Harrison2012 PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 02 February 2015, At: 23:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20
Why Customers Feel Locked Into Relationships: Using

Qualitative Research to Uncover The Lock-in Factors
a
Mary P. Harrison , Sharon E. Beatty , Kristy E. Reynolds & Stephanie M. Noble

a
Department of Business, Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business

Administration, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
c
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, University of Tennessee,

Knoxville, TN
Published online: 08 Dec 2014.
To cite this article: Mary P. Harrison , Sharon E. Beatty , Kristy E. Reynolds & Stephanie M. Noble (2012) Why Customers
Feel Locked Into Relationships: Using Qualitative Research to Uncover The Lock-in Factors, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 20:4, 391-406
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200403
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Why Customers Feel Locked into Relationships:

Using Qualitative Research to Uncover the Lock-in Factors
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015
Mary P. Harrison, Sharon E. Beatty, Kristy E. Reynolds, and Stephanie M. Noble

This research explores the lock-in phenomena in service relationships, using qualitative research to uncover
the factors keeping customers in service relationships. We conducted 22 indepth interviews, with 44
service relationships discussed. Four broad categories of service relationship lockin factors emerge from
the interviews, with 14 specific subcategories. The four broad categories of lockin factors are relational
benefits of staying, switching barriers, obligatory factors, and personality factors. All the categories appear
across both positive and negative relationships, although interesting differences in category prevalence
between positive and negative relationships are insightful and discussed. In the majority of service
relationships, participants mention multiple factors in regard to lockin, rather than just one factor or
category. Researchers in marketing have paid little attention to obligatory factors and personality factors
and yet these factors are present in the data in a substantial way and occur in conjunction with the more
well-studied factors.
The attendants who work there are great; they even

see me pulling up, and before I even walk in the door,
theyve already gone to the back to pull my clothes.
They know my name; they address me every time
and ask how Im doing. Its definitely great service. It
makes you feel good when you walk in and everyone
knows your name and your clothes are ready to go.
The problem is they keep ruining my shirts. I have
lost count; its probably over ten shirts that theyve
put holes in the same spot. Its kind of been a hassle;
they really dont want to do much about it, but they
have reimbursed me for some of these. (Steve, about
his dry cleaner)
The positive is that I love going to my dentist. They
know all about my family and they are just so inviting
and so welcoming. The negative is that I just dont
think that he does the best job in the world because
Mary P. Harrison (Ph.D., University of Alabama), Assistant Profes

sor of Marketing, Department of Business, Birmingham-Southern
College, Birmingham, AL, mharriso@bsc.edu.
Sharon E. Beatty (Ph.D., University of Oregon), Reese Phifer
Fellow and Professor of Marketing, Department of Management
and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business
Administration, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, sbeatty@
cba.ua.edu.
Kristy E. Reynolds (Ph.D., University of Alabama), Bruno Profes
sor of Marketing, Department of Management and Marketing,
Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, kreynold@cba.ua.edu.
Stephanie M. Noble (Ph.D., University of MassachusettsAmherst),
Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing and
Supply Chain Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
TN, snoble@utk.edu.
I have a tooth and it just keeps falling out. That is a

problem. (Anna, about her dentist)
These quotations illustrate that customers do not always
stay in service relationships for the quality of the core
servicemany other factors can lock a customer into a
relationship. In this study, we seek to identify the specific
reasons customers feel locked into service relationships.
Customers who stay in service relationships provide mul
tiple benefits to the firm. Keeping existing customers is
cheaper than finding new customers. Having a base of
loyal customers for a product or service improves sales for
other firm offerings. In addition, customers who stay with
the provider become more efficient customers (i.e., they
understand the service process) (Xue and Harker 2002) and
show behavioral or psychological allegiance in the presence
of alternatives (Melnyk, vanOsselaer, and Bijmolt 2009).
Although customer loyalty is a heavily studied topic in
marketing, there seems to be a general assumption that
satisfaction or switching barriers are the only reasons cus
tomers stay in their relationships with service providers.
This paper challenges this assumption.
We conduct qualitative interviews with customers who
feel locked into either a positive or a negative service
relationship (noting that a lockedin relationship is not
inherently negative). The phrase locked into a relation
ship refers to a situation in which a customer feels bound
to their relationship (sometimes self-imposed) with the
service provider. The customer feels firmly entrenched
in this relationship. From the analysis of the interviews,
two factors that have received almost no attention in this
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 20, no. 4 (fall 2012), pp. 391406.
2012 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 10696679 (print)/ISSN 19447175 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679200403
392 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

literature areaobligatory factors and personality factors
offer new insights to the field. In addition, we confirm
previous research relative to staying reasons that finds
that relational benefits and switching barriers are major
factors that influence customers to stay in relationships.
Interestingly, in the majority of service relationships, all
four factors uncovered (obligatory, personality, relational
benefits, and switching barriers) may be present in lockedin
relationships, suggesting the complexity of this issue. The
complexity of the reasons that lock customers into service
relationships illustrates the fact that multiple, varied reasons
create a lattice to hold customers in. Just as a lattice consists
of interlaced strips of wood or metal crossed and fastened
together to create a structure, these lockedin relationships
often consist of multiple, interconnected lockin factors. In
a lattice, each additional beam of wood or piece of metal
serves to strengthen the overall structure. In a lockedin
relationship, each lockin factor (i.e., reason for staying)
may intensify the overall bond between the customer and
the service provider.
This paper first addresses the background of the idea of
lockin. Next, the qualitative methodology, data collec
tion, and findings appear. The resulting 4 major lockin
factors and 14 subcategories are discussed, with quotations
from the research, comparing these findings with the
existing literature. Finally, a discussion of the findings,
presentation of a lockin model, a discussion of implica
tions (theoretical and managerial), and future research
directions appear.
BACKGROUND
Conceptualizing Lock-In
Academic researchers of late have been highly interested in
the idea of lockinfrom psychology (Rogers and Bazerman
2008) to economics (Frank 2007), to organizational behav
ior (vanDriel and Dolfsma 2009), and also in marketing
and consumer behavior (Murray and Haubl 2007). Lockin,
across the literature, appears to influence an individuals
behavior in substantial ways and is of major interest in
this study.
The economics literature uses the term lockin to refer
to path dependencies, or lockin by historical events.
Frank (2007) illustrates how individuals or cultures main
tain preferences for food based on historical dependence
on taste and social meaning of consumption choices. He
shows that the history of consumption can alter future
consumption, leading to path dependence in consumption.
van Driel and Dolfsma (2009) argue for relating the key
elements of path dependence, initial conditions and mecha
nisms creating lockin, for use in the historical analysis of
organizational change.
Path dependence in organizations is sometimes referred
to as vendor lockin, defined as a customer dependent
on a vendor for products and services who cannot move to
another vendor without substantial switching costs, real
and/or perceived by the Linux Information Project (www
.linfo.org/vendor_lockin.html). In technological lockin,
past decisions (e.g., purchasing a particular computer oper
ating system) limit future decisions (e.g., purchasing new
software), even though past circumstances may no longer
be relevant (Arthur 1989; Liebowitz and Margolis 1995).
In consumer behavior, Murray and Haubl (2007) note
that cognitive lockin occurs after repeated consumption
or use of a product, such that the probability of a consumer
choosing his or her usual product over the competing
alternative increases over time. This cognitive lockin is
similar to a familiarity effect or habituation (Monin 2003;
Zajonc 1968). Commons (1990) finds that humans usually
act in habitual or conventional ways and will normally only
actively make choices when faced with new or unusual
problems.
Lockin also refers to a situation in which there are no
options. In many U.S. cities, there is only one cable, natural
gas, or electric utility provider. Brustein (2010) notes that
social networkers are locked into Facebook because no
viable alternative exists. Thus, lockin is relevant across a
number of domains.
For this study context, lockin to a service provider
involves a customer who feels bound to a relationship
or to a service provider and feels that he or she is unable
or unwilling to leave that service provider. Lockin is a
fixed, stable state, and is not necessarily voluntary. It is a
restriction on the customer, sometimes self-imposed, in
which the customer feels confined to the service relation
ship for either positive or negative reasons. The customer
feels firmly entrenched in the relationship. The reasons
for staying uncovered in this study are the antecedents of
lockin. Lockin results when one or more of these reasons
ultimately lock the customer in (see Table1 for definitions
of constructs similar to lockin). Lockin differs from loy
alty because loyalty refers to the propensity to purchase
a companys services again (i.e., behavioral loyalty) and/
or favorable beliefs toward service offerings that produce
that propensity (i.e., attitudinal loyalty), whereas lockin
is a true binding, or feeling of confinement to the service
provider. Lockin differs from commitment because com
Fall 2012 393

Table 1
Construct Definitions (Lock-In Versus Similar Constructs)
Construct
Lock-in
Attitudinal loyalty
Behavioral loyalty
Affective commitment
Calculative commitment
Normative commitment
Future purchase intentions

Repeat purchase behavior
Definition
A strong binding to the service provider; a fixed state in which a customer feels that he or she cannot or will
not be able to leave; a confinement to one service provider (sometimes self-imposed)
Favorable beliefs toward the service offerings, which produce a propensity to behave positively toward a
company or brand (Zhang, Dixit, and Friedmann 2010)
Propensity to purchase with reference to the pattern of past purchases (Zhang, Dixit, and Friedmann 2010)
Degree of emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement with an object or person of interest
(Meyer and Smith 2000)
Degree to which an individual feels that it is necessary to stay with another (Gustafsson, Johnson, and Roos
2005; Meyer and Herscovitch 2001)
Degree to which an individual feels obligated, called, or compelled to stay with another (Bansal, Irving, and
Taylor 2004)
Forthcoming and impending levels of usage of a product or service (Liu 2007)
Replenishing and repurchasing the same products or services (Paul et al. 2009)
mitment is the degree to which an individual feels an

attachment to, obligation to, or a necessity to stay with a
provider, whereas lockin is a fixed state in which a customer
feels firmly entrenched in the relationship.
Staying Versus Switching

In the services marketing literature, researchers devote more
time to understanding why customers switch away from
relationships than why they stay in relationships. In regard
to switching, Keaveney (1995) identifies numerous reasons
as to why customers switch away from service providers
(e.g., pricing, inconvenience, service failure, response to ser
vice failure, competition, ethical problems, and involuntary
switching). In a study of reasons why people switched to a
new bank, Lees, Garland, and Wright (2007) find that the
main reasons were utility maximization (e.g., lower fees),
dissatisfaction with the old bank, and stochastic reasons
(e.g., the customer relocated). Similarly, Colgate and Hedge
(2001) find that the main reasons for switching to a new
bank were better pricing at the new firm and issues related
to service failures in the old firm. Peng and Wang (2006)
find that, for UK utility customers who switched provid
ers, obtaining a lower price was the main reason customers
switched. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds (2000) find two
types of switchers, the dissatisfied switcher and the satisfied
switcher (a customer who leaves for reasons other than dis
satisfaction, such as relocation). Interestingly, dissatisfied
switchers tend to be more satisfied with their new firm (in
a retail-banking context).
In regard to staying in relationships (i.e., exhibiting
behavioral loyalty), several reasons have been the focus
of study, including dependence (Ganesan 1994), com

mitment (Morgan and Hunt 1994), and risk aversion
(Raju 1980). However, the specific reasons for staying are
underresearched. Most research in this area draws from
the literature on switching costs or barriers (e.g., Colgate
etal. 2007), or satisfaction or relational benefits (Peng and
Wang 2006). In one of the few papers that look at specific
staying reasons, Colgate et al. (2007) study customers in
China and New Zealand who considered switching to a
different service provider, but instead decided to stay with
their current provider. They find two major themes as to
why customers stayswitching barriers and affirmatory
factors. The switching barriers (similar to the switching
barriers addressed in Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty
2000) discourage a customer from leaving, and include
time and effort, lack of alternatives, emotional bonds,
and switching costs. The affirmatory factors (similar to
relationship benefits in Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner
1998) include confidence, social bonds, and good service
recovery. Paul et al. (2009), in studying repeat purchase
drivers, find three general categories: service relationship
attributes (e.g.,reliability, expertise), relationship-driving
benefits(e.g., money savings, affiliation), and motivational
values (e.g., tradition, security).
Thus, the reasons for staying in relationships are not the
opposite of the reasons for switching. Reasons for switching
tend to focus on problems and dissatisfaction or alternative
firms drawing the customer away. The main reasons found
thus far for staying focus on satisfaction and benefits, ser
vice quality, and switching barriers. The goal of this paper
is to identify fully the factors (and subcategories of these
factors) that lock individuals into relationships.
METHOD
We use indepth interviews to examine service relation
ships that individuals might feel locked into or bound
to (i.e., unable to break up with the provider). Although
researchers have done much work on related topics, such
as commitment, loyalty, and relationship marketing, the
topic warrants exploratory research because the majority of
the previous research focuses on satisfaction and switching
barriers, and thus, all the reasons that customers stay in
relationships have not been uncovered (Lincoln and Guba
1985; Strauss and Corbin 1998). The new ideas found here
illustrate the usefulness and value of doing qualitative work
in a well-researched domain. Indepth interviews allow for a
meaningful understanding of the topic from the customers
point of view. Similar to Haytko and Baker (2004) and
Noble, Haytko, and Phillips (2009), the interviews focus
on the perspective of the interviewees (i.e., a phenomeno
logical focus). Qualitative methods allow the researcher to
obtain the intricate details related to the experience, such
as the feelings, thought processes, and emotions that are
difficult to learn through other research methods (Strauss
and Corbin 1998). Using a grounded theory approach, the
themes discovered in this research emerge directly from
the data (Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Data Collection
Three highly trained interviewers (two doctoral students
and one masters-level student) conducted 22 personal
indepth interviews with individuals from 8 different states
(Lincoln and Guba 1985; Noble, Haytko, and Phillips 2009).
Participants were located through recommendations and
snowball sampling (Patton 1990) and were interviewed at
a place of their choosing.
The interviewers asked participants to talk about their
relationships with several service providers to whom they
felt they couldnt easily leave or break up with (i.e., felt
locked into). The interviewers asked the questions twice
once in regard to a relationship the participants felt at
least somewhat positively about and then again about a
relationship they felt at least somewhat negatively about.
Interviewers asked participants about both positive and
negative relationships because a customer can feel locked
into relationships that are positive as well as relationships
that are negative. The order of the positive and nega
tive relationship questions varied across interviews. Two
respondents could not think of a negative relationship, so
they discussed two positive relationships. Out of the 44
service relationships discussed, 24 were positive and 20

were negative. Interviewers used a discussion guide that
probed the reasons why the individual felt locked into the
service relationship. We extensively pretested and revised
the discussion guide as needed prior to data collection
(Wooten 2000). Interviews were unstructured, allowing
respondents to tell their stories as much as possible, but
questions focused on the history of the service relation
ships, the reasons why they felt locked in, how they felt
about the relationships, if they had tried to get out of the
relationship, and what they would do if the provider moved
or closed business. The participants viewed a list of major
service provider types initially to aid them in thinking
about types of potential service providers. Each interview
lasted approximately 30 to 50 minutes, was tape-recorded,
and was transcribed before interpretation.
The sample includes 14 women and 8 men, ranging
from 22 to 69 years old (see Table 2 for demographic
information). The service providers most often discussed
in positive relationships were hairdressers, dentists, and
home maintenance contractors; the service providers most
often mentioned in negative relationships were cell phone
service providers, banks, and landlords. The participants
discussed over 20 different service provider types in the
interviews. (See Table3 for the full list of service provider
types mentioned.)
Seventy percent of the relationships discussed involve
personal relationships, based on a review of the interview
transcripts. In personal service relationships, the partners
get to know each other and develop a history of shared
interaction, while pseudorelationships involve repeated con
tact between a customer and a provider, but the customer
does not necessarily get to know any particular individual
within the company (Gutek et al. 1999). In the positive
relationships, 88 percent of the relationships described were
personal service relationships; in the negative relationships,
50 percent were personal service relationships. These figures
appear in Table 3.
We first prepared detailed memos for each interview
(Strauss and Corbin 1998). We also discussed each interview
as it was completed, noting any issues or potential biases,
and discussing the emerging main ideas (see Noble, Haytko,
and Phillips 2009). Next, we reviewed and discussed the
transcripts and field notes extensively, using open-coding
methods to identify concepts with common properties
and dimensions. This involved looking for similarities
and differences across the participants responses. Next,
we clustered the data pertaining to the same categories
together and identified recurring themes in the data. Using
Fall 2012 395

Table 2
Demographics of Sample
Pseudonyms
Alisha
Amy
Anna
Autumn
Blaine
Carissa
Chad
Darren
Daylen
Emily
Heather
Jacquelyn
Janette
Jefferson
Joel
Jude
Kalina
Laura
Priscilla
Rachel
Steve
Teresa
Age
Gender
Race
State
Profession
34
40
26
36
25
43
29
26
34
27
21
25
22
62
25
69
37
24
52
26
31
26
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
B
B
W
W
W
B
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
B
W
W
W
W
W
New Jersey
New Jersey
Alabama
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
New York
Alabama
Mississippi
Mississippi
New Mexico
Mississippi
Alabama
Maryland
Maryland
Mississippi
Alabama
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
Technology manager
Retail manager
Real estate agent
Homemaker
Graduate student
Cosmetologist
Accountant
Computer technician
Nonprofit employee
School counselor
Undergraduate student
Administrative assistant
Financial planning assistant
Writer
Engineer
Retired physician
Architect
Restaurant hostess
Accountant
Anthropologist
Service manager
Attorney
axial coding, we fit the data into an explanatory framework.

During axial coding, we created tables and charts, showing
how the data fit together. We looked for quotations that
did not fit into the emerging framework throughout the
coding process to ensure that the framework fit the data
(see Noble and Phillips 2004). Finally, we identified the
prevalent themes in the data and used selective coding to
integrate the concepts around the core categories. During
this stage of coding, the objective was to synthesize the
major concepts and their connections (Strauss and Corbin
1998). Fourteen subcategories emerged and were grouped
into four broad categories of staying reasons.
Category Frequencies
In order to compare themes across relationships, we
conducted a content analysis of the qualitative data. This
method (using a content analysis on qualitative interview
transcripts) is found in numerous others studies with similar
data sets (e.g., Ahava and Palojoki 2004 [group interviews
with 59 teenage consumers]; Frankwick, Walker, and Ward
1994 [23 managerial interviews]; Kessous and Roux 2008
[16 interviews with consumers]). To quantify the prevalence
of the various subcategories, we gave the list of the 14 sub

categories that emerged from the data to a group of coders
(three doctoral students different from the interviewers)
who counted how many times the subcategory appeared
across interviews. Using specific coding instructions along
with an example quotation for each subcategory, the stu
dents coded the interviews on their own after a training
and practice session. Each interview was coded by two of
the three coders (i.e., each coder coded about two of the
three interviews). Next, the three students met to compare
frequencies for each interview. The interjudge reliability
for the positive relationships was 84 percent, while the
reliability for the negative relationships was 81 percent.
These reliabilities are reasonable and similar to averages
for these types of studies (see Gremler 2004). The student
coders discussed any disagreements until agreement was
achieved.
Findings
The four broad categories of lockin factors uncovered in
the data include relational benefits/satisfaction, switching
barriers, obligatory factors, and personality factors. See

Table 3
Service Providers Represented in Sample*
Service Providers
(Positive Relationships)
(n = 24)
Service Providers
(Negative Relationships)
(n = 20)
Bank
Car maintenance
Contractor
Dentist
Financial advisor
Gym
Hairstylist
Home alarm service
Nail salon
Pharmacist
Printer
Real estate agent
Stockbroker
Veterinarian
Accountant
Bank
Cell phone service provider
Dentist
Dry cleaner
Hairstylist
Hotel
Internet service provider
Landlord
Mortgage lender
Seamstress
Stockbroker
Positive Relationships
Percentage of personal service
relationships: 88*
Percentage of
pseudorelationships: 12
Negative Relationships
Percentage of personal service
relationships: 50
Percentage of
pseudorelationships: 50
Overall (Positive and Negative Relationships)

Percentage of personal service relationships: 70
Percentage of pseudorelationships: 30
Notes: No service provider type received more than two mentions in
positive relationships, with the exception of hairstylists(9). No service
provider type received more than three mentions in negative relation
ships, with the exception of cell phone service providers(4). *Inter
views were carefully scannedif the individual referred to someone
specific within a firm that he/she appeared to have a relationship with
then that relationship was classified as a personal service relationship.
Table4 for the full listing that includes percentage of men

tions across all relationships (and listings of percentages for
both positive and negative relationships); the percentages
represent the prevalence of the categories and subcategories
across the interviews. The benefits/satisfaction and switch
ing barriers represent the two areas that are well studied,
while the obligatory and personality factors represent two
areas that have been understudied in the literature.
All four categories appear in both the positive and
negative relationships. In all the relationships, relational
benefits/satisfaction appear in 93percent of the cases, both
switching barriers and obligatory factors in 82percent, and
personality factors in 68percent. Interestingly, these num
bers vary little between positive and negative relationships
overall, while considerable variation exists in the subcat
egories by positive and negative relationships, which we
will address further. These numbers provide an indication
of the importance of each category (but should be viewed

cautiously, given the limited sample size).
To illustrate how the different categories combine to
create lockin, we compiled Table 5. We looked at each
service relationship individually and counted the number
of major categories that each staying reason mentioned
represented per respondent. As noted in Table5, more than
one category is responsible for individuals feeling locked
into a relationship (in 98percent of relationships). In fact,
the majority of respondents mention factors from all four
categories in regard to holding them in a relationship. This
suggests that lockin is often the result of multiple staying
reasons. A discussion of each category appears below, along
with how these findings fit with prior research. Obligatory
factors and personality factors appear first because they have
received less attention relative to staying in relationships
versus the other two more researched areas.
Obligatory Factors
Obligation plays a major role in holding customers in service
relationships. Obligatory factors are reasons that involve a
sense of duty or responsibility to continue to do business
with the service provider (i.e., reasons an individual thinks
he or she should stay). Individuals stay because they feel
that staying is the right or moral thing to do or because
others expect them to stay. The participants discussed a
sense of obligation to the service provider based on four
factorslong history with the service provider or a sense of
owing the provider, the expectations of friends or family
members, a family member or friend provides the service,
and the need to help the service provider stay in business.
See Table4 for percentages for all subcategories.
Long Past History/Sense of Owing the Provider

When discussing the long past history or sense of owing the
service provider, the participants talked about not leaving
because they have been in the relationship for a long time.
This reason was more prevalent for positive relationships
than negative (79percent versus 55percent), but was the
strongest obligatory factor for both. The idea of staying in
the relationship because of a long history is similar to the
sunk-cost effect. The sunk-cost effect states that consumers
will respond to previous investments by becoming increas
ingly willing to invest additional resources (Gourville and
Soman 1998; Heath and Soll 1996; Soman and Cheema
2001), much like the escalation-of-commitment effect.
The sunk-cost effect is similar to Jones, Mothersbaugh,
Fall 2012 397

Table 4
Lock-In Factors: Subcategories and Percentages
Major Category/Subcategory
Relational Benefits and Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Special treatment benefits: they go out of their way for me
Social benefits: we are friends, we have a lot in common, they
know me
Confidence benefits/I trust them
Switching Barriers
Procedural switching costs, hassle to switch, too much trouble
to find a new provider
Unsure of better alternatives (grass is not greener), fear that
someone else wont be able to do it as well
Discomfort or embarrassment to switch
Obligatory Factors
Length, history, investment in relationship, sunk costs, I owe
them
Expectations of friends or family members (they expect me to
stay), recommended by family member or friend, or family
uses or likes them
Family member or friend of the family provides the service
Need to help the service provider stay in business
Personality Factors
Desire to avoid confrontation or negative situations or to not
hurt others feelings
Resistance to change, routine-seeking, likes the familiar, doesnt
like to experiment
and Beattys (2002) sunk costs, in which the customer

perceives that the effort, money, or time invested in the
relationship is not recoupable. However, the emphasis in
the current study is on the sense of obligation felt due to
having made a substantial investment in the relationship.
It tends to produce a sense of a moral obligation to remain
with the service provider.
I should stay with her because if you have been with
someone for 13 years... she provided the service for
so long she kind of feels like family, even though she
is not. (Carissa, about her seamstress)
I think I should stay because... I have been there
so long [at least ten years]. (Rachel, about her
pharmacist)
Further, respondents talked about feeling the need to
stay with the service provider to repay them for what they
Percentage
of Positive
Relationships
that Include the
Subcategory
(n = 24)
Percentage
of Negative
Relationships
that Include the
Subcategory
(n = 20)
Percentage
Found Across All
Relationships
(n = 44)
100
100
67
63
85
55
25
25
93
86
48
46
25
79
46
5
85
70
16
82
57
38
50
43
46
83
79
10
80
55
30
82
68
46
45
46
17
25
75
13
15
5
60
40
16
16
68
25
29
15
23
had done for them in the past, in other words, a need to

reciprocate (Gouldner 1960). The feeling of obligation to
repay what another has done is a dominant norm in society
(Cialdini 1995; Gouldner 1960). Social exchange theory
indicates that individuals act on anticipated reciprocity and
take actions contingent on rewarding the actions of others
(Blau 1964). Following are some quotations from our data
that represent this idea:
Well, because she did me a favor by doing that [coming
in on her day off] for my wedding. I just feel like she
should get my business all the time. It was really nice
of her to do. She didnt know me then. (Jacquelyn,
about her hairdresser)
Just because they have gone out of their way to pro
vide me service, so I feel guilty going to someone else
at this point. (Kalina, about her home maintenance
contractor)

he was still my dads accountant and he would ask
my dad why I wasnt using him. (Teresa, about her
accountant)
Table 5
Number of Categories Mentioned
Categories
Mentioned
4 dimensions
mentioned
3 dimensions
mentioned
2 dimensions
mentioned
1 dimension
mentioned
Positive
Relationships
(Percent)
Negative
Relationships
(Percent)
Overall
(Percent)
63
40
52
13
30
21
25
25
25
Okay, the one I can think of is my hairdresser, and I go

to see him because the mother of a guy I was dating at
the time (for three years) introduced me to him, and
I just felt like since she suggested him, that I should
definitely go see him. I would feel bad not taking her
suggestion after she asked me to go with her and meet
him and all this kind of stuff. I felt locked into the
relationship, like I couldnt say no, because she took
me over there and introduced me to him, and said
Janette might start coming to you. (Janette, about
her hairdresser)
Family Member or Friend Provides the Service

Because of all the freebies and stuff she does. I feel like
I owe her something because she does that. (Heather,
Expectations of Friends or Family

The subcategory of expectations of friends or family mem
bers came up as second in number of mentions here and
was mentioned in both positive and negative relationships
equally. This reason corresponds with the literature on sub
jective norms. Subjective norms reflect a social pressure in
which a person perceives that important others desire for
him or her to behave in a certain manner (Bansal, Irving,
and Taylor 2004; Fishbein and Ajzen 1980). It refers to the
influence ones personal community has on the specified
behavior (Fitzmaurice 2005) and represents a moral obliga
tion to someone. Consumers who consider engaging in a
new behavior are less eager to do so if they feel that doing
so would bring disapproval from close, important people
in their lives (Fitzmaurice 2005). Generally, the stronger
the subjective norms felt toward a behavior, the stronger
an individual feels compelled to act (or not act depending
on the direction of effect) (Bansal and Taylor 2002). In the
following quotations, participants note that individuals
close to them want them to stay in a relationship:
Beyond subjective norms, participants also talked about

the importance of staying in a relationship because the
person who provided the service was a family member or
a friend (equally represented in both positive and negative
relationships). An individuals relationship with friends
and family goes far beyond the particular service provided
and involves a strong, deep sense of obligation and loyalty.
The feelings of family obligation fit with Hamiltons rule
(1964), which states that humans will prefer kin when all
other things are equal (although the feelings of obligation
expressed here tend to go beyond preference and involved a
sense of lockin or not being able to escape). Wellman and
Wortley (1990) find that in multiple-role relationships (i.e.,
a friend or family member who is also the service provider),
there is a detailed knowledge of each others needs as well
as multiple claims on each others attention, tending to
produce a push to stay together.
I have a family member who owns an alarm company
and so any services that we need as far as alarm and
security, we go to him. My uncle owns it.... My uncle
just came on down and said he would give this to us
and this is how much it is going to cost and I will give
you a deal on it.... I really do feel like if I left, my
uncle would be upset. I think they would wonder why
I left. (Anna, about her alarm company)
The reason that I knew this person was in this business

was through my aunt, so if for some reason she found
out that I did end the relationship, she may have a
negative feeling or outlook towards me because, hey,
this is someone I told you was good and then you
backed out of the deal. (Chad, about his mortgage
lender)
Need to Help the Service Provider Stay in Business
It was actually my dads accountant who would always

make some kind of mistake on my returns. But I felt
like I couldnt really break off the relationship because
Finally, participants talked about supporting the business or

helping the service provider stay in business. This category
speaks again to the sense of duty or responsibility that cus
We were friends first and then the business relation

ship came later so I feel like it would be really hard
to leave. (Teresa, about her printer)
Fall 2012 399

tomers may come to feel. Interestingly, this idea evolved
primarily in the positive relationships. This idea illustrates
the importance of moral obligations to the individual or
company. Individuals feel obligated to the service provider
to support or help them stay in business. This is similar to
the idea of community benefits, described by Paul et al.
(2009) as a driver of repeat purchase intentions. The cus
tomer feels that he or she can support the sustainability of
the community by staying with the service provider.
His office is in my neighborhood and I feel somewhat

of a loyalty to use professionals who do not leave the
city. So many people have decided to move out of my
inner-city neighborhood so I feel a loyalty to him for
that. (Alisha, about her dentist)
She lives in New Orleans and when Hurricane Katrina
hit, she basically lost her home, office, and a whole
bunch of other stuff so I feel like by giving her busi
ness, I am helping her get back on her feet and that
sort of thing, so if I broke up the relationship, then I
would feel like I am just ditching someone that has
no home or anything. (Teresa, about her printer)
She needs the business. I am always very conscious
of that as well.... I know it helps her out. (Blaine,
about his hairdresser)
Personality Factors
Personality factors related to lockin represent distinctive,
stable traits of an individual that cause them to stay with
(not abandon) a service provider. Two subcategories emerged
in regard to personality or individual difference variables:
(1) the desire to avoid confronting others or hurting other
peoples feelings and (2) resistance to change. Since per
sonality factors have received little attention in regard to
staying in relationships, this topic is especially interest
ing. Surprisingly, although several researchers address
personality variables relative to commitmentrelationship
proneness (see Bloemer and Odekerken-Schrder 2007;
Odekerken-Schrder, De Wulf, and Schumacher 2003;
Vasquez-Carrasco and Foxall 2006) and the needs for social
affiliation and variety (Vasquez-Carrasco and Foxall 2006),
no one addresses the two personality constructs identified
here. People who avoid confrontation prefer not to assert
themselves in order to preserve the rapport and smooth
relations with others (Schroeder 1965). Not surprisingly,
this factor shows up more in negative relationships than
in positive relationships (in more than a three-to-one ratio,
in fact). High avoiders need to be seen as pleasant or nice
(Brock 1998). Avoiding confrontation is often characteristic
of females as they seem to care more about maintaining

harmonious relationships with others (versus males) (Hatch
and Forgays 2001). Further, they are often highly concerned
about the potential negative effect of the expression of
anger on others, consequently toning down their reactions
(Hatch and Forgays 2001). Avoiding is one of the five major
conflict styles in the conflict resolution literature (Rahim
2001), showing that avoiding conflict is a very common
way that individuals may address problems or issues in
relationships. Our participants note how much easier it is
to just stay in a relationship, even if it is not perfect rather
than to confront the issue or the person:
That is just me. I hate confrontation. That is one
thing that I dont do, unless it is extremely important
like where my job is depending upon it. I dont like
to confront people, especially when they are trying.
(Blaine, about his hairdresser)
I hate to confront them about the problem. Because
I am a nonconfrontational person and I would rather
accept the problem than face them or confront them
and have a whole argument or heated discussion.
(Teresa, about her accountant)
I think it is pretty much the same in everything. I
am not a very confrontational person, so I will put
up with anything until it gets out of hand. (Heather,
about her bank)
Closely related to avoiding confrontation is the desire
not to hurt the service providers feelings. This reaction is
consistent with the personality variable of agreeableness
(from the five-factor model of personality). Agreeableness
is a disposition to express kindness, sympathy, and compas
sion to others (Harris and Fleming 2005) and seems to hold
individuals in relationships with service providers.
It would make me feel like a mean or uncaring per
son if I left.... I think it would hurt her feelings if I
chose to go to another printer to have my personalized
stationery done. (Teresa, about her printer)
I think about what the other person thinks about me
and also how I affect their feelings by leaving them.
Especially in a business situation when you are giving
them money for what they are doing for you and you
all of a sudden back off that and stop giving them your
business, you think that is telling them they are not
doing a good job. (Chad, about his hairdresser)
Resistance to Change
Individuals who are resistant to change prefer the familiar and
do not change their minds easily. Although this personality
factor came through in both positive and negative relation

ships, it came up twice as often in positive versus negative
relationships. Individuals high in resistance to change feel
as though change is painful, even if those changes could
potentially improve their life. People high in resistance to
change like to preserve their routines and enjoy consistency
(Oreg 2003). Brotherton (2001) finds that individuals pur
suing routizination motives are less likely to change where
they shop. In marketing, resistance to change is relevant
to resistance to innovation, for example, when companies
introducing new products or new technologies sometimes
meet resistance from end users (Ellen, Bearden, and Sharma
1991). Respondents talked about staying to avoid needing to
change or to have consistency in their lives, even when they
are not completely happy with the service provider.
I like consistency in my relationships for sure and
sometimes I endure things that I find unpleasant just
so that I can maintain consistency. (Daylen, about
his landlord)
Im the kind of person that doesnt like change very
much, and when I get used to a certain place then
thats where Im going to keep going. Thats why I
stuck with the dentist. (Steve, about his dentist)
service provider (i.e., using a compensatory model) (Garba

rino and Johnson 1999). As long as the positives outweigh
the negatives, a customer will tend to stay with the service
provider. Repeatedly, throughout these interviews, the
participants said that while some parts of the relationship
were unsatisfactory, other parts of the relationship met or
exceeded their expectations (similar to the multi-attribute
model), encouraging them to remain with the service
provider. Satisfaction appears in all of the positive service
relationships (100 percent) and more than half the negative
service relationships (55 percent). See Table4 for percent
ages for all the subcategories.
I think she is a very good beautician and I like what
she does when she does my hair. The negative is just
the inconvenience of having to go to her at just those
certain times and having to wait when I am there for
my slot. (Alisha, about her hairdresser)
The only thing that I really dont like is that its so
expensive, but hes a really funny guy, hes a nice guy,
and he does a really good job, so I enjoy those parts of
the relationship. (Janette, about her hairdresser)
You know stockbrokers are never right 100 percent
of the time, so you just kind of have to take the good
with the bad. (Joel, about his stockbroker)
Relational Benefits and Satisfaction

In the in-depth interviews, respondents talked repeatedly
about the positive benefits they receive from staying in
the relationship with their service provider. This factor, as
expected, was discussed much more in positive relation
ships than in negative ones. This finding confirms the
previous findings in marketing research that relational
benefits strongly influence staying behavior. Four factors
emerged in this category: (1) satisfaction with the core
service (including convenience benefits and affordable
pricing), (2)special treatment benefits, (3)social benefits,
and (4)confidence benefits.
Satisfaction
Many participants talked about staying with their service
provider because they are satisfied with the service. This
is also the concept that has received the most attention in
the literature relative to this topic (Gustafsson, Johnson,
and Roos 2005; Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer 2005). They
stay because the service is of good quality, the prices are
acceptable, or the service is convenient (e.g., Seiders et al.
2007). To determine their level of satisfaction, an individual
may consider all the positive and negative things about the
Special Treatment, Social, and Confidence Benefits

The other factors include the three relational benefits, spe
cial treatment, social, and confidence benefits, originally
identified by Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998). Those
authors found that customers perceive benefits as special
treatment if they believe others do not receive the same
treatment (i.e., special services or discounts). Participants
talked about specific instances in which they felt that the
service provider went beyond their normal services to give
them special treatment, thus making them feel locked in:
If our alarm goes off, he personally calls us. He does
not have one of his employees call to see if we are okay.
(Anna, about her home alarm service provider)
I had to go get my bangs trimmed one day, and she said
come in right now and she put me in another chair
and cut them and did not charge me for it.... And I
have referred three people to her, so that is probably
another reason why I get special treatment. (Heather,
Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998) and Reynolds and
Beatty (1999) mention social benefits, or enjoying the time
spent with the service provider, as a factor that would keep
Fall 2012 401

individuals in relationships. Rosenbaum (2009) shows that
service relationships may also provide the customer with
needed social support. Han, Kwortnik, and Wang (2008)
demonstrate that commercial friendships are part of social
benefits and influence commitment. Price and Arnould
(1999) show that in commercial friendships, customers often
describe the service provider as a close friend. The partici
pants in our study talked about becoming friends with their
service provider and feeling comfortable around them, and
this tended to make the participants feel as though they
wanted to stay in the relationship. In this subcategory, only
mentions of becoming friends with their provider were
included, not those individuals who were friends with their
provider before the business relationship started (which
instead fell under obligatory factors). This is an important
distinction, as Grayson (2007) notes that business relation
ships that begin as friendships are more sensitive to conflict
than relationships that begin as business relationships.
She talks to me and I feel like we are friends. We buy
each other Christmas presents. I feel like she is my
friend now. (Heather, about her hairdresser)
Kate has actually asked me to come over and eat
with her husband and kids. (Blaine, about his
hairdresser)
She is a friend now, it would be hard to find someone
else and it would hurt her if I left. I enjoy our relation
ship. (Autumn, about her real estate agent)
Confidence benefits experienced in the relationship
represent feelings of trust and self-assurance in the service
provider (Paul et al. 2009). Confidence benefits include
perceptions of comfort in knowing what to expect in the
service encounter (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler
2002), which causes the customer to want to stay with the
service provider (i.e., to feel no reason to leave and often a
sense of lockin).
She always listens and if you bring a picture, she
can do it just like the picture. (Jacquelyn, about her
hairdresser)
I have a good relationship with them, Im comfort
able with them, and you know, even though theyre
20 miles away, I dont mind driving because I know
Im going to people that I know and trust. (Steve,
about his dentist)
The finding that switching barriers are highly relevant to

individuals feeling that they cannot leave confirms previ
ous research. These factors seem almost equally important
in both positive and negative relationships (79 percent
versus 85 percent). Three subcategories seemed to hold
people in: (1)perceptions of high procedural switching
costs, (2)unsure of better alternatives, and (3)embarrass
ment or discomfort to switch. See Table 4 for the prevalence
of these subcategories. The switching barriers category
coincides with the work of other researchers who have
studied traditional switching costs and barriers (Burnham,
Frels, and Mahajan 2003; Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty
2002). The procedural switching costs are equivalent to
Jones etal.s (2007) procedural costs, which include the
time, effort, or hassle a consumer might expect if he or
she switched. Jones and his colleagues identif y these
potential costs as a negative source of constraint in their
research. They also find that when customers perceive
few viable alternatives, they are more likely to stay with
the provider.
Procedural Switching Costs

Many participants discussed the amount of time and effort
it would take to move to another provider, saying that they
would rather stay with the current provider than deal with
the hassle of switching. This factor came up more in the
negative than in the positive relationships (70 percent
versus 46 percent). Often with medical records, car main
tenance records, pet shot records, and so forth, it takes
time and effort to ensure that the appropriate information
is passed along to a new provider. In addition, search time
to find a new provider simply is often not worth the hassle
to the participants.
We would have to do a lot of research. It is like finding
a new doctor. (Darren, about his veterinarian)
I tried to find someone else before, and Im kinda old
and set in my ways, and it would be a lot of trouble to
find someone else. (Priscilla, about her hairdresser)
Just because it would be difficult to find somebody
who could provide the service for me in the way that
I like. Its not a risk that I want to take with my hair,
at this point. (Emily, about her hairdresser)
Switching Barriers
Unsure of Better Alternatives
Switching barriers are the obstacles and costs that custom

ers must overcome in order to switch service providers.
Participants often mentioned that they really did not know

what other options exist, or that they were not sure that

another option would be better (addressing traditional
issues of lack of attractive alternatives and the uncertainty
involved with switching) (see Jones, Mothersbaugh, and
Beatty 2000, 2002). These customers stay because they
do not feel as though they have any other options or any
better options.
I thought, I dont know, maybe the whole industry is
this way, so we just stayed with this person. (Chad,
(about his mortgage lender)
He is an irrational individual, but I am not likely to
find anything any cheaper than this for the price or
even slightly more. (Daylen, about his landlord)
I dont know if I could obtain better service anywhere

else, so I just deal with it. (Heather, about her bank)
Discomfort/Embarrassment in Switching
A third factor that participants mentioned is that switching
may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to do, thus causing
them to feel locked in or unable to escape. Interestingly,
although Zaslow (2004) discusses the inability of individu
als to fire their service provider because of the awkwardness
of the situation, this idea appears to have not been stud
ied. Thus, an individual may simply stay (and feel locked
in) in order to avoid the embarrassment of having to say
goodbye.
Running into him would be awkward later. We go to
the same church and I see them all the time. (Anna,
about her alarm service)
If I stopped going to her, seeing her after that would
be painful. Since she is a personal friend, it would be
a little strange. (Teresa, about her printer)
So if I saw her and she asked why I hadnt been in,
I couldnt say that I had been getting my hair cut at
some other place. It would be a little weird. (Blaine,
about his hairdresser)
DISCUSSION
This study contributes to the marketing literature in several
ways. First, we conceptualize and elaborate on the concept
of lockin. We differentiate it from similar ideas, such as
commitment and loyalty, while also drawing on a wide
range of literature to help us conceptualize the idea. Second,
based on our qualitative interviews, we uncover four factors
that appear to serve as lockin factors. While researchers
have previously identified two of these factors (relational
benefits/satisfaction and switching barriers) in regard to

staying reasons, two other factors (obligatory factors and
personality factors) have received little attention. Further,
we also more fully develop the factors by identifying their
subcategories and providing rich descriptions and quota
tions relative to these subcategories. Finally, we also identify
their overall relevance as well as their relevance in positively
versus negatively valenced relationships.
Obligatory factors have recently received some attention
by at least one researcher: Bansal, Irving and Taylor (2004)
found that the main driver of intentions to switch providers
was normative commitment, in which customers felt that
they should stay in the relationship. The current paper
finds several important obligatory factors, including ones
past history or investment in the relationship, expectations
of family or friends, a family member or a friend provides
the service, and a moral need to help the service provider.
These subcategories help in understanding more about the
nature of obligations felt to stay with a service provider.
Further, these feelings could be negative or positive
negative if they are not happy, but feel there is pressure to
stay or positive if they are happy with the relationship, but
additionally feel that there is a moral or obligatory reason
they should stay.
Further, while research on personality factors affecting
customers decisions to stay in relationships is scant, no
research identifies the personality factors shown here in
regard to a staying or switching decision. The personal
ity factors identified in this research represent individual
differences that provide some additional understanding as
to why individuals stay in relationships. First, participants
high in conflict avoidance stay with a service provider
because they do not want to confront someone (the ser
vice provider or even someone recommending or using
the service provider). Thus, in many cases, the customer
will endure an unhappy situation rather than complain
or confront the service provider. They may feel locked in,
but they often remain rather than confront the person or
situation, even though they may be silently unhappy in
that relationship.
In addition, we show that individuals who desire the
familiar or do not like change will not change providers,
and may tend to feel locked in. These individuals look for
stability and constancy in their lives, and this includes their
service relationships. Thus, it is easier to stay put because
the desire to not change keeps them locked in.
Also, this research shows the value of doing qualita
tive research in a well-established literature domain (i.e.,
relationship marketing). Using indepth interviews, con
Fall 2012 403

sumers described why they feel locked into specific service
relationships, and this led to revealing new findings, even
in a relatively well-trampled domain.
As noted above, there are often multiple reasons for
staying in a relationship. Relationships may be stronger
when a host of reasons for lockin exist; however, one very
strong lockin reason may also fully entrench an individual
in a service relationship. The complexity or multiplicity
of staying reasons is similar to Keaveneys (1995) switch
ing findings, in which 55 percent of the critical switching
incidents included two or more of the eight switching cat
egories. Further, the reasons for staying in relationships are
quite different than the reasons for switching, which focus
on very different issues, such as service failure and recovery,
price, inconvenience, and poor service, suggesting a need
to continue to focus more attention on staying reasons.
Managerial Implications
By understanding why customers stay (even when not
completely satisfied), service providers benefit in many
ways (Dagger, Donaher, and Gibbs 2009). For example, if a
service provider must cut staff or staff hours, it is important
for managers to consider that these employees may have a
customer base made up of friends, family members, longtime customers of the employee, or individuals who learned
about the employee through someone they care about. By
eliminating that employee, the company may eliminate
profitable customers as well (Beatty et al. 1996).
If a service provider understands its customers and their
personalities, it can more easily encourage those custom
ers to stay. For example, if the service provider finds that
it has a base of customers who are resistant to change and
appreciate routine, it could avoid or slowly introduce new
technologies/changes for that group of customers, or could
offer education to aid this group in learning the new tech
nology. To encourage open communication with customers
who want to avoid confrontation, service providers could
set up convenient, anonymous feedback systems, either
online or through its service establishment. This would
allow service providers to take care of issues that otherwise
would not be addressed. In addition, the knowledge of
customer personality variables will help service providers
understand the customers of its competitors, and how to
effectively reach out to those individuals who are resistant
to change or who avoid confrontation (e.g., offer to contact
the previous provider to obtain all records).
The better a service provider understands the complex
ity and the multitude of reasons customers stay, the better
the firm will know its customers and the more the firm can
work to appeal to those multitude of reasons for staying.
For example, the service provider may want to draw the
customers attention to the length of time he or she has
been in the relationship in order to build up feelings as to
what would be lost if he or she moved on. In addition, the
service provider may wish to thank its customers for their
long-time commitment to the company or for doing their
part to support the business even in rough times.
Further, managers must recognize the downside effects of
lockin relationships, especially those that are negatively
constrained. In Jones et al.s (2007) study, perceptions of
high procedural switching costs increased negative emo
tions and negative word of mouth in both positive and
negative relationships. Service providers that currently have
a satisfied customer base should realize that if they choose
to make it harder for customers to leave (i.e., increasing
procedural switching costs), customers may feel like hos
tages and may advise friends and family to seek alternative
service providers.
Limitations and Future Research

Some limitations of the study are noted here. To explore
individuals feelings of lockin and to understand the full
nature of the service relationship, we conducted a qualita
tive study. We note that there are always trade-offs between
what is gained and lost in qualitative versus quantitative
approaches. Further, this convenience sample is certainly
not representative of all segments of the market. As with all
small sample-size research, the percentages noted here are
only indicative of the relevance of the factors discussed.
In addition, since 70 percent of the relationships
addressed could be coded as involving a personal service
relationship (i.e., a person was mentioned), the factors
identified are most likely more prevalent in personal service
relationships than in relationships where a specific person
is not involved. Additional research examining this issue
would be useful. We hope that the findings in this research
will encourage additional work in this topic, including
expanding this research to a quantitative study and collect
ing data from a larger sample of customers.
This research points to a number of underresearched
areas in the services marketing literature. There is a need
for research that focuses on obligatory factors in service
relationships. In 36 of the 44 total service relationships
discussed, at least 1 obligatory factor arises. Yet researchers
know little about obligatory factorsfor example, there is no
literature in marketing that speaks to the nature of a service

relationship in which a customer feels a moral obligation
to stay with the service provider simply to help that service
provider survive. Further, how does reciprocity manifest
itself in customeremployee service relationships? More
research is needed to understand the deep-felt personal and
moral obligations to stay that customers often feel toward
service providers. Cross-cultural research is also important
in this area, as collectivist cultures are more sensitive to
obligations toward members of their ingroup (Markus and
Kitayama 1991).
Also, further study is needed to understand how per
sonality characteristics influence an individuals lockin to
service relationships. An individuals personality may keep
him or her from walking away from a relationship (because
of the individuals desire not to confront the service pro
vider or because of his or her desire to maintain the status
quo), but a point also exists at which the customer may say
enough is enough. What is the breaking point, and what
factors contribute to it? These personality variables might
be more relevant in personal relationships, so additional
study is needed that looks at personality variables in close,
personal relationships.
Research could connect the two personality variables
found here, or the other staying reasons, to consumers
proneness to engage in relationships (a variable receiving
increasing attention) (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schrder
2007). For example, are certain personality types (e.g., nonconfrontational) more prone to staying in relationships as
well? Thus, there are many intriguing research issues in
this area, and we hope this study entices other researchers
to consider some of these.
In addition, we do not model or link the relationships
between the various antecedents here, of which there are
likely to be many; for example, higher social benefits may
lead to higher feelings of investment or need to repay, and
the expectations of friends or family members may be asso
ciated with greater procedural switching costs (the hassle to
switch becomes greater). We do not address these more spe
cific linkages because our data do not afford us the luxury of
being able to examine or postulate these linkages in depth.
However, these areas are ripe for future exploration.
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that most customers are
not locked into service relationships due to one factor, but
instead by a combination of factors. Each reason binds the
customer to the service provider in yet another way (each
reason creates a root that more firmly plants the customer
in the relationship) and creates lockin. The majority of

research up to this point focuses on satisfaction, relational
benefits, and switching barriers as the main reasons cus
tomers stay in relationships. While these are important
factors, they are not the whole story. Researchers should
also examine in more depth the obligatory and personality
factors. By more broadly addressing these issues, researchers
can more fully understand what creates lockin.
REFERENCES
Ahava, Anna-Maija, and Pivi Palojoki (2004), Adolescent Con
sumers: Reaching Them, Border Crossings and Pedagogical
Challenges, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28
(4), 371378.
Arthur, Brian (1989), Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns,
and Lock-In by Historical Events, Economic Journal, 99 (394),
116131.
Bansal, Harvir, and Shirley F. Taylor (2002), Investigating Interac
tive Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior in a Service
Provider Switching Context, Psychology & Marketing, 19 (5),
407425.
, Gregory Irving, and Shirley F. Taylor (2004), A Three-Compo
nent Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 234250.
Beatty, Sharon E., Morris Mayer, James E. Coleman, Kristy E.
Reynolds, and Jungki Lee (1996), CustomerSales Associate
Retail Relationships, Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 223247.
Blau, Peter (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York:
Wiley.
Bloemer, Jos, and Gaby Odekerken-Schrder (2007), The Psycho
logical Antecedents of Enduring Customer Relationships: An
Empirical Study in a Bank Setting, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 6 (1), 2143.
Brock, Karla F. (1998), Social Conflict Avoidance: Is It a Unique
Construct? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 59 (8-B), 45224600.
Brotherton, Timothy Paul (2001), The Concept of Routinization
and Its Effects on Marketing Variables, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Alabama.
Brustein, Joshua (2010), Facebook Is to Power Company
as..., New York Times, July 24 (available at www.nytimes
.com/2010/07/25/weekinreview/25brustein.html).
Burnham, Thomas A., Judy K. Frels, and Vijay Mahajan (2003),
Consumer Switching Costs: A Typology, Antecedents, and
Consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
31 (2), 109126.
Cialdini, Robert B. (1995), Principles and Techniques of Social
Influence, in Advanced Social Psychology, Abraham Tesser,
ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill, 257281.
Colgate, Mark, and Rachel Hedge (2001), An Investigation into the
Switching Process in Retail Banking Services, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 19 (5), 201212.
, Vicky Thuy-Uyen Tong, Christina Kwai-Choi Lee, and John U.
Farley (2007), Back from the Brink: Why Customers Stay,
Journal of Service Research, 9 (3), 211228.
Commons, John R. (1990), Institutional Economics, New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Fall 2012 405

Dagger, Tracey S., Peter J. Danaher, and Brian J. Gibbs (2009), How
Often Versus How Long: The Interplay of Contact Frequency
and Relationship Duration in Customer-Reported Service
Relationship Strength, Journal of Service Research, 11 (4),
371388.
Ellen, Pam Scholder, William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma
(1991), Resistance to Technological Innovations: An Examina
tion of the Role of Self-Efficacy and Performance Satisfaction,
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1980), Understanding Attitudes
and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Fitzmaurice, Julie (2005), Incorporating Consumers Motivations
into the Theory of Reasoned Action, Psychology & Marketing,
22 (11), 911929.
Frank, Joshua (2007), Meat as a Bad Habit: A Case for Positive
Feedback in Consumption Preferences Leading to LockIn,
Review of Social Economy, 65 (3), 319348.
Frankwick, Gary L., Beth A. Walker, and James C. Ward (1994),
Belief Structures in Conflict: Mapping a Strategic Marketing
Decision, Journal of Business Research, 31 (23), 183195.
Ganesan, Shankar (1994), Determinants of Long-Term Orienta
tion in BuyerSeller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58
(2), 119.
Ganesh, Jaishankar, Mark J. Arnold, and Kristy E. Reynolds (2000),
Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers:
An Examination of the Differences Between Switchers and
Stayers, Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 6587.
Garbarino, Ellen, and Mark S. Johnson (1999), The Different
Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer
Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 7087.
Gouldner, Alvin W. (1960), The Norm of Reciprocity: A Pre
liminary Statement, American Sociological Review, 25 (2),
161178.
Gourville, John T., and Dilip Soman (1998), Payment Deprecia
tion: The Behavioral Effects of Temporally Separating Pay
ments from Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research,
25 (2), 160174.
Grayson, Kent (2007), Friendship Versus Business in Marketing
Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 121139.
Gremler, Dwayne D. (2004), The Critical Incident Technique in
Service Research, Journal of Service Research, 7 (1), 6587.
Gustafsson, Anders, Michael D. Johnson, and Inger Roos (2005),
The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Com
mitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention,
Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 210221.
Gutek, Barbara A., Anita D. Bhappu, Matthew A. Liao-Troth, and
Bennett Cherry (1999), Distinguishing Between Service
Relationships and Encounters, Journal of Applied Psychology,
84 (2), 218233.
Gwinner, Kevin P., Dwayne D. Gremler, and Mary Jo Bitner (1998),
Relational Benefits in Services Industries: The Customers
Perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26
(2), 101114.
Han, Xiaoyun, Robert J. Kwortnik, and Chunxiao Wang (2008),
Service Loyalty: An Integrative Model and Examination
Across Service Contexts, Journal of Service Research, 11 (1),
2242.
Hamilton, William D. (1964), The Genetic Evolution of Social
Behaviour, I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1), 116.
Harris, Eric G., and David E. Fleming (2005), Assessing the Human
Element in Service Personality Formation: Personality
Congruency and the Five Factor Model, Journal of Services
Marketing, 19 (4), 187198.
Hatch, Holly and Deborah K. Forgays (2001), A Comparison of
Older Adolescent and Adult Females Responses to AngerProvoking Situations, Adolescence, 36 (143), 557570.
Haytko, Diana L., and Julie Baker (2004), Its All at the Mall:
Exploring Adolescent Girls Experiences, Journal of Retailing, 80 (1), 6784.
Heath, Chip, and Jack B. Soll (1996), Mental Budgeting and
Consumer Decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (1),
4052.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D.
Gremler (2002), Understanding Relationship Marketing
Outcomes, Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), 230247.
Homburg, Christian, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2005),
Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the
Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness
to Pay, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 8496.
Jones, Michael A., David Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty
(2000), Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in
Services, Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 25974.
, , and (2002), Why Customers Stay: Measuring
the Underlying Dimensions of Services Switching Costs and
Managing Their Differential Strategic Outcomes, Journal of
Business Research, 55 (6), 441450.
, Kristy E. Reynolds, David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E.
Beatty (2007), The Positive and Negative Effects of Switching
Costs on Relational Outcomes, Journal of Service Research,
9 (4), 335355.
Keaveney, Susan M. (1995), Customer Switching Behavior in
Service Industries: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Marketing, 59 (2), 7182.
Kessous, Aurlie, and Elyette Roux (2008), A Semiotic Analysis
of Nostalgia as a Connection to the Past, Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 11 (2), 192212.
Lees, Gavin, Ron Garland, and Malcolm Wright (2007), Switching
Banks: Old Bank Gone but Not Forgotten, Journal of Financial
Services Marketing, 12 (2), 146156.
Liebowitz, Stan J., and Stephan E. Margolis (1995), Path Depen
dence, LockIn and History, Journal of Law, Economics, and
Organization, 11 (1), 205226.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liu, Yuping (2007), The Long-Term Impact of Loyalty Programs
on Consumer Purchase Behavior and Loyalty, Journal of
Marketing, 71 (4), 1935.
Markus, Hazel R., and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), Culture and the
Self, Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224253.
Melnyk, Valentyna, Stijn van Osselaer, and Tammo Bijmolt (2009),
Are Women More Loyal Customers Than Men? Gender Dif
ferences in Loyalty to Firms and Individual Service Provid
ers, Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 8296.
Meyer, John P., and Catherine A. Smith (2000), HRM Practices and
Organizational Commitment: Test of a Mediation Model,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17 (4), 319331.
, and Lynne Herscovitch (2001), Commitment in the Work
place: Toward a General Model, Human Resource Management
Review, 11 (3), 299326.

Monin, Benot (2003), The Warm Glow Heuristic: When Liking
Leads to Familiarity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (6), 10351048.
Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), The CommitmentTrust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing,
58 (3), 2038.
Murray, Kyle B., and Gerald Haubl (2007), Explaining Cognitive
LockIn: The Role of Skill-Based Habits of Use in Consumer
Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (1), 7788.
Noble, Stephanie M. and Joanna Phillips (2004), Relationship
Hindrance: Why Would Consumers Not Want a Relationship
with a Retailer? Journal of Retailing, 80 (4), 289303.
, Diana L. Haytko, and Joanna Phillips (2009), What Drives
College-Age Generation Y Consumers? Journal of Business
Research, 62 (6), 617628.
Odekerken-Schrder, Gaby, Kristof De Wulf, and Patrick Schu
macher (2003), Strengthening Outcomes of Retailer
Consumer Relationships: The Dual Impact of Relationship
Marketing Tactics and Consumer Personality, Journal of
Business Research, 56 (3), 177190.
Oreg, Shaul (2003), Resistance to Change: Developing an Indi
vidual Differences Measure, Journal of Applied Psychology,
88 (4), 680693.
Patton, Michael Quinn (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods, 2d ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Paul, Michael, Thorsten Henning-Thurau, Dwayne D. Gremler,
Kevin P. Gwinner, and Caroline Wiertz (2009), Toward a
Theory of Repeat Purchase Drivers for Consumer Services,
Peng, Leong Yow, and Qing Wang (2006), Impact of Relation
ship Marketing Tactics (RMTs) on Switchers and Stayers in a
Competitive Service Industry, Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (12), 2559.
Price, Linda, and Eric Arnould (1999), Commercial Friendships:
Service ProviderClient Relationships in Context, Journal
of Marketing, 63 (4), 3856.
Rahim, M. Afzalur (2001), Managing Conflict in Organizations,
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Raju, P.S. (1980), Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship
to Personality, Demographics and Exploratory Behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (4), 272282.
Reynolds, Kristy E., and Sharon E. Beatty (1999), Customer Ben
efits and Company Consequences of Customer-Salesperson
Relationships in Retailing, Journal of Retailing, 75 (1),
1132.
Rogers, Todd, and Max H. Bazerman (2008), Future LockIn:

Future Implementation Increases Selection of Should
Choices, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106 (1), 120.
Rosenbaum, Mark S. (2009), Exploring Commercial Friendships
from Employees Perspectives, Journal of Services Marketing,
23 (1), 5767.
Schroeder, Pearl (1965), Relationship of Kuders Conflict Avoid
ance and Dominance to Academic Accomplishment, Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 12 (4), 395399.
Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn B. Voss, Andrea L. Godfrey, and Dhruv
Grewal (2007), SERVCON: Development and Validation of
a Multidimensional Service Convenience Scale, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 144156.
Soman, Dilip, and Amar Cheema (2001), The Effect of Windfall
Gains on the Sunk-Cost Effect, Marketing Letters, 12 (1),
5162.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research, 2d ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van Driel, Hugo, and Wilfred Dolfsma (2009), Path Dependence,
Initial Conditions, and Routines in Organizations, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 22 (1), 4972.
Vazquez-Carrasco, Rosario, and Gordon R. Foxall (2006), Positive
vs. Negative Switching Barriers: The Influence of Service
Consumers Need for Variety, Journal of Consumer Behavior,
5 (4), 367379.
Wellman, Barry, and Scot Wortley (1990), Different Strokes
from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support,
American Journal of Sociology, 96 (3), 558588.
Wooten, David B. (2000), Qualitative Steps Toward and Expanded
Model of Anxiety in Gift-Giving, Journal of Consumer
Research, 27 (1), 8495.
Xue, Mei, and Patrick T. Harker (2002), Customer Efficiency:
Concept and Its Impact on EBusiness Management, Journal
of Service Research, 4 (4), 253268.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1968), Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2), 127.
Zaslow, Jeffrey (2004), Moving OnBreaking Up with Your
Manicurist: The Challenge of Awkward Dismissals, Wall
Street Journal, June 10, D1.
Zhang, Jason Q., Ashutosh Dixit, and Roberto Friedmann (2010),
Customer Loyalty and Lifetime Value: An Empirical Inves
tigation of Consumer Packaged Goods, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 18 (2), 127139.

Harrison2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harrison2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 02 February 2015, At: 23:06

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Why Customers Feel Locked Into Relationships: Using

Mary P. Harrison , Sharon E. Beatty , Kristy E. Reynolds & Stephanie M. Noble

Department of Business, Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL

Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business

Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, University of Tennessee,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Why Customers Feel Locked into Relationships:

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

Mary P. Harrison, Sharon E. Beatty, Kristy E. Reynolds, and Stephanie M. Noble

The attendants who work there are great; they even

Mary P. Harrison (Ph.D., University of Alabama), Assistant Profes

I have a tooth and it just keeps falling out. That is a

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

392 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Fall 2012 393

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

Future purchase intentions

mitment is the degree to which an individual feels an

Staying Versus Switching

of study, including dependence (Ganesan 1994), com

394 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

service relationships discussed, 24 were positive and 20

Fall 2012 395

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

axial coding, we fit the data into an explanatory framework.

of the various subcategories, we gave the list of the 14 sub

396 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

Overall (Positive and Negative Relationships)

Table4 for the full listing that includes percentage of men

of the importance of each category (but should be viewed

Long Past History/Sense of Owing the Provider

Fall 2012 397

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

and Beattys (2002) sunk costs, in which the customer

had done for them in the past, in other words, a need to

398 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Okay, the one I can think of is my hairdresser, and I go

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

Family Member or Friend Provides the Service

Expectations of Friends or Family

Beyond subjective norms, participants also talked about

The reason that I knew this person was in this business

Need to Help the Service Provider Stay in Business

It was actually my dads accountant who would always

Finally, participants talked about supporting the business or

We were friends first and then the business relation

Fall 2012 399

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

His office is in my neighborhood and I feel somewhat

of females as they seem to care more about maintaining

400 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015

factor came through in both positive and negative relation

service provider (i.e., using a compensatory model) (Garba

Relational Benefits and Satisfaction

Special Treatment, Social, and Confidence Benefits

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 23:06 02 February 2015