The Commitment–Trust Theory of relationship marketing was articulated by Morgan and Hunt (1994) to explain why some exchange relationships are successful, stable, and long lasting. Drawing on the tradition of relational exchange, the theory posits that relationship commitment and trust are the two central mediating variables that determine the effectiveness of relationship marketing. Commitment is defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship, while trust refers to confidence in a partner’s reliability and integrity. According to the theory, relationships characterized by high levels of trust and commitment are more likely to resist short-term alternatives, reduce uncertainty, and discourage opportunistic behavior.

Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceptualize commitment and trust as outcomes of specific antecedents. Relationship commitment is driven by relationship benefits, relationship termination costs, shared values, and trust itself. Trust, in turn, is influenced by shared values, communication, and opportunistic behavior. Shared values reflect the extent to which partners hold common beliefs about goals and appropriate behaviors, while communication refers to the formal and informal exchange of meaningful and timely information. Opportunistic behavior negatively affects trust by signaling self-interest and a lack of concern for the relationship. A core proposition of the theory is the reciprocal and reinforcing relationship between trust and commitment: trust fosters commitment, and commitment motivates behaviors that sustain trust over time.

The theory also emphasizes the role of trust and commitment as mediators between their antecedents and key outcomes, such as cooperation, functional conflict, reduced propensity to leave, and relationship continuity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). By positioning trust and commitment at the center of the nomological network, the model explains how relational norms translate into stable exchange relationships rather than discrete transactions. Subsequent empirical research has supported this framework, notably in interorganizational contexts, where trust and interdependence have been shown to significantly predict relationship commitment (Geyskens et al., 1996).

In marketing and advertising research, the Commitment–Trust Theory has been widely applied to understand buyer–seller relationships, brand relationships, and digital interactions. In business-to-business marketing, trust has been identified as a key mechanism through which firms reduce perceived risk and enhance cooperation, while commitment is strongly associated with long-term financial and relational performance (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Palmatier et al., 2007). In electronic commerce and digital advertising contexts, trust and commitment act as critical mediators between online relational cues and behavioral intentions, such as repurchase, loyalty, and positive word of mouth (Mukherjee & Nath, 2007). Overall, the Commitment–Trust Theory remains a foundational framework for analyzing relationship dynamics in marketing, provided that its constructs are applied consistently with their original conceptual definitions and empirical scope.

References

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 303–317.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Mukherjee, A., & Nath, P. (2007). Role of electronic trust in online retailing: A re-examination of the commitment–trust theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9–10), 1173–1202.

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 136–153.