The influence of purchase situation on buying center structure and involvement: a select meta-analysis of organizational buying behavior research
Introduction
Over the past decades, researchers have studied the processes and behaviors used by organizations in their purchasing activities. Marketers, in particular, have encouraged these investigations as an aid to better understand, serve, and retain their organizational customers. As a result, scores of theoretical and empirical articles have examined the constructs associated with organizational buying behavior.
Additionally, like most business activities, the environment surrounding organizational purchasing is dynamic—evolving with the emergence of new techniques and technologies (Cannon and Perrault, 1999). For example, in recent years new processes have been introduced to aid organizations in their procurement efforts. These aids include (1) Web catalogs offering product specification, price, and availability, (2) Internet-based ordering and tracking systems, (3) electronic data interchange to facilitate inventory control, credit approval, invoicing and receivables, and (4) direct communication and relationship management tools. These new activities and aids provide opportunities for new research in organizational purchasing. However, before conducting new research a meta-analysis of the existing literature could prove useful in several ways. For example, by quantitatively summarizing the accumulated body of knowledge systematic sources of differences can be identified (Farley and Lehmann, 1986), new work in the field can be more effectively designed (Farley et al., 1998), and certain unresolved questions may be either clarified or settled (Brown and Peterson, 1993).
One of these unresolved questions is elucidated by McQuiston (1989) who points out that researchers have had mixed success examining participation and influence (involvement) in organizational purchasing. Additionally, McCabe (1987) observes that the literature continues to support apparently conflicting views of the relation between buying center structure and the nature of the purchase situation. Summarizing these issues, Ghingold and Wilson (1998) argue that generalizable conclusions regarding the dynamic nature of buying center structure and its implications remain cloudy at best.
To fill this void and to address some of the inconsistencies currently existing in the literature, we conduct a select meta-analytical integration of organizational buying behavior research. More specifically, we examine the strength, significance, and generality of relationships between the nature of the purchase situation and (a) buying center structure and (b) buying center involvement (see Fig. 1). We also examine several study design characteristics that may moderate the relationships between these antecedent and outcome variables.
The work reported here makes several specific contributions. First, we provide a systematic investigation of the extant literature examining the relationship between the nature of the purchase situation and buying center structure and involvement. Second, we identify unresolved questions within the literature stream and provide some clarification to these disputed topics. Third, we add to this body of knowledge by identifying and investigating seven study design characteristics as potential moderators of the effect sizes found across studies. Our results should help both academic and industry researchers better understand how these design characteristics can influence their studies (cf. Lynch, 1999).
The remainder of this article is organized in the following manner. First, we define the research domain. Second, we provide a summary of inconsistencies found in prior research. Third, we describe our investigative procedures. Fourth, we discuss the results of our analyses. Finally, we review the implications and limitations of our study.
Section snippets
Antecedent variables: purchase situation
Across the empirical work reviewed for this meta-analytic effort, the nature of the ‘purchase situation’ was the most frequently examined antecedent construct found (79.5%). The distant second and third frequently examined antecedents were organizational size (11.8%) and buyphase (8.7%). Because of this—and because of the relatively small respective cell sizes related to these latter two constructs—we decided to focus the effort in this study on the group of antecedent constructs characterizing
Summary of inconsistencies among studies
Grounded in decades of theoretical development and empirical research, the relationships among the type of purchase situation and buying center structure and involvement have, in many cases, developed a sort of equilibrium. However, careful review of supporting studies reveals a variety of inconsistencies (see Fig. 2). In the following paragraphs we provide examples of these inconsistencies.
As previously mentioned, many believe buying center size will be greater in purchase situations of high
Possible moderators
As is common in much of the literature, OBB researchers have utilized a diversity of study designs. In prior meta-analyses, research design artifacts have been shown to moderate findings across studies (e.g., Brown et al., 1998). In OBB research, such design variations may lead to differing assessments of buying center structure and involvement. Therefore, we examined seven study/design characteristics as potential moderators, as discussed next.
Method and findings
Studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis were identified by searching the PROQUEST, EBSCOHOST, INFOTRAC, ERIC, and PSYCINFO databases. Additionally, issue-by-issue searches (1967–2002) were conducted of JBR, JMR, JM, JAMS, JB2B, JBIM, and IMM. Also, references appearing in relevant publications were searched for additional studies that might be included in the analysis. Finally, we contacted more than 30 OBB researchers to identify unpublished working papers. Initially, 67 empirical works
Discussion and directions for future research
One benefit of meta-analysis is its ability to identify and/or clarify unresolved questions in an area of study. To that end, our study contributes in the following ways.
- (1)
As previously discussed, over the years the buyclass schema has received mixed conceptual and empirical support, resulting in a number of critics. However, contrary to these criticisms, our results provide general support for buyclass as a predictor of buying center size (r′=.47), lateral involvement (r′=.26), vertical
Limitations
Notwithstanding the contributions of the study reported here, meta-analyses share certain limitations that should be considered. First, similar to prior work, our results are constrained by the methods used in the original empirical studies. Also, as is customary in meta-analysis, we assume that the effect sizes accumulated from the original works are from a homogeneous population; and any cause of heterogeneity can be distinguished and segregated. This often is not the case. Therefore, our
References (32)
Retail scanner checkout system: how buying committees functioned
Ind. Mark. Manage.
(1989)- et al.
Determining buying center size
Ind. Mark. Manage.
(1992) - et al.
Environmental turbulence and organizational buying
Ind. Mark. Manage.
(1995) - et al.
The purchase of components: functional areas of influence
Ind. Mark. Manage.
(1984) - et al.
Industrial purchasing: an empirical exploration of the buyclass framework
J. Mark.
(1987) - et al.
How valid is the buy-grid model?
Ind. Mark. Manage.
(1983) - et al.
Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects
J. Mark. Res.
(1993) - et al.
A meta-analysis of relationships between ad evoked feelings and advertising responses
J. Mark. Res.
(1998) Taxonomy of buying decision approaches
J. Mark.
(1993)- et al.
Buyer–seller relationships in business markets
J. Market. Res.
(1999)
Determinants of pre-purchase information search effort for management consulting services
J. Bus.-Bus. Mark.
Decision-making time in organizational buying behavior: an investigation of its antecedents
J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
Meta-analysis in marketing: generalization of response models
Designing the next study for maximum impact
J. Mark. Res.
Buying center research and business marketing practice: meeting the challenge of dynamic marketing
J. Bus. Ind. Mark.
Statistical methods for meta-analysis
Cited by (69)
B2B customer journeys: Conceptualization and an integrative framework
2023, Industrial Marketing ManagementB2B brand marketing in Africa? An exploratory investigation of B2B buyers' perception of supplier brands
2023, Industrial Marketing ManagementThe buying center concept as a milestone in industrial marketing: Review and research agenda
2023, Industrial Marketing ManagementWork and non-work-related antecedents of expatriates' well-being: A meta-analysis
2022, Human Resource Management ReviewA meta-analysis of the effects of music in tourism and hospitality settings
2022, Journal of Business ResearchA meta-analytic review of mobile advertising research
2021, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :RQ6: Is irritation associated with customer attitudes towards receiving mobile advertisements? Research design artefacts can cause variation in the findings of the studies (Brown, Homer, & Inman, 1998; Lewin & Donthu, 2005). Whilst customer attitude and intention to receive mobile advertisements are influenced by personalisation (Hossain et al., 2017; Ünal et al., 2011), entertainment (Gao & Zang, 2016; Shaheen et al., 2017), credibility (Aydin & Karamehmet, 2017; Okoe & Boateng, 2015), informativeness (Nguyen et al., 2016; Tsang et al., 2004), and irritation (Trivedi, 2015; Xu, 2006), the findings are inconsistent.