Dual Motives Research Articles

On determinants of joint action in industrial distributor–supplier relationships: Beyond economic efficiency

Despite a recent surge of interest in relationship marketing, knowledge of the behavioral element of relational exchange in downstream channels remains tenuous. The author suggests that relational exchange involves both an attitudinal and a behavioral shift and maintains that joint action, a behavioral element of relational exchange, is driven not only by economizing motives to save transaction cost, but also by strategizing motives to serve customer needs better than competitors do. In particular, specialized investment is proposed as a common motive that has both economizing and strategizing aspects. Results of the hypothesis tests based on the survey of industrial distributors suggest that both economizing considerations and strategizing considerations motivate joint action in marketing channels. The dual motives of specialized investment are also supported. The author suggests that further research should clarify the link between relational exchange and channel performance.

The dual motives of participants at international trade shows

International trade shows have become a significant promotional tool for exporters. However, little academic research has been used to examine the role of trade shows within marketing. Reviews the extant literature and develops a new framework of trade show participation modes (i.e. exhibitors and visitors) and motives (i.e. selling and buying). Notes that the two perspectives of buying exhibitors and selling visitors have not been discussed in the literature. Applies the framework to an empirical study of Norwegian seafood exporters participating at international trade shows. Finds significant differences in firm characteristics, participation motives and effectiveness between different participation modes and motives. Develops managerial implications and directions for future research.

Taking Stock

This collection, which brings together critical reviews of the literature on a variety of contemporary issues in law and social science, has its origins in two judgments about our field that may appear contradictory but in fact are complementary. On the one hand, the empirical data and generalizations produced during the last several decades seem to call for, and amply to deserve, compilation and summary of the kind often found in propositional inventories. But at the same time recent scholarship often seems stagnant, further documentation (or falsification) of a well-established (or generally discredited) hypothesis, one more entry in a sterile, and ultimately unresolvable, theoretical debate—a by-product of the demands of tenure-review committees rather than the expression of any real intellectual engagement. If this judgment is fair, reflective and critical reassessment of the field is essential to break the hold of existing preoccupations and to formulate new questions. These dual motives will be apparent throughout this volume. Here I will offer my view of the kind of reappraisal that is needed, explain how the topics and authors were selected, and suggest some of the ways in which the essays that follow contribute to the task.