Skip to main content
Log in

First- and second-order effects of consumers’ institutional logics on firm–consumer relationships: A cross-market comparative analysis

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consumers’ conceptions of a market's institutional logic affect mechanisms of firm–consumer relationships, but are generally neglected in comparative studies of international marketing. This study bridges institutional and relationship marketing theories to examine two questions: do consumers hold meaningful mental models of a market's institutional logics, and do these mental models explain differentiated patterns of market relationships across international contexts? Building on contract-relational duality, we develop a market-level construct for capturing consumers’ socially constructed mental models for the institutional logics of market action. We theorize that differences in consumers’ institutional logics will influence both their evaluation of a firm's capabilities (first-order effect) and the degree to which they reward a firm through their commitment (second-order effect). These bridging predictions are tested using data from the insurance industry across three international markets. Our results show that the German insurance market is located in the relatively high contracts–low relational quadrant, whereas the US and Dutch markets are both located in the relatively low contracts – high relational quadrant. Our results also suggest that consumer commitment conforms to a principle of alignment such that commitment accrues to providers who align their capabilities with consumers’ prevalent institutional logics of the market, and penalizes those who deviate from it.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agustin, C., & Singh, J. 2005. Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1): 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autoriteit Financiële Marketen. 2008. ConsumentenMonitor Q1. http://consument.afm.nl/~/media/Files/ConsumentenMonitor_Q1_%202008.ashx. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, M. 1987. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (2): 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., & Bazerman, M. 2003. Bringing in consumers. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 187–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. 2006. Versicherungen. http://www.bafin.de/cln_116/nn_723254/DE/Verbraucher/FAQVerbraucher/Versicherungen/versicherungen__node.html?__nnn=true. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. 2006. Analytic considerations in cross-cultural research on peer relations. In X. Chen, D. C. French, & B. Schneider (Eds), Peer relations in cultural context: 75–95. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Consumentenbond. 2009. Verzekeringen, http://www.consumentenbond.nl/. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Consumer Reports. 2009. Car buying advice: Car insurance. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-buying-advice/guide-to-new-car-buying/insurance/car-insurance/0702ins0.htm. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Consuwijzer. 2009. Geld en Verzekeringen. http://www.consuwijzer.nl/Ik_wil_advies_over/Geld_en_verzekeringen/Verzekeren. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. 1994. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47 (1): 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. 2000. The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (2): 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. 1999. Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1): 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhemjamts, O., & Leverty, J. T. 2007. The demise of the mutual organizational form: An investigation of the life insurance industry. Orlando, FL: Annual Meeting of the Financial Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., & van Looy, B. 2008. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (6): 1053–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2): 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., & Dharwadkar, R. 2002. The role of the institutional environment in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 66 (3): 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A., & Zammuto, R. F. 2005. Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4): 823–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. 2006. Friends, businesspeople, and relationship roles: A conceptual framework and a research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 70 (2): 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W., & Swaminathan, A. 2008. Institutions and international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 537–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. 2009. Structure! Urgency! (and other quarrels): Meta-analyzing institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (1): 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. 2006. What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7 (1): 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insurance Information Institute. 2009. How do I choose an insurance company? http://www.iii.org/Articles/How-do-I-choose-an-insurance-company.html. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Iyer, G. R. 1997. Comparative marketing: An interdisciplinary framework for institutional analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (3): 531–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, P. 1994. The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100 (2): 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds), The SAGE handbook of organization studies: 215–254. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, S. 1963. Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. American Sociological Review, 28 (1): 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makhija, M. V., & Stewart, A. C. 2002. The effect of national context on perceptions of risk: A comparison of planned versus free-market managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (4): 737–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantzavinos, C., North, D. C., & Shariq, S. 2004. Learning, institutions, and economic performance. Perspectives of Politics, 2 (1): 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organizations, 52 (4): 943–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menhart, M., Pyka, A., Ebersberger, B., & Hanusch, H. 2003. Product innovation and population dynamics in the German insurance market. Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe, 240: 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. 2006. Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61 (3): 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3): 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijssen, E. J., Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Holzmüller, H. H. 2003. Investigating industry context effects in consumer-firm relationships: Preliminary results from a dispositional approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (1): 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. 1997. Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. 2006. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70 (4): 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ping Jr, R. A. 1995. A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (3): 336–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R. E., & Oswald, F. L. 2004. Applications of mean and covariance structure analysis: Integrating correlational and experimental approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (1): 27–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, Y. 1992. Towards a conceptualization of culture for psychology. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & K. Leung (Eds), Innovations in cross-cultural psychology: 3–17. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. 1989. Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26 (4): 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. 1986. The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7 (6): 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shopper's Guide to Auto Insurance. 2009. Auto insurance: Helping you choose and understand your auto insurance. http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Consumer/OCS/Pages/OCSPubIndexTab1.aspx. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. 2002. Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66 (1): 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1): 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiftung Warentest. 2009. Versicherung & Vorsorge. http://www.test.de/themen/versicherung-vorsorge/. Accessed 23 September 2009.

  • 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 

  • Vletter-van Dort, H. 2006. Wet op het financieel toezicht, wonder of waanzin? Inaugural speech, The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. 2001. Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65 (4): 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (2): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Deepak Sirdeshmukh for his assistance in data collection in the United States, and thoughtful contribution to the development of ideas at the formative stages of this paper. Financial support for data collection in the United States was provided by a research grant from the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Financial support for data collection in Germany was provided by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG grant no. HO 2224/1-1). The authors appreciate Hartmut Holzmüller's assistance in arranging the DFG grant, and for input in the initial stages. The paper benefitted from the constructive comments of the reviewers and the thoughtful guidance of the Area Editor during the review process, which is sincerely acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edwin J Nijssen.

Additional information

Accepted by Daniel Bello, Area Editor, 3 September 2009. This paper has been with the authors for three revisions.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Secondary Data Analysis of Insurance Markets

After the identification of German, US, and Dutch insurance markets as targets of study, additional secondary data were collected to ensure adequate variation along the two consumers’ institutional logics of market action (CILMA) dimensions. Focused on auto and home insurance, and using the Internet among others, we first identified contracts/policies for auto and home insurance in the US, the Netherlands, and Germany, and compared their level of detail using contract length as a proxy for the importance of contracts in market exchanges (Faems, Janssens, Madhok, & van Looy, 2008).

As Table A1 shows, we found that German contracts are the most lengthy and Dutch contracts the shortest. The US holds a middle position. This confirms the variation for the countries selected along the dimension of formal contract. The difference in length of contract in Germany and the Netherlands, and Germany and the US, is provided to support our interpretation. Moreover, the results for auto and home insurance mimic the results from our empirical data on consumer perceptions of contracts dimension.

Table a1 Comparison of insurance contracts in Germany, the US and the Netherlands, based on page length

Second, for the relational-logics dimension we researched the types of advice given to consumers by federal agencies and independent consumer-report-like agents for selecting and dealing with insurance providers. The objective was to learn more about the nature and type of advice provided (e.g., price/content, relational). In addition to federal and consumer society sites, we studied commercial sites offering product and provider comparisons.

The results show that major state insurance regulators in the US provide detailed guidance to consumers on how to deal with insurance providers (Erhemjamts & Leverty, 2007). Dutch and German federal agencies provide only general advice, and refrain from detailed suggestions (Menhart, Pyka, Ebersberger, & Hanusch, 2003; Vletter-van Dort, 2006). Notable are US federal agents’ suggestions to consumers to look beyond price when dealing with a provider (e.g., consider also company reputation, positive word of mouth, etc.). Consider for instance the following excerpt from a shopper's guide developed by the State of Ohio in the US (http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Consumer/OCS/CompleteGuides/CompleteHomeGuide.pdf):

Wise shoppers look for more than price … The process of choosing a proper policy for your home must take into account many important factors. The policy offered at the lowest cost may not offer the level of insurance protection you need. If you have been satisfied with your company's service in the past, it may not be wise to jump to an unknown company to save a few dollars. If you have not been satisfied with your company, or if you are shopping for the first time, ask friends and relatives for references about the service they have received from companies they have used. (p. 10)

The German federal agency Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) does provide consumers with information but only at a very general level (see http://www.bafin.de/cln_116/nn_723254/DE/Verbraucher/FAQVerbraucher/Versicherungen/versicherungen__node.html?__nnn=true). In the Netherlands, Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) provides information for consumers (http://consument.afm.nl/consumenten/producten/verzekering/hoe.aspx), and has recently opened a new Internet site Consuwijzer (http://www.consuwijzer.nl/Ik_wil_advies_over/Geld_en_verzekeringen/Verzekeren). However, the level of information is still basic, and thus extremely limited.

Independent consumer agencies in all three countries do provide consumers with detailed, additional information. For our secondary data research we focused on agencies that require membership status. In the US, the Consumer Reports offers extensive comparisons and advice for selecting insurance (www.ConsumerReports.org). Suggestions that can be found include, for instance, to “call your state insurance departments to get a measure of complaints about the carriers you’re considering” and “Stick with a company that treats you well … loyalty seems to count” (re auto insurance). In Germany, Stiftung Warentest (http://www.test.de/themen/versicherung-vorsorge/) provides independent information and test results for many different sorts of products and services. The organization provides advice to consumers, such as what to do in order to obtain the cheapest insurance, and points out alternatives for consumers who want to change insurance providers. Several studies are available (e.g., auto insurance, home insurance, and personal valuables) comparing price and content of the offers set forward. Relational advice is limited. A similar independent consumer organization also exists in the Netherlands: Consumentenbond (http://www.consumentenbond.nl/). Like their German counterpart they focus on price/content comparison, and provide suggestions for switching providers. Their range of studies pertaining to insurance is limited.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Singh, J., Lentz, P. & Nijssen, E. First- and second-order effects of consumers’ institutional logics on firm–consumer relationships: A cross-market comparative analysis. J Int Bus Stud 42, 307–333 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.101

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.101

Keywords

Navigation