in a CRM alliance attitude. Either a positive–positive or a negative–negative alliance should be judged “appropriate.” Balance does not suggest positive affect toward the alliance itself. The negative–nega- tive balance situation may be deemed appropriate, but not be well liked, per Cacioppo and Petty (1981). This represents the affective element in a CRM alliance attitude. Thus,
H1: The positive impact of balance will be greater for judgments of propriety than for judgments of affect, as evidenced in a balance × judgment type interaction.
An individual’s attitude toward a CRM alliance should consist of some combination of his or her attitude toward the firm, the charity, and the pairing of these two, per Balance Theory. Hence, positive pre-existing attitudes toward the firm and the charity should contribute to a positive alliance attitude. Likewise, a positive view of the pair together should contribute to a positive alliance attitude (discussed later). However, Jordan’s (1953) findings regarding pleasantness perceptions demonstrated a benefit for the combination of balance plus a positive relationship. If, indeed, positive pre-existing attitudes toward the alliance partners are impor- tant for generating a positive attitude toward the alliance it- self, then the combination of balance plus positive pre-exist- ing attitudes should lead to a more positive response to the alliance, above and beyond the simple additive effects of each individual pre-existing attitude. This interactive affect of organizational attitudes has not been previously examined. Thus,
H2: Consumers’ pre-existing attitudes toward the firm and the charity will interact such that attitudes toward the alliance will be multiplicatively more positive when both pre-existing organizational attitudes are balanced and both are positive.
Fit
We propose that fit may be viewed as a measure of the strength of the relational tie between the two organizations. In a CRM alliance, the individual’s attitude toward the firm and the charity are two legs of a Balance triad. The presence (absence) of an organizational relationship may be viewed as the third leg of the triad. In Balance Theory’s original con- ceptualization, all relations were represented dichotomously. Extensions (e.g. Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955) viewed the relations as continuous. This perspective allows for an exam- ination of the strength of the relationships in the triad. Fit in a CRM alliance can thus be viewed as strengthening the unit relationship between the firm and the charity, defining the na- ture of their association. A positive firm attitude, a positive charity attitude, and fit between the firm and charity reflect a strong, positive balance scenario (see Figure 1b).
We expect the relationship between organizations that fit to be judged stronger than the relationship between organiza- tions that do not fit. Moreover, if fit at least partly increases perceptions of relationship strength, then the impact of fit on attitude toward the CRM alliance should be at least partially mediated by perceptions of relationship strength. Hence,
H3a: The relationship between organizations that fit will be viewed as stronger than the relationship be- tween organizations that do not fit.
H3b: The effect of fit on CRM attitude will be partially mediated by perceptions of relationship strength.
If fit enhances perceptions of the strength of the relation- ship between a firm and a charity, then fit should similarly in- fluence judgments. Specifically, fit between the firm and charity should be viewed as more appropriate, regardless of attitudes toward the organizations. This is because fit should be seen as appropriate, based on individuals’ preference for balance. The same is not expected for affect, however. Two organizations may fit well, but an individual may not neces- sarily like the pairing, simply because they fit. Thus,
H4: Fit will more strongly influence judgments of ap- propriateness or propriety than judgments of positive affect, as reflected in a fit × judgment type interaction.
Balance is expected to influence target organizational atti- tude change in a manner similar to its anticipated effect on al- liance attitude. Consumers are expected to exhibit more posi- tive attitude change toward a target alliance member when they hold positive pre-existing attitudes toward the alliance partner, and are expected to prefer balanced attitudes. Hence, balanced attitudes with a liked pre-existing partner should enjoy additional positive response, beyond the benefit of simply owning positive pre-existing attitudes. The expecta- tion here is slightly different than that proposed in Hypothe-
394 BASIL AND HERR
sis 2: Only the partner’s pre-existing attitude valence must be positive, rather than requiring positive pre-existing attitudes toward both organizations. Practically speaking, however, this distinction is irrelevant, as pre-existing attitudes toward the target alliance member must in fact be positive for both balanced attitudes and a positive pre- existing attitude toward the alliance partner to exist. If pre-existing attitudes toward the partner are positive, then, by definition, pre-existing atti- tudes toward the target must be positive to attain balance. Hence, we predict a synergy for balanced attitudes and a pos- itive pre-existing partner attitude, not driven by pre-existing target organization attitudes, as follows:
H5: Consumers’ pre-existing attitudes toward the part- ner organization will interact with attitudinal balance. When pre-existing partner attitudes are positive and balanced, attitude change toward the target organiza- tion will be multiplicatively more positive.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 tests these hypotheses. The experiment was ad- ministered via computer. The firm represents the target orga- nization and the charity represents the partner organization.
Pretests
All pretest and experiment participants were from the same major Western university. Pretests were conducted to select appropriate organizational profiles for fictitious firms and charities. The profiles were intended to create either positive or negative attitudes toward the fictitious organizations. Pre- test 1 involved 36 undergraduate business students, partici- pating for partial course credit. Participants were asked to list information about firms and charities that would lead them to hold either a positive or negative attitude toward the organi- zation. In Pretest 2, the most commonly cited information from Pretest 1 was further tested. Forty undergraduate busi- ness students participated in this Pretest for partial course credit. Pretest 3 combined these statements into firm and charity profiles to create reliably positive or negative atti- tudes toward the fictitious organization. Twenty-eight under- graduate business students participated for extra course credit. Pretest 4 determined product and charity categories that, when paired in a cause-related alliance, “fit” together, and pairs that did not “fit” together. “Fit” was defined for subjects in terms of whether the organizations’ purposes were complementary, and whether the organizations’ alli- ance “made sense.” Sixty-five undergraduates participated to partially fulfill a course requirement. The resulting firm and charity profiles created positive or negative attitudes, as well as CRM alliances that did or did not fit.
Participants and Design
One hundred sixty-eight undergraduate business students participated for extra course credit. A 2 (organizational fit) × 2 (firm attitude: positive or negative) × 2 (charity attitude: positive or negative) × 2 (judgment type: affect or propriety) mixed design was used. Fit and judgment type were within- subjects factors.
Independent Variables
Firm and charity attitudes were manipulated via the ficti- tious organizational profiles. Each organizational profile contained five statements about the organization, based on pretest results. These profiles were used to generate posi- tive or negative attitudes toward the firm and charity. (See Appendix A for sample profiles.) Profiles were randomly generated for each subject, from a pool of 15 possible state- ments, to assure that results were not due to excessive im- pact from any single statement. Both the statements dis- played and their order were randomized. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four between-subjects attitude conditions: positive firm attitude/positive charity attitude; negative firm attitude/negative charity attitude; positive firm attitude/negative charity attitude; or negative firm atti- tude/positive charity attitude.
Fit was manipulated through the pairing of firms and char- ities. Two fictitious firms and two fictitious charities were se- lected from Pretests. “Bakerman’s Bread” was paired with “Stop Starvation” in the fit condition, and with “Prevent Children’s Polio” in the no-fit condition. “Tikes Toys” was paired with “Prevent Children’s Polio” in the fit condition and “Stop Starvation” in the no-fit condition. Each partici- pant evaluated all four pairings.
Each subject was exposed to both propriety-based and af- fect-based adjectives. This exposure was a within-subjects factor for analysis purposes. Participants’ actual responses to these adjectives served as a dependent variable.
Dependent Variables
Attitude toward the CRM alliance was assessed by asking participants to agree or disagree with adjectives describing the alliance. These adjectives were: like, dislike, appealing, unappealing, good, bad, appropriate, and inappropriate. Atti- tude toward the CRM alliance was also assessed by asking participants to indicate their attitude toward the CRM on a 7-point scale, anchored by “very negative” at –3 and “very positive” at +3.
Attitude change toward the firm due to the CRM alliance was assessed. Participants were asked the extent to which the CRM alliance would make their attitude toward the firm more positive, and then asked the extent to which the alliance would make their attitude toward the firm more negative.
ATTITUDINAL BALANCE 395
Perceptions of the strength of the relationship between the firm and the charity were measured. Since a CRM alliance in- volves an overt donation from the firm to the charity, with no corresponding overt helping behavior from the charity to the firm, the items assessing relationship strength primarily fo- cused on perceptions of the firm’s assistance to the charity. Scale creation is discussed in the next section. Perceptions of the relationship were assessed through comments made in the thought-listing exercise also discussed in the next section.
Procedure
Participants were run in groups of 8 to 12. Stimuli were pre- sented and responses recorded via personal computer. Partic- ipants were first shown a firm profile containing five state- ments regarding the fictitious firm. Participants were told to examine the information until they felt comfortable with it. Participants then indicated their attitude toward the firm. They were presented with the charity profile, again contain- ing five statements, and indicated their attitude toward the charity. A definition of cause-related marketing was pro- vided next, along with an example of a CRM alliance. Partic- ipants completed a thought-listing task regarding their re- sponse to the CRM alliance between the fictitious firm and charity. They were given three minutes, and told to type ev- erything that came to mind when considering the alliance. Participants then were asked to consider a CRM alliance be- tween the two organizations, and to either agree or disagree with adjectives describing the alliance.
Immediately following the adjective-response activity, participants answered a series of attitudinal questions regard- ing the firm, charity, and alliance between them. Responses were collected on a 7-point scale, ranging from –3 to +3. This procedure was repeated for the remaining three CRM pair- ings for a total of four randomly ordered iterations per partic- ipant.
Analyses
First, manipulations were assessed and scales created. Thought-listing results were used to assess the fit manipula- tion. Two coders, naïve to hypotheses and study condition, coded subjects’ open-ended responses. Intercoder agreement was 91%. The primary researcher resolved disagreements. Participants made more comments about poor fit in the no-fit condition, compared to the fit condition (t = –5.4, p < .001), suggesting a successful manipulation.
Mean firm attitudes in the positive attitude conditions (M = 2.18) were significantly higher than in the negative attitude conditions (M = –1.89, p < .001). Similarly, mean charity at- titudes in the positive attitude conditions (M = 2.41) were sig- nificantly higher than in the negative attitude conditions (M = –1.13, p < .001). The firm and charity attitude manipulations were thus deemed successful.
Participants’ responses to the positive (appealing, appro- priate, good, like) and negative (unappealing, inappropriate, bad, dislike) adjectives were coded “1” for agree and “–1” for disagree. Adjective responses were combined into scales by averaging the positive adjectives and averaging the negative adjectives. The four positive adjectives were assessed for scale reliability. Scale reliability was good (α = .92). The four negative adjectives were assessed and the resulting scale was also reliable (α = .90).
Scales were also created to assess perceptions of propriety and affect separately. Scores for the negative adjectives were reverse coded. For the affect-based adjectives (like, appeal- ing, dislike reverse coded, unappealing reverse coded), reli- ability was good (α = .96). The affect scale was created by averaging these scores. Similarly, the propriety-based adjec- tives scale (good, appropriate, bad reverse coded, inappropri- ate reverse coded) reliability was good (α = .97). The propri- ety scale was created by averaging these scores.
A scale was created for the dependent variable firm atti- tude change. Responses to the negatively framed question were reverse coded, then combined with the positively framed question. Scale reliability was good (α = .83).
Results
Hypothesis 1 proposed a distinction between affect-based re- sponses and propriety-based responses. Specifically, balance was expected to increase perceptions of propriety more than feelings of positive affect. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. The balance condition was recoded into two cate- gories, balance and imbalance. Two-level attitude balance (balanced/unbalanced) served as a between-subjects factor, and judgment type (affect-based adjectives, propriety-based adjectives) a within-subjects factor. Mean scores for adjec- tive responses served as the dependent variable. A main ef- fect for judgment type was evident, F(1, 158) = 48.4, p < .001, ε2 = .26. Responses to propriety-based adjectives (good/bad, appropriate/inappropriate) were significantly more positive than responses to affect- based adjectives (like/ dislike, appealing/unappealing). A significant interaction be- tween judgment type and balance was also evident, F(1, 158) = 5.3, p < .05, ε2 = .03, supporting Hypothesis 1. Attitudinal balance had a significantly larger impact on perceptions of propriety regarding the CRM alliance than on affect toward the alliance (see Figure 2). Specifically, balanced attitudes (positive–positive or negative–negative) generated a judg- ment of propriety (M = 1.26), although they did not necessar- ily generate positive affect (M = .21). Since the adjectives “good” and “bad” have been used in other research to indi- cate affect rather than propriety, an assessment was made us- ing only the adjectives “appropriate” and “appealing.” Con- sistent with the prior analysis, balanced attitudes were judged somewhat appropriate (M = 1.9) but not very appealing (M = .09), t (79) = 2.0, p = .05, per Hypothesis 1.
396 BASIL AND HERR
FIGURE 2 Balance × Judgment Type Interaction.
FIGURE 3 CRM Attitude.
Another repeated-measures ANOVA was run to test Hy- potheses 2 and 4. Fit and judgment type served as within-sub- jects factors, firm and charity attitudes as between-subjects factors. Responses to the valenced adjectives served as the dependent variable. Hypothesis 2 was supported, F(1, 161) = 4.6, p < .05, ε2 = .03. Firm and charity attitudes interacted such that responses were significantly more positive when both pre-existing attitudes were positive and balanced, above the simple additive effects expected from each of the pre-ex- isting attitudes individually (see Figure 3). Hypothesis 4 was also supported, F(1, 161) = 20.7, p < .001, ε2 = .09. Fit had a stronger impact on perceptions of propriety than on affect. Alliances that fit were judged appropriate even if not well liked.
Hypothesis 3 proposed a main effect for fit on perceptions of relationship strength (part a) and that perceptions of rela- tionship strength would mediate the impact of fit on CRM at- titude (part b). First, responses to the thought-listing exercise
(comments regarding the relationship between the firm and charity) were examined. A paired-samples t test was con- ducted. More negative comments regarding the relationship were made in the no-fit conditions, compared to the fit condi- tions, t(172) = 2.5, p < .05, supporting Hypothesis 3a.
To further assess Hypothesis 3, a mediation test was con- ducted (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, a repeated measures ANOVA was run with fit serving as the repeated measure, and perceptions of relationship strength as the dependent variable. Fit significantly increased perceptions of relation- ship strength, F(1, 166) = 56, p < .001, ε2 = .25, again sup- porting Hypothesis 3a. Moreover, firm attitude, F(1,155) = 67.4, p < .001, ε2 = .29, and charity attitude, F(1, 166) = 9.9, p < .005, ε2 = .06, both predicted relationship strength. A re- peated-measures ANOVA was then conducted, with fit serv- ing as the repeated measure and CRM attitude as the depend- ent variable. Fit significantly predicted CRM attitude, F(1, 166) = 77, p < .001, ε2 = .32. Finally, a third repeated-mea-
ATTITUDINAL BALANCE 397
FIGURE 4 Firm Attitude Change.
sures ANOVA was conducted, with fit serving as the repeated measure, perceived strength of the relationship a covariate, and CRM attitude the dependent variable. Both fit, F(1, 164) = 23, p < .001, ε2 = .13, and perceived relationship strength, fit F(1, 164) = 47, p < .001, ε2 = .22; no fit F(1, 164) = 15, p < .001, ε2 = .08, significantly predicted CRM attitude. Since the impact of fit was reduced with the inclusion of relation- ship strength (ε2 reduced from .32 to .13), fit was partially mediated by perceived relationship strength, supporting Hy- pothesis 3b.
To test Hypothesis 5, change in attitude toward the firm was assessed using an ANOVA. Firm and charity pre-exist- ing attitudes served as between-subjects factors. The firm at- titude change scale served as the dependent variable. Pre-ex- isting firm and charity attitudes significantly interacted, F(1, 166) = 7.0, p < .01, ε2 = .04, supporting Hypothesis 5. A syn- ergy of organizational attitudes was evident. When both pre-existing firm and charity attitudes were positive, change in attitude toward the firm was significantly larger than the simple additive effects would suggest (see Figure 4).
Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 support the hypotheses regard- ing attitude toward the CRM alliance. These results enhance understanding of the impact of fit on attitudes toward the CRM alliance. Prior research has demonstrated an impact for fit, but the nature of this impact has not been thoroughly ex- amined. This research demonstrates that fit enhances the sense of relationship strength between the two organizations. Organizations that fit are seen to have a stronger relationship. Moreover, more negative thoughts regarding the alliance come to mind when the organizations do not fit. Thus, fit strengthens the relationship between the two organizations, creating a stronger unit relationship. The effect of fit on CRM attitude is partially mediated by perceptions of strength of the CRM alliance. Hence, when organizations fit, the CRM alli-
ance is seen as more appropriate, although this alone may not generate much positive affect. This finding is an important step toward explicating the nature of the impact of fit.
A sim
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.