Table A1 Psychometric assessment of...

Table A1

Psychometric assessment of measurement models (Studies 1 and 2)

Latent constructs/Indicators	Study 1	Study 2
Latent constructs/Indicators	Loadings^a	Loadings^b
Panel A: Confirmatory Model Psychometric Assessment
Relationship Specific Adaptation (RSA)-Čater and Čater (2010)
Our supplier is willing to customize its products for us	0.773
Our supplier is willing to change its production process for us	0.886
Our supplier is willing to change its inventory procedures for us	0.860
Our supplier is willing to change its delivery procedures for us	0.634
Our supplier is willing to invest in tools and equipment for us	0.714
Affective Commitment (AC)- Jain et al. (2014)
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we feel the relationship to be efficient	0.699
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we enjoy working with them	0.897
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because our philosophies align	0.774
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we think positively about them	0.885
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we are loyal to them	0.651
Product Quality (PQ)- Čater and Čater (2010)
Our supplier provides us with a high quality product		0.785
Our supplier meets our quality standards		0.803
Our supplier's products are reliable		0.780
Our supplier provides more consistent product quality over time		0.727
Our supplier meets our quality standards better than their competitors do		0.879
Calculative Commitment (CC) – Jain et al. (2014)
So far, the benefits our firm has received from this relationship are greater than the costs that have been incurred by us		0.687
We are receiving fair value from our investments in this relationship		0.925
Overall, our firm is receiving fair value from this relationship		0.934
Reputational Power (RP)- Leonidou et al. (2008)
The supplier demands our compliance because they know that we appreciate and admire them	0.889	0.901
The supplier uses their unique competencies to make our company accept their recommendations	0.659	0.656
Relationship Value Dependence (RVD) - Geiger et al. (2012)
This relationship is an outstanding value to us	0.817
Overall, the benefits of this relationship far outweigh the disadvantages	0.807
This customer/supplier relationship makes a crucial positive contribution to our company's achievement of goals	0.801
This relationship strongly matches our conception of an optimal relationship	0.873
This relationship meets the requirements of my company in all important aspects	0.841
Switching Cost Dependence (SCD) - Geiger et al. (2012)
It would cost my company a lot of money to switch from our supplier to another one		0.813
It would take a lot of effort for my company to switch from this supplier to another one		0.820
It would take my company a lot of time to switch from our supplier to another one		0.846
If my company changed from this supplier to another one, some new problems would arise		0.859
Loyalty (LY) – Čater, T. and Čater (2010)
Assuming there is a need, we intend to continue doing business with our supplier for the foreseeable future	0.931	0.932
Assuming there is a need, we will continue to have a relationship with our supplier over the next year	0.827	0.831
Assuming there is a need, we will continue to have a relationship with our supplier over the next 3–5 years	0.954	0.852
Strategic Performance (SP) – Ramaseshan et al. (2006)
Our supplier has helped us gain a strategic advantage over our competition	0.928	0.915
The relationship has resulted in strategic advantage for us	0.834	0.943
We have gained benefits that enable us to compete more effectively in the marketplace	0.854	0.855
Financial Performance (FP) – Johnson (1999)
Our relationship with our supplier has increased our marketshare	0.850	0.849
Our relationship with our supplier has generated a high volume of sales	0.901	0.900
Our relationship with our supplier has helped achieve rapid growth	0.869	0.871

Latent constructs/Indicators	Study 1	Study 2
Latent constructs/Indicators	Loadings^a	Loadings^b
Panel A: Confirmatory Model Psychometric Assessment
Relationship Specific Adaptation (RSA)-Čater and Čater (2010)
Our supplier is willing to customize its products for us	0.773
Our supplier is willing to change its production process for us	0.886
Our supplier is willing to change its inventory procedures for us	0.860
Our supplier is willing to change its delivery procedures for us	0.634
Our supplier is willing to invest in tools and equipment for us	0.714
Affective Commitment (AC)- Jain et al. (2014)
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we feel the relationship to be efficient	0.699
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we enjoy working with them	0.897
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because our philosophies align	0.774
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we think positively about them	0.885
We want to stay in the relationship with our supplier because we are loyal to them	0.651
Product Quality (PQ)- Čater and Čater (2010)
Our supplier provides us with a high quality product		0.785
Our supplier meets our quality standards		0.803
Our supplier's products are reliable		0.780
Our supplier provides more consistent product quality over time		0.727
Our supplier meets our quality standards better than their competitors do		0.879
Calculative Commitment (CC) – Jain et al. (2014)
So far, the benefits our firm has received from this relationship are greater than the costs that have been incurred by us		0.687
We are receiving fair value from our investments in this relationship		0.925
Overall, our firm is receiving fair value from this relationship		0.934
Reputational Power (RP)- Leonidou et al. (2008)
The supplier demands our compliance because they know that we appreciate and admire them	0.889	0.901
The supplier uses their unique competencies to make our company accept their recommendations	0.659	0.656
Relationship Value Dependence (RVD) - Geiger et al. (2012)
This relationship is an outstanding value to us	0.817
Overall, the benefits of this relationship far outweigh the disadvantages	0.807
This customer/supplier relationship makes a crucial positive contribution to our company's achievement of goals	0.801
This relationship strongly matches our conception of an optimal relationship	0.873
This relationship meets the requirements of my company in all important aspects	0.841
Switching Cost Dependence (SCD) - Geiger et al. (2012)
It would cost my company a lot of money to switch from our supplier to another one		0.813
It would take a lot of effort for my company to switch from this supplier to another one		0.820
It would take my company a lot of time to switch from our supplier to another one		0.846
If my company changed from this supplier to another one, some new problems would arise		0.859
Loyalty (LY) – Čater, T. and Čater (2010)
Assuming there is a need, we intend to continue doing business with our supplier for the foreseeable future	0.931	0.932
Assuming there is a need, we will continue to have a relationship with our supplier over the next year	0.827	0.831
Assuming there is a need, we will continue to have a relationship with our supplier over the next 3–5 years	0.954	0.852
Strategic Performance (SP) – Ramaseshan et al. (2006)
Our supplier has helped us gain a strategic advantage over our competition	0.928	0.915
The relationship has resulted in strategic advantage for us	0.834	0.943
We have gained benefits that enable us to compete more effectively in the marketplace	0.854	0.855
Financial Performance (FP) – Johnson (1999)
Our relationship with our supplier has increased our marketshare	0.850	0.849
Our relationship with our supplier has generated a high volume of sales	0.901	0.900
Our relationship with our supplier has helped achieve rapid growth	0.869	0.871

	AVE	α	CR	RSA	AC	RP	RVD	LY	SP	FP
Panel B: Study 1 - Reliability, validity and correlations
Relationship Specific Adaptation (RSA)	0.679	0.88	0.91	1.00
Affective Commitment	0.682	0.88	0.91	0.425	1.00
Reputational Power (P)	0.838	0.72	0.82	0.234	0.293	1.00
Relationship Value Dependence (RVP)	0.740	0.91	0.93	0.420	0.795	0.281	1.00
Loyalty (LY)	0.821	0.91	0.93	0.082	0.467	0.113	0.579	1.00
Strategic Performance (SP)	0.877	0.93	0.96	0.372	0.286	0.293	0.427	0.209	1.00
Financial Performance (FP)	0.838	0.91	0.94	0.259	0.298	0.288	0.423	0.244	0.723	1.00
Panel C: Study 2 - Reliability, validity and correlations
Product Quality (PQ)	0.639	0.91	0.93	1.00
Calculative Commitment (CC)	0.807	0.88	0.93	0.599	1.00
Reputational Power (P)	0.654	0.74	0.85	0.186	0.174	1.00
Switching Cost Dependence (SCD)	0.764	0.90	0.93	0.125	0.317	0.195	1.00
Loyalty (LY)	0.840	0.91	0.94	0.487	0.574	0.113	0.268	1.00
Strategic Performance (SP)	0.877	0.93	0.96	0.287	0.427	0.293	0.361	0.209	1.00
Financial Performance (FP)	0.840	0.91	0.93	0.273	0.381	0.288	0.370	0.244	0.723	1.00

	AVE	α	CR	RSA	AC	RP	RVD	LY	SP	FP
Panel B: Study 1 - Reliability, validity and correlations
Relationship Specific Adaptation (RSA)	0.679	0.88	0.91	1.00
Affective Commitment	0.682	0.88	0.91	0.425	1.00
Reputational Power (P)	0.838	0.72	0.82	0.234	0.293	1.00
Relationship Value Dependence (RVP)	0.740	0.91	0.93	0.420	0.795	0.281	1.00
Loyalty (LY)	0.821	0.91	0.93	0.082	0.467	0.113	0.579	1.00
Strategic Performance (SP)	0.877	0.93	0.96	0.372	0.286	0.293	0.427	0.209	1.00
Financial Performance (FP)	0.838	0.91	0.94	0.259	0.298	0.288	0.423	0.244	0.723	1.00
Panel C: Study 2 - Reliability, validity and correlations
Product Quality (PQ)	0.639	0.91	0.93	1.00
Calculative Commitment (CC)	0.807	0.88	0.93	0.599	1.00
Reputational Power (P)	0.654	0.74	0.85	0.186	0.174	1.00
Switching Cost Dependence (SCD)	0.764	0.90	0.93	0.125	0.317	0.195	1.00
Loyalty (LY)	0.840	0.91	0.94	0.487	0.574	0.113	0.268	1.00
Strategic Performance (SP)	0.877	0.93	0.96	0.287	0.427	0.293	0.361	0.209	1.00
Financial Performance (FP)	0.840	0.91	0.93	0.273	0.381	0.288	0.370	0.244	0.723	1.00

Note(s):

χ² = 502.9; df = 0.275; p ≤ 0.000; AGFI = 0.859; RMSEA = 0.052; NFI = 0.919; IFI = 0.962 and CFI = 0.961

χ² = 430.3; df = 230; p ≤ 0.000; AGFI = 0.867; RMSEA = 0.053; NFI = 0.924; IFI = 0.963 and CFI = 0.963

[ViewLarge]