The moderating effect of power distance on perceived interdependence and relationship quality in commercial banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this cross‐cultural study is to examine the moderating effect of power distance on perceived interdependence and relationship quality in a bank‐corporate client relationship. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected through surveys administered to bank customers in India and Canada. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple Regression were employed to assess the relationships among model variables. Findings Results indicate that Power distance moderates the Interdependence and Relationship Quality Relationships. Research limitations/implications This research was limited to only Indian and Canadian customers and their banks. Only one dimension of culture was used as a moderator of the Interdependence and Relationship Quality relationship. The study is limited to a single dimension of service banking. Practical implications Buyer‐seller relationships are dependent on the specific cultural basis of the parties. Managers must be cognizant of the cultural values of the buyer/client in order to understand the most effective means of establishing and nurturing the buyer‐seller relationship. Originality/value Given that Values, Interdependence, Interdependence Asymmetry, Trust and Commitment are critically important to the development of effective relationships, statistical data are presented supporting the fact that an element of national culture (Power Distance) moderates the degree of interdependence and the strength of the trust‐commitment linkage. To date, these relationships have not been explored in an eastern cultural context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".