IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/iburev/v4y1995i4p435-446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive process differences between discrete and relational exchange

Author

Listed:
  • Macintosh, Gerrard
  • Gentry, James W.

Abstract

Recent research has placed greater emphasis on relational as opposed to discrete marketing exchanges. Much of this research has focused on the affective aspects of relationships. We assert that relational exchange also has a cognitive side to it. Specifically, we address two fundamental questions: (1) does a relational perspective involve different cognitive processes, which may lead to different decision outcomes? and (2) does the social context (i.e., accountability) in which decisions are made, alter decision processes and outcomes? The results of an exploratory study suggest differences in cognitive processes between discrete and relational exchange and that accountability has a strong influence on decision outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Macintosh, Gerrard & Gentry, James W., 1995. "Cognitive process differences between discrete and relational exchange," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 435-446.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:iburev:v:4:y:1995:i:4:p:435-446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0969593195000259
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Kevin J. & DeNisi, Angelo S. & Blencoe, Allyn G. & Cafferty, Thomas P., 1985. "The role of appraisal purpose: Effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilization," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 314-339, June.
    2. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    3. Schkade, David A. & Johnson, Eric J., 1989. "Cognitive processes in preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 203-231, October.
    4. Billings, Robert S. & Scherer, Lisa L., 1988. "The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgment versus choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-19, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nyu, Valeria & Nilssen, Frode & Kandemir, Destan, 2022. "Small exporting firms’ choice of exchange mode in international marketing channels for perishable products: A contingency approach," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:200-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Anja Dieckmann & Katrin Dippold & Holger Dietrich, 2009. "Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 200-213, April.
    3. Steven B. Redd, 2002. "The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 335-364, June.
    4. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    5. Gilliland, Stephen W. & Benson, Lehman & Schepers, Donald H., 1998. "A Rejection Threshold in Justice Evaluations: Effects on Judgment and Decision-Making, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 113-131, November.
    6. Huizenga, Hilde M. & Wetzels, Ruud & van Ravenzwaaij, Don & Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, 2012. "Four empirical tests of Unconscious Thought Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 332-340.
    7. Alex Mintz, 2004. "Foreign Policy Decision Making in Familiar and Unfamiliar Settings," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 91-104, February.
    8. Alex Mintz & Steven B. Redd & Arnold Vedlitz, 2006. "Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 757-776, October.
    9. Rajeev Kohli & Khaled Boughanmi & Vikram Kohli, 2019. "Randomized Algorithms for Lexicographic Inference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 357-375, March.
    10. Zhang, Jiao & Hsee, Christopher K. & Xiao, Zhixing, 2006. "The majority rule in individual decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 102-111, January.
    11. Sood, Sanjay & Forehand, Mark, 2005. "On self-referencing differences in judgment and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 144-154, November.
    12. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    13. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    14. Binswanger, J., 2008. "A Simple Bounded-Rationality Life Cycle Model," Other publications TiSEM 9b02a536-3ba9-43ba-b2ea-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Langena, Nina & Klink, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2013. "Individualized or non-individualized IDM: What elicits consumer preferences best?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150637, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Vikram Sethi & Ruth C. King, 1999. "Nonlinear and Noncompensatory Models in User Information Satisfaction Measurement," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 87-96, March.
    17. Binswanger, Johannes, 2012. "Life cycle saving: Insights from the perspective of bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 605-623.
    18. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    19. Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.
    20. Jones, Keith T. & Hunt, Steven C. & Chen, Clement C., 2008. "Auditors’ performance evaluations: An experimental analysis of the effects of initial impressions and task-specific experience on information later recalled," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 213-224.
    21. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iburev:v:4:y:1995:i:4:p:435-446. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/133/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.