Hypotheses testingThe hypothesized

Hypotheses testing

The hypothesized relationships were tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM) procedure ([6] Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; [9] Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; [10] Bentler and Chou, 1987; [17] Bollen, 1989; [59] Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the SEM Model tested (the error terms of [varepsilon] and δ are not shown). Consistent with the study by [88] Paswan et al. (1998), composite scores were used for the Solidarity, Role Integrity, and Mutuality constructs. For Aggressive Marketing, Product (offering) Specialization (focus), and Price Leadership strategies, the original scale items were used in the structural equation model. The results of the SEM analysis are presented in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.].

On the measurement side of the model, all the λ s are significant except for the one linking mutuality with relational norm (this path also had the weakest loading in the source study by [88] Paswan et al. , 1998). The global fit indices of the model ([9] Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) are within acceptable limits (χ2 =90.00, df=74, p -value=0.10; RMSEA=0.041; GFI=0.91; AGFI=0.87; NFI=0.90; NNFI=0.97; CFI=0.98; and RMR=0.049). (An alternative model was tested using all 16 original scale items measuring the relational norms capturing a single latent construct - relational orientation on the exogenous side - and the 11 scale items measuring three strategy options on the endogenous side. The fit indices were extremely poor - i.e. χ2 =721.80, df=321, p -value=0.00; RMSEA=0.098; GFI=0.71; AGFI=0.65; NFI=0.72; NNFI=0.80; CFI=0.82; and RMR=0.11. Moreover, the signs associated with the gamma weights connecting the construct of relationalism and the three marketing strategies were similar to the one found in the proposed model. Thus, for the sake of parsimony and model fit consideration, we rely on the model in Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] with the results in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.].) The structural relationships are all significant and in the hypothesized direction, and hence provide support for the three hypothesized relationships:

H1. Relationalism is positively associated with the aggressive marketing strategy. (Supported - positive γ ; t -statistics=3.23).

H2. Relationalism is negatively associated with the product specialization (focus) strategy. (Supported - negative γ ; t -statistics=-3.59).

H3. Relationalism is positively associated with price leadership strategy. (Supported - positive γ ; t -statistics=3.65).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Hipotesis pengujianHubungan hypothesized diuji dengan model persamaan struktural, prosedur (SEM) (Anderson [6] dan Gerbing, 1988; [9] Bagozzi dan Yi, 1988; [10] Bentler dan Chou, 1987; [17] Bollen, 1989; [59] Jöreskog dan Sörbom, 1996). Gambar 1 [angka dihilangkan. Lihat artikel gambar.] menyajikan SEM Model diuji (syarat-syarat kesalahan [varepsilon] dan δ tidak ditampilkan). Konsisten dengan studi oleh [88] Paswan et al. (1998), nilai komposit yang digunakan untuk solidaritas, peran integritas, dan kebersamaan konstruksi. Pemasaran agresif, spesialisasi produk (persembahan) (fokus), dan strategi harga kepemimpinan, item skala asli yang digunakan dalam model persamaan struktural. Hasil analisis SEM disajikan dalam tabel III [angka dihilangkan. Lihat artikel gambar.].Di sisi pengukuran model, Semua s/λ signifikan kecuali mutualitas menghubungkan satu dengan norma relasional (jalan ini juga memiliki pemuatan paling lemah dalam sumber studi oleh [88] Paswan et al., 1998). Indeks fit global model ([9] Bagozzi dan Yi, 1988) adalah dalam batas-batas yang dapat diterima (χ2 = 90,00, df = 74, p-nilai = 0,10; RMSEA = 0.041; GFI = 0.91; AGFI = 0,87; NFI = 0,90; NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.98; dan RMR = 0.049). (Model alternatif diuji menggunakan 16 asli skala semuanya mengukur norma-norma relasional yang menangkap membangun laten satu - relasional orientasi di sisi eksogen - dan item 11 skala mengukur tiga strategi pilihan di sisi endogen. Indeks yang cocok yang sangat miskin - yaitu χ2 = 721.80, df = 321, p-nilai = 0,00; RMSEA = 0.098; GFI = 0,71; AGFI = 0,65; NFI = 0.72; NNFI = 0,80; CFI = 0.82; dan RMR = 0.11. Selain itu, tanda-tanda yang terkait dengan bobot gamma menghubungkan membangun relationalism dan tiga strategi pemasaran yang serupa dengan yang ditemukan dalam model yang diusulkan. Dengan demikian, demi kekikiran dan model pertimbangan cocok, kami bergantung pada model dalam gambar 1 [angka dihilangkan. Lihat artikel gambar.] dengan hasil dalam tabel III [angka dihilangkan. Lihat artikel gambar].) Hubungan struktural semua penting dan ke arah hypothesized, dan karenanya memberikan dukungan untuk hypothesized hubungan tiga:H1. Relationalism positif dikaitkan dengan agresif strategi pemasaran. (Didukung - positif γ; t-Statistik = 3.23).H2. Relationalism is negatively associated with the product specialization (focus) strategy. (Supported - negative γ ; t -statistics=-3.59).H3. Relationalism is positively associated with price leadership strategy. (Supported - positive γ ; t -statistics=3.65).