Table 4. Research propositions and... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4.

Research propositions and supporting literature

Prop.	Proposition statement	Supporting literature
P1	Intermediary influence on purchase outcomes increases when type and degree dimensions align with customer decision-making needs at specific journey stages	Kelley and Thibaut (1978); Rusbult and Van Lange (2003); Hollebeek et al. (2019); Becker and Jaakkola (2020)
P2	Surrogate consumers exert greater influence on final purchase decisions than other intermediary types, due to greater control and involvement throughout the purchase journey	Solomon (1986); Forsythe et al. (1990); Hollander and Rassuli (1999); Aggarwal and Mazumdar (2008); Arora and Bawa (2022)
P3	Opinion leader effectiveness is moderated by perceived source impartiality, with undisclosed commercial relationships diminishing influence magnitude	Aggarwal (1997); Flynn et al. (1996); Casaló et al. (2020); Fakhreddin and Foroudi (2022)
P4	In complex, high-involvement purchases, customers rely more heavily on intermediaries exhibiting high control structure, strong engagement intensity and prescriptive basis of influence than on those with low control and informational basis of influence	Solomon (1986, 1987); Larrick and Feiler (2015); Biswas et al. (2006); Steffel and Williams (2018)
P5	Supplier-affiliated intermediaries’ influence is constrained by perceived conflicts of interest, and their effectiveness depends on balancing customer service with commercial objectives	Hollander and Rassuli (1999); Gadde and Snehota (2001); Bahar et al. (2021)
P6	The relative importance of specific dimensions varies systematically across product categories, customer segments and purchase complexity	Lemon and Verhoef (2016); Grewal and Roggeveen (2020); Hollebeek et al. (2023)
P7	Post-purchase intermediary engagement enhances customer satisfaction, loyalty and repurchase intentions compared with intermediary types that have minimal post-purchase presence	Solomon (1986); Arora and Bawa (2022); Bahar et al. (2021); Palmatier et al. (2006)

Prop.	Proposition statement	Supporting literature
P1	Intermediary influence on purchase outcomes increases when type and degree dimensions align with customer decision-making needs at specific journey stages	Kelley and Thibaut (1978); Rusbult and Van Lange (2003); Hollebeek et al. (2019); Becker and Jaakkola (2020)
P2	Surrogate consumers exert greater influence on final purchase decisions than other intermediary types, due to greater control and involvement throughout the purchase journey	Solomon (1986); Forsythe et al. (1990); Hollander and Rassuli (1999); Aggarwal and Mazumdar (2008); Arora and Bawa (2022)
P3	Opinion leader effectiveness is moderated by perceived source impartiality, with undisclosed commercial relationships diminishing influence magnitude	Aggarwal (1997); Flynn et al. (1996); Casaló et al. (2020); Fakhreddin and Foroudi (2022)
P4	In complex, high-involvement purchases, customers rely more heavily on intermediaries exhibiting high control structure, strong engagement intensity and prescriptive basis of influence than on those with low control and informational basis of influence	Solomon (1986, 1987); Larrick and Feiler (2015); Biswas et al. (2006); Steffel and Williams (2018)
P5	Supplier-affiliated intermediaries’ influence is constrained by perceived conflicts of interest, and their effectiveness depends on balancing customer service with commercial objectives	Hollander and Rassuli (1999); Gadde and Snehota (2001); Bahar et al. (2021)
P6	The relative importance of specific dimensions varies systematically across product categories, customer segments and purchase complexity	Lemon and Verhoef (2016); Grewal and Roggeveen (2020); Hollebeek et al. (2023)
P7	Post-purchase intermediary engagement enhances customer satisfaction, loyalty and repurchase intentions compared with intermediary types that have minimal post-purchase presence	Solomon (1986); Arora and Bawa (2022); Bahar et al. (2021); Palmatier et al. (2006)

Source(s): Table by the authors