Customer Loyalty

© 2004 CORNELL UNIVERSITY DOI: 10.1177/001 177/0010880404265231 0880404265231 Vol olume ume 45, Iss Issue ue 3 221 221-23 -234 4

ARTICLE 10.1177/0010880404265231

Are You Are ourr Satis Satisfi fied ed Customers Loyal? by ISELIN SKOGLAND and JUDY A. SIGUAW

The fir firmly mly held doc doctri trine ne tha thatt gue guest st sat satisf isfact action ion mea means ns repeat business is called into question by the results of this study of 364 guests of two similar big-city hotels. Analysis showed only a weak connection between satisfaction and loyalty (which is a precursor to repeat purchases). Examining such factors as purpose of travel and demographics, the study revealed another finding that may give hoteliers pause— especially considering the industry’s huge expendiexpenditures on frequent-guest programs. Business travelers were among the least loyal of the guests responding to this sur vey vey.. The chief factors that engaged guests’ loyalty were hotel design and amenities. Moreover, the factor that caused guests to be most involved in the purc purchase hase decision (and therefore therefore more interested in the hotel hotel)) was its emplo employees. yees. The implica implication tion is that hoteliers hoteliers might consider consider redir redirecting ecting some of their frequ frequent-g ent-guest uest expe expenditu nditures res tow toward ard stren strengthgthening human resources and toward improving the guests’ experience through design and amenities. Keywords: customer loyalty; customer satisfaction; customer involvement

ustomer-defection rates are high for businesses today. U.S. corporations routinely lose half their customers over a span of five years result-

C

AUGUST 2004

ing in 25 to 50 percent reduction in corporate perfor1 mance. At the same time, researchers have noted the importance of customer retention, citing evidence to indicate that over time, a returning customer becomes decrea dec reasin singlycostl glycostly y to ser serve ve bec becaus ausee of lea learni rning ng ef effec fects ts and reduced service costs, while that customer simultaneously purchases more, pays higher prices, and willingly offers word-of-mouth recommendations to 2 others. To capture the benefits of having loyal customers, many companies—particularly hospitality firms—have invested millions of dollars in customerretention programs. For instance, Marriott spent $54 million in 1996 on its Honored Guest program, while Hyatt invested $25 million in its loyalty program that 3 same year. Neverth Nevertheless, eless, customer-loyal customer-loyalty ty programs are now being heavily scrutinized to determine whethe whe therr the they y are doi doing ng wha whatt the they y wer weree int intend ended ed to do: namely,, increase customer loyalty and build profits. namely Resear Res earch ch on cus custom tomer er loy loyalt alty y has pri primar marilyfocus ilyfocused ed 4 on customer satisfaction and involvement. However, findings on the linkage between repeat-purchase behavio ha viorr and sat satisf isfact action ion ha have ve bee been n equ equiv ivoca ocal. l. A num number ber of studies have reported significant links, while others havee noted that satis hav satisfacti faction on expl explains ains litt little le in rega regards rds to 5 repeat purchases. Furthermore, the antecedent effects of in invol volvemen vementt on loya loyalty lty hav havee recei received ved relat relativ ively ely lim-

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly

221

LOYALTY

SATISFIED CUSTOMER LOYALTY

ited attention. Studies that have examined the in invol volvemen vement–lo t–loyalt yalty y relat relations ionship hip hav havee offered off ered the follo following wing,, somet sometimes imes confl conflicticting, findings: •

•

•

•

involvement has an indirect effect on loyal lo yalty ty as med mediat iated ed by the in inves vestm tment ent of 6 timeand inv investme estment nt in the relat relationsh ionship; ip; the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is moderated by high in7 volvement levels; 8 involv in volvemen ementt is a deter determinan minantt of loya loyalty; lty; and the involvement–loyalty linkage is not that strong and depends solely on the 9 level of involvement.

Consequently Consequen tly,, our kno knowled wledge ge of cust custoomer loyalty and its determinants is replete with wit h amb ambigu iguiti ities. es. In vie view w of tha thatt sit situat uation ion,, thee ma th main in ob obje ject ctiv ives es of th this is st stud udy y ar aree th thre reeefold: (1) to examine the degree to which satisf sat isfacti action on inf influe luences nces loy loyalt alty y, (2) to in inves ves-tigate how satisfaction may influence involvement, and (3) to understand how involvement may directly affect loyalty. In this article, we first provide a brief review revie w of our constructs of interest. Next, the research methodology used for this study is presented, followed by a discussion of our findings. Finally, the article concludes with managerial implications.

Theoretical Foundations and Research Focus For decades, academics and professionals have preached that loyalty is a key to a successful business. Loyal customers have been found to purchase more and facilitate additional business from new customers by generating positive word of 10 mouth. Indeed, Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds state, “Loyal customers are logically at the heart of a company’s most 11 valuable customer group.” Satisfaction with a product or service offered has been identified as a key determinant for loyalty and, perhaps more im-

222


portant, a firm portant, firm’s ’s profitability profitability.. Prior research has shown that satisfied customers exhibit reduced price sensitivity and increase the customer base through positiv positivee 12 word wor d of mou mouth. th. Also Also,, resea research rch intu intuiti itively vely indicates indicat es that customer satisf satisfaction action in13 creasess the like crease likeliho lihood od of repea repeatt bus business iness.. The degree to which the customer is involved in the purchase decision should also have a strong effect on the propensity sit y to swi switch tch ser servic vicee pro provid viders ers.. Two typ types es of inv involvement olvement—purchase —purchase inv involvement olvement and ego involvement—have been found to play an antecedent role in switching 14 behavior.

Theoretical Foundations for Customer Satisfaction For the purposes of this study, satisfacdefined as “an overall overall evaluat evaluation ion of tion is defined performance based on all prior experi15 ences with a firm.” The following two well-known theoretical bases serve as the underpinning underp inningss for exami examining ning custo customer mer satisfaction in this article: the confirmationdisconfirmation paradigm and comparison16 level theory. Confirmation-disconfirmation theory. Customer sati Customer satisfact sfaction ion is defi defined ned as a postpurchase evaluative judgment concerning 17 a specific buying decision. According to the confirmation-disco confirmation-disconfirmation nfirmation paradigm, customers assess their levels of satisfaction isfac tion by compa comparing ring their actua actuall expe expeririences with their previous experiences, expectations, and perceptions of the prod18 uct’s performance. The theor theory y post postulate ulatess that three outcomes of this evaluation evaluation are possible: (1) confirmation occurs when the actual performance matches the standard da rd,, le lead adin ing g to a ne neut utra rall fe feel elin ing; g; (2 (2)) po posi si-tive disconfirmation occurs when the performance is better than the standard, which then leads to satisfaction; and (3) negativee disconfirmation occurs when the negativ

AUGUST 20 04


performance is worse than the standard, which then leads to dissatisfaction. Comparison-level theory. This theory

proposes that consumers use comparison levels for the relationship under consideration and also use comparison levels for alternativee relationships to determine satalternativ isfaction with and propensity to remain in 19 a relationship. The comparison level is “the standard against which a member evaluates the ‘attractiveness’ of the rela20 tionship.” These consumer standards reflect what the brand should achieve not 21 just what it will achieve. Previous research has found a positive relationship between prior experiences and current 22 levels of expectations. Dimensions of customer satisfaction.

Although an investigation investigation of overall overall satisfaction with services provides relevant insight insi ght reg regardin arding g loya loyalty lty,, ev even en great greater er knowledge can be obtained by distilling satisfaction into its various dimensions, especially in an industry where switching behavior and customer loyalty are para23 mount. Indeed, some dimensions of satisfaction may be more important antecedents of repeat-purchase behavior and loyalty than others are. Common dimensions of satisfaction with a service include service quality, product quality, price, and location. The ory suggests that the “people factor” (i.e., service quality), in terms of tangibility, reliability,, responsiv reliability responsiveness, eness, assurance, and 24 empathy, may be the most salient in determining overall satisfaction and re25 peated purchasing in service industries. The argument for the importance of the people factor is further supported by the services-marketing literature, which, noting the intangibility of services, advances service encounters as predominantly 26 interpersonal interactions. Conse-

AUGUST 2004

LOYALTY

quently quentl y, as wit with h oth other er soc social ial rel relati ations onship hips, s, the bond between the hotel representative and the guest will be more heavily weighed if the guest makes a satisfaction judgment than if the guest makes no such judgm ju dgment ent.. Thu Thus, s, in thi thiss stu study dy,, we exa examin minee not only the effects of overall satisfaction but also the effects on involvement and loyalty of both satisfaction with the people factor and satisfaction with hotel ambience.

Theoretical Foundations for Involvement Involv Invo lvemen ement, t, as rel relate ated d to thi thiss res resear earch, ch, comprises both purchase and ego involveinvolvement. Purchase involvement is defined as “the level of concern for or interest in the purchase process that is triggered by the 27 need to consider a particular purchase.” Thus, purchase involvement consists of the tim time, e, ef effor fort, t, and cos costs ts in inves vested ted in mak mak-ing a purchase, including any internal and external research that may precede the 28 transaction. Specifically, in this study, we look at purchase involvement as it relates to price comparison and risk reduction. Service failures are exceedingly 29 memorable and readily recalled because they are “highly salient . . . distinctive, 30 atypical, and emotionally charged.” charged.” As a result, these negative experiences modify future expectations and both broaden and deepen the criteria used in the search for 31 better alternatives as a mechanism for reducing the risk of making a poor pur32 chase cha se dec decisi ision on in thefutur thefuture. e. In tur turn, n, the these se addition addi tional al cogni cognition tionss heigh heighten ten the lev level el of 33 purchase involvement. Consequently, low levels of satisfaction may result in high levels of purchase involvement (so that one may ensure that a purchasing error does not reoccur), and high levels of purchase involvement may result in low levels of loyalty, as the consumer focuses on better alternatives. This conjecture is


223

LOYALTY


consistent with prior studies, which noted that high involvement resulted in brand commitment when the consumer was sat34 isfied with product performance.

Customer satisfaction—usually considered the brass ring of hospitality management—does not guarantee that customers will return. Ego involvement occurs when relatively enduring importance is placed on a product or product class as it relates to the consu consumer’ mer’ss self-i self-image, mage, valu values, es, and 35 status. In this study, ego involvement is examined in terms of self-image and the need for recognition. Satisfactory experiences may heighten the customer’s ego involvement, but on the other hand, levels of ego involvement for the product or produc pro ductt cla class ss sho should uld dec declin linee whe when n the cus cus-tomer experiences an unsatisfactory ser36 vice relationship. That is, the customer will mentally reduce the degree to which the unsat unsatisfa isfactory ctoryservi service ce influ influences ences his or 37 her self-image, values, or status. Followingthis lin linee of tho though ught, t, sat satisf isfact action ion sho should uld increase ego involvement. Furthermore, since ego involvement incorporates the need for recognition, when ego involvement is high, loyalty should also be high because becau se repea repeatt visi visits ts wou would ld typically typically have have to oc occu curr fo forr th thee gu gues estt to be re reco cogn gniz ized ed an and d treated in a special fashion.

Theoretical Foundations for Customer Loyalty Loyalty has been defined as “a deeply

held commitment to re-buy or repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand-set purchasing, despite desp ite situ situation ational al influ influences’and ences’and mark marketeting efforts’ having the potential to cause

224


38

switching behaviour.” Customer loyalty consists of both an attitudinal commitment to the relationship, such as price insensitivity, and other, more-overt loyalty behavior,, such as positive word of mouth behavior 39 and repeat patronage. Comparison-level theory and the patronage literature provide the theoretical underpinnings for the loyalty construct. As discussed previously, the standard by which someone determines his or her satisfaction with a service and, hence, whether that person should switch or remain in that relationship is founded on comparison-level theory. The manner in which a service experience is assessed is based largely on the next-best alternative relationship. As soon as the current level of outcomes drops below the perceived comparison level for alternatives, the customer is motivated to leave the rela40 tionship. Thus, guests who are satisfied with a service when compared with availablee alt abl altern ernati ative vess sho should uld rep report ort gre greate aterr loy loy-alty alt y to tha thatt ser servic vicee tha than n dis dissat satisf isfied ied gue guests sts.. The reverse reverse is also true when guests are dissatisfied.

Research Method For this examination of satisfaction, involvement, and loyalty, we contacted two hotels located in a major midwestern city in the United States. Both hotels are three-star properties located in the city’s core business district and are similar in terms of their target markets and business mix. Both hotels are affili affiliated ated with major but different hotel chains. However, one hotel is not openly flagged with the chain name and is likely perceived by the average consumer as being an independent hotel. Both properties are housed in relatively old buildings that have been converted into hotels, and one of the hotels is listed lis ted as a his histor toric ic hot hotel. el. The his histor toric ic hot hotel el (hot (h otel el A) is po posi siti tion oned ed as a bo bout utiq ique ue ho hote tel, l,

AUGUST 20 04


while the other hotel (hotel B) is a standard, franchised property. The historic hotel has a restaurant and bar within the hotel; the other property does not have its own restaurant but is adjoined by a national coffeehouse and a well-known, full-service restaurant. Room rates range from $149 to $259 for the historic hotel and $109 to $275 for the other property. The two hotels are also managed by the same company, making them relatively comparable in terms of management. Our data also indicated that guests perceived the tw two o hot hotels els to be com compet petiti itive ve,, andone is the likely target for the other in terms of switching hotels. A tw two-p o-page age sur surve vey y wasdesig wasdesigned ned to col col-lect information concerning (1) the use of the hotel (e.g., frequency of stays, length of relationship, factors considered in making a reservation reservation,, type of traveler traveler,, and competitors used and why), (2) overall satisfaction with the hotel, (3) satisfaction with the individual service and tangible characteristics of the hotel, (4) purchase and ego involvement associated with the decision to stay at the hotel, (5) level of loyalty toward the hotel, and (6) demographic factors. Copies of the questionnaire were mailed to 1,000 former guests of hotel A and 700 former guests of hotel B. Participants in the study were guests who had stayed at one of the properties some time during the previous twelve months; these guests’ names were randomly selected from the hotels’ databases by the hotels’ managers. The selfadministered surveys were accompanied by cover letters on university letterhead explaining the study, disclosing liability, and offering an incentive to encourage response. The incentive consisted of a prize offered by each hotel with the winners to be determined by a drawing. Usable responses were received from 364 guests. Fourteen other surveys were

AUGUST 2004

LOYALTY

returned incomplete, and 134 questionnaires were returned to the authors because of unknown addresses or names, resulting in an effective response rate of 24.1 percent. To assess nonresponse bias, an an anal alys ysis is of ea earl rly y an and d la late te re resp spon onse sess wa wass 41 undertaken. This analysis revealed no significant difference between early and late respondents on any of the constructs of interest in this study.

Measures of Constructs Thirteen items were used to measure respondents’ satisfaction with with the various aspects of the services and facilities of the hote ho tell at wh whic ich h th they ey st stay ayed ed.. Th Thee it item emss us used ed in thi thiss sca scale le wer weree pri primar marily ily ex extra tracte cted d fro from m those developed by Rust and Zahorik and 42 by Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds. In addition, we sought a global measure of satisfaction by asking the respondents to ratee the fol rat follo lowin wing g que questi stion: on: “Ov “Overa erall, ll, ho how w satisfied are you with the hotel?” Responses were based on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from very dissatisfi dissatisfied ed to very satisfied . See the sidebar on pages 226-227 for the complete listing of all scale items. To measure involvement, we added questions on ambience, conven convenience, ience, and timeliness and adapted the items previously used by Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds (as denoted in the sidebar). The involvement items were intended to capcap ture the effort, self-image, desire for familiari fami liarity ty,, and perceived perceived risk dimen dimension sionss noted in the literature. To capture the multidimensionality of brand loyalty loyalty,, the questionnaire contained multiple items, including price insensiti insensitivvity (attitudinal loyalty), repeat-patronage intentions, and the propensity to spread positive word of mouth. Adapting these items to the lodging business, we used seven related items to understand the customer-loyalty construct; these items


225

LOYALTY


Scale Items Overall Satisfacti Satisfaction on X1. Overall, how satisfied are you with the hotel?

Satisfaction This section pertains to how satisfied/dis satisfied/dissatisfied satisfied you are with the various aspects of the hotel . X2. X3. X4. X5. X6. X7. X8. X9. X10. X11. X11 X12. X13. X14.. X14

The frie friendl ndline iness ss of of the hote hotell employ employees ees How wel welll the the staf staff/m f/mana anager gers s know know me me How wel welll the the hotel hotel lis listen tens s to my need needs s a The conve convenien nience ce and and service service of the the reservati reservation on system system The timeli timeliness ness of the the hotel hotel staff staff in deali dealing ng with with me as a a guest in busy times The Th e ro roo om ra rate te The price price of of other servi services ces (e.g., (e.g., room servic service, e, dry cleani cleaning) ng) The locatio location n of the the hotel hotel to other other busines businesses ses or or attractions attractions How easily accessible the hotel is from airports and major highways a The ambience ambience in the hotel (interior design/decor) design/decor) The amenities amenities offere offered d in the guest guest room The amenities amenities offered in other parts of the hotel The quality quality of service service offered offered by the the hotel

Repeat Purchase X15. When staying in [name of of city], do you routinely routinely stay at the [name of hotel]?

Loyalty Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements presented below . b

X16. I consider consider myself myself to be a loyal loyal guest guest of the hotel. hotel. X17. If the hotel were to raise the price price of my stay, stay, I would still continue to be a guest of the hotel. X18. If a competing competing hotel were to offer a better rate or discount discount on their services I would switc switch. h. (R) b X19. In the near future, I intend intend to use use this hotel hotel more often. often. X20. As long as I travel to this area, I do not foresee myself switching switc hing to a different hotel. X21.. I would highly X21 highly recommen recommend d the hotel to my friends and and family. X22. I am likely to make negative comments about the hotel to my friends and family. (R) (continued)

226


had been previously compiled by 43 Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds. Both the involvement and the loyalty items were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In addition, one item, asking whether participants routinely stay at the same hotel, was included included as a measure of actual repeat-purchase behavior. behavior.

Data Analysis An an anal alys ysis is of th thee da data ta re reve veal aled ed th that at th thee majority of respondents were male (58.2 percent), married (66.9 percent), and well educated (52.8 percent had completed an undergraduate degree). Business travelers constituted 34.1 percent of the respondents, leisure travelers totaled 46 percent, and travelers identifying the purpose of their trips as both business and leisure made up 19.9 percent. For the most part, the respondents had high incomes, with 57.9 percent reporting earnings in excess of $100,000 per year. The ages of study participants ranged from twenty-one to eighty-six, with 25.5 percent indicating they were fifty-five or older. Occupations were diverse, with the most populated job titles consisting of executive (14.3 percent) and marketing (11.4 percent). A regression using contrast effects tested the relationships between satisfaction, in invol volvemen vement, t, and loya loyalty lty.. Gi Given ven prior resear res earch ch tha thatt dem demogr ograph aphic ic fac factor tors, s, suc such h as education and age, influence customer loyalty and satisfaction, we included five demographic variables—namely variables—namely,, gender, age, educa education tion,, purpo purpose se of trav travel el (bu (busines sinesss or leisure), and income—as covariates in 44 the regression analysis.

The Contrary Customer In examining our results, it is well to rememb rem ember er tha thatt hot hotel el com compan panies ies are in inves vestt ing millions of dollars each year on their loyalty programs—despite questions

AUGUST 20 04


about the ef about effec fecti tiven veness ess of the these se cos costly tly pro pro-grams. These programs have been design des igned ed wit with h the goa goall of ful fulfi filli lling ng gue guests sts’’ needs and desires on the premise that customer satisfaction will ensure guest loyalty. Thus, in this study, satisfied guests were posited to be loyal to the hotel because the guests’ comparison levels should have been positively disposed 45 toward the hotel. Surprisingly, however, neither overall satisfaction nor satisfaction with the people factor was a determinant of repeat repeat-purc -purchase hase beha behavior vior,, atti attituditudinal loyalty, or word-of-mouth loyalty. As a simple means of illustration, Exhibit 1 provides a cross-tabulation presenting the relationship between overall satisfaction and repeat-purchase behavior. As shown, fewer than half of even the most satisfied guests routinely chose to stay again at the hotel they had just patronized. Thus, although marketers have long advanced the presence of guest satisfaction as instrumental in ensuring repeat business, guest satisfaction does not appear to have the substantive and sweeping effect on guest loyalty that has previously been assumed. Nor did this study support the people factor (i.e., service quality), in terms of tangi tangibilit bility y, reliab reliability ility,, respo responnsiveness, assurance, and empathy, as being the most salient in determining repeat 46 purchases. (See Exhibit 2 for the results of the regression analysis.) Several theories may explain the weak linkage between overall satisfaction and loyalty, as well as among satisfaction, the people peo ple fac factor tor,, and loy loyalt alty y. Fir First, st, swi switch tching ing costs, cos ts, suc such h as tim time, e, mon money ey,, and ef effor fort, t, pla play y 47 a role in customer loyalty. Higher perceived switching costs have been found to result in greater customer loyalty and 48 repeat-purchase intentions. However, hotel guests incur few switching costs. That is, lodging customers do not generally encou encounter nter proce procedural dural,, fin financia ancial, l, or

AUGUST 2004

LOYALTY

Involvement Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements presented below . X23. The relationship relationship that I share with the [hotel name] name] is b something that is very important to me. X24. The relationship relationship that I share with the [hotel name] name] is b something that deserves my maximum effort to maintain. b X25. I am very cautious cautious in trying new/different new/different products. products. X26. I would rather stick stick with a brand that that I know than try b something that I am not very sure of. X27. I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar unfamiliar brands just to get b some variety in my purchases. (R) X28. I constantly compare the prices and rates offered by various hotels in the area. X29. The brand brand image of the the hotel played played a major major role in my decision to become a guest at the hotel. X30. I called various other hotels in the area before I decided to stay at this hotel. X31.. I compared the prices and rates of X31 of several hotels hotels in this area before I selected this hotel. a X32. The frequent-guest frequent-guest program influences my choice choice in hotels. b X33. Choosing a hotel is an important decision for me. X34. All hotels are alike in the type and quality of services they b offer. (R) X35. The hotel hotel I stay at at says a lot lot about who who I am. X36. It is important important for me to choose choose a hotel that “feels” “feels” right. X37. After deciding deciding on the the [hotel name], name], I have compared this this hotel with other hotels in the area. X38. After deciding deciding on the the [hotel name], name], I have weighed the pros and cons of my choice. b X39. A bad choice choice in selecting selecting a hotel could bring you grief. (R) = item reverse scored. a. Item added to scale. b.Item origin originallyappearedon allyappearedon Ganesh Ganesh,, Arnol Arnold,and d,and Reyno Reynolds lds quest questionna ionnairebut irebut wasnot used in their study. Note:

relational switching costs that serve as incentives to remain loyal to a particular hotel. Second, several studies have indicated that even when enhanced levels of customer cust omer satis satisfacti faction on exi exist, st, some consu consummers may still have a strong predisposition 49 to switch service suppliers or brands. In this study, for example, 38 percent of respondents who reported high levels of satisfaction noted that they routinely switched to competing properties. Third,


227

LOYALTY


Exhibit 1: Relationship between Overall Satisfaction and Repeat-purchase Behavior ROUTSTAY Overall Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied Total

No

Yes

3 12 16 128 65 224

2 1 5 78 52 138

Total 5 13 21 2 06 117 362

Exhibit 2: Regression Results Source Variable Overall satisfaction

Satisfaction with people

Satisfaction with ambience

Risk-reduction involvement

Price-comparison involvement

Dependent Variable Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price-comparison involvement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition involvement Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Pri ric ce-c -co omparis iso on involvement Self-image involvement Need Ne ed-f -for or-r -rec ecog ogni niti tion on in invo volv lvem emen entt Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price-comparison involvement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition involvement Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth Word-of -mouth loyalty Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth Word-of -mouth loyalty

M e an Square

F value Significance

0.193 0.143 0 .7 0 8 0.151 0.202 0 .2 2 9 0.718 0.132 0 .2 8 2 0 .3 0 3 1.170 1.38 384 4 0.939 1.1 .11 15 0.322 0.591 0.986 0 .6 4 8 0.744 0 .6 4 9 0.704 0.166 1.154 0.607 0 .2 2 1 1.781 0.658

0.743 0 .3 0 9 2.121 0.149 0.316 0 .4 6 1 1.180 0.508 0 .6 0 8 0 .9 0 3 1.152 2.1 .16 63 1.889 1.8 .832 32 1.239 1.274 2.956 0 .6 3 8 1.162 1.305 1.157 0.708 2.051 0.927 0 .9 0 2 3.620 1.009

0.528 0.819 0.099 0.930 0.814 0.710 0.319 0.896 0.820 0.534 0.324 0.018 0.044 0. 0.05 0. 052 2 0.265 0.243 0.0 01 0.794 0.317 0.225 0.321 0.884 0.041 0.494 0.585 0.0 00 0.452 (continued)

228


AUGUST 20 04


LOYALTY

Exhibit 2 (Continued)

Source Variable Self-image involvement

Need-for-recognition involvement Purpose of travel

Gender

Age

Income

Education

Dependent Variable Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth Word-ofmouth loyalty Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price involvement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition in i nvolvement Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth Word-ofmouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price involvement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition involvement Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth Word-ofmouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price-comparison involvement Self-image involvement NeedNee d-fo forr-re -reco cogn gniti ition on in invo volv lvem emen entt Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Pri ric ce-compari riso son n in inv vol olv vement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition involvement Repeat purchase Attitudinal loyalty Word-of-mouth loyalty Risk-reduction involvement Price-comparison involvement Self-image involvement Need-for-recognition in i nvolvement

Mean Square 0.333 1.110 0.408 0.754 3.074 1.617 0.188 1.751 0.564 0.462 6.119 0.992 0.541 0.0 09 0.238 0.380 5.755 0.150 0.0 06 0.750 0.262 4.643 0.621 0.0 06 0.756 2.485 10.00 0.005 5 0.0 01 0.087 0.565 1.507 3.4 3. 476 0.018 0.806 0.0 08 0.934 2.120 0.0 02 0.032 2.236 0.051

F value Significance 1.463 2.005 0.624 3.466 6.220 2.593 0 .7 2 2 3.778 1.690 0.456 9.563 1.997 0.889 0.036 0.513 1.139 5.669 0.234 0.011 1.232 1.0 08 10.016 1.863 0.0 06 1.180 5.001 16.4 6.440 40 0.0 03 0.l87 1.692 1.484 5.433 0.036 1.324 0.030 2.015 6.356 0.0 02 0.050 4.500 0.084

0.138 0.024 0.822 0.001 0.000 0.010 0. 0 .3 9 6 0.054 0.195 0. 0.501 0.002 0.159 0 .3 4 7 0 .8 5 0 0 .4 7 5 0.287 0.018 0 .6 2 9 0.916 0 .2 6 9 0.317 0.002 0.174 0 .9 3 7 0 .2 7 9 0.027 0. 0.000 0 .9 5 6 0 .6 6 6 0.195 0 .2 2 5 0.0 .02 21 0 .8 5 0 0 .2 5 2 0 .8 6 3 0.158 0.013 0. 0 .9 6 4 0 .8 2 3 0.035 0. 0 .7 7 2

Note: Significant relationships are shown in boldface .

AUGUST 2004


229

LOYALTY


the lit litera eratur turee ind indica icates tes tha thatt cus custom tomers ers who switch because of extrinsic motivators (e.g., coupons or discounts) are more likely to demonstrate lower levels of loyalty and repeat-purchase intentions than customers who are intrinsically motivated motivated (e.g., dissatisfied, wanting to try a new 50 brand). Satisfaction with hotel ambience did positively affect word-of-mouth loyalty. This finding supports a prior study that underscored the importance of hotel design and amenities as drivers of guest 51 satisfaction. Overalll satisf satisfaction action and Uninvolved . Overal satisfaction with hotel ambience were unrelated to any dimensions of involvement. This finding is contradictory to the litera lit eratur ture, e, fro from m whi which ch we inf inferr erred ed tha thatt lo low w levels of satisfaction will result in high 52 levels of purchase involvement. We believe that this unexpected result may be explained by the low-risk and minimal switching costs attached to the hotel stay, factors that would facilitate low involvement. In Invol volvemen vementt is typi typically cally heigh heightened tened by emotional and financial risk, neither of which is strongly present in such a transient purchase as a hotel room. Satisfaction with the people factor was positively related to price-comparison invol in volvemen vement, t, selfself-image image in invol volvemen vement, t, and need for recognition involvement. This finding emphasizes the value of human resources in the lodging industry and substantiates prior studies that have argued for the importance of the people factor in 53 services. Furthermore, this result underscores sco res the rol rolee tha thatt hum human an res resour ources ces pla plays ys in increasing the guest’s guest’s ego involvement; involvement; that is, the hotel representative’s words and act action ionss can pla play y a rol rolee in enh enhan anci cingth ngthee guest’’s selfguest self-image image and statu statuss in involv volvement. ement. Unexpectedly, however, employees’ positive actions also appear to encourage price com-

230


parisons, pariso ns, ind indica icatin ting g th that at pr pric icee is st stil illl a pr prim imar ary y dete de term rminant inant of o f hotel hote l selection. sele ction. Only self-image involvement was relate la ted d to re repe peat at pu purc rcha hase se,, wh whil ilee on only ly tw two o of four involvement dimensions—need for recognition recogn ition and self-i self-image—i mage—influen nfluenced ced word-of-mouth loyalty. These results could be said to provide support for the research from which we inferred that higher levels of purchase involvement 54 will result in lower levels of loyalty. However, all four of the involvement dimensions—price comparison, selfimage, need for recognition, and risk reduction— reduc tion—were were positively positively relat related ed to attitudinal tudin al loya loyalty lty.. These find findings ings did supp support ort our pro propos positi ition, on, whi which ch sug sugges gests ts tha thatt whe when n ego involvement is high, loyalty will also be high. At the same time, this result contradicts the posited inverse relationship between purchase involvement and loyalty. That is, this study indicates that ego and purchase involvement may diminish guests’ propensities to switch service service providers, especially when the current level of outcomes exceeds the perceived comparison level for alternatives. Guests who are involved in the purchase decision may more readily identify the benefits their current service providers have to offer over the alternatives and, consequently, may de devel velop op a mor moree pos positi itive ve con confi firma rmatio tion n regarding the hotel. As previously suggested, some demographic factors affected involvement and loyalty. Purpose of travel influenced price-comparison involvement and marginally influenced attitudinal loyalty, while gender affected risk-reduction involvement. Age influenced self-image, need-for-recognition involvement, and attitudinal loyalty. Income positively affected price-comparison involv involvement. ement. Education positively influenced selfimage involvement and word-of-mouth loyalty.

AUGUST 20 04


Managerial Implications The chief implication of this study is thatt hot tha hoteli eliers ers sho should uld not ass assume ume tha thatt sat satisisfying their guests will ensure repeat purchases. Instead, this study shows that the connection between satisfaction and loy alty alt y is ten tenuou uous, s, at bes best. t. The Theref refore ore,, we sug sug-gest a reconsideration of loyalty program gr ams. s. If a la larg rgee co core re of gu gues ests ts is ro rout utin inel ely y going to switch to competitive properties, regardless of the best efforts put forth by the hotel, might not the funds that are being expended on loyalty programs for this th is gr grou oup p be be bett tter er ap appl plie ied d in ot othe herr wa ways ys?? For example, hotel design and amenities have been shown to be primary drivers of loyalty.. Hoteliers might better serve their loyalty own financial interests by diverting many of the millions currently spent on loyalty programs to developing more innovative and comfortable hotel rooms and public spaces that in turn, will create more memorable guest experiences. Human resources focus. Lodging man-

agers should continue to focus on their employees. employ ees. Well-tr ell-trained ained staf stafff members who ex exude ude the app approp ropria riate te att attitu itude de to towar ward d service are invaluable in keeping guests involved in the purchase decision so that they are actively pursuing information that will sho showcase wcasethe the hote hotel’ l’ss benef benefits its ov over er those of alternative properties. Viewed sequentially, members of the hotel staff heighten guest involvement, which then produces produ ces great greater er atti attitudi tudinal nal loya loyalty lty,, including less price sensitivity sensitivity and an intenintention to be loyal. Finally, although little work has been conducted on the effects of demographics on inv involv olvement ement and satis satisfacti faction, on, the init initial ial findi fi ndings ngs of the stu study dy sug sugges gestt tha thatt hot hoteli eliers ers should not overlook demographic factors. Instead, managers should analyze their own guests to gain an understanding of how these guests differ by gender, age,

AUGUST 2004

LOYALTY

education, income, and type of travel on the dimensions of involvement and loyalty. For example, in this study, additional post hoc analyses revealed that men were more interested than were women in reducing risk by purchasing a known hotel. This finding may mean that men should be targeted with loyalty programs more strongly than women. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that business travelers are the best guests to attract is challenged by this study’s finding that business travelers travelers were the least satisfied, least loyal, and least inv involved olved of the guest segments seg ments.. Thus Thus,, it might behoo behoove ve thos thosee in the lodging industry to reconsider their extensive efforts to attract those guests who, on average, are going to be extremely difficult to please and the least likely to return.

Endnotes

1. Jaisha Jaishanka nkarr Ganesh Ganesh,, Mar Mark k J. Arn Arnold old,, and Kri Kristy sty E. Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers: An Examination of the Differences Between Switchers and Stayers,” Jo vol.64 l.64 (J (Jul uly y 20 2000 00), ), Journa urnall of Mark Marketin eting g , vo pp. 65–87; and Frederick Reichheld and Loyalty lty Eff Effect ect (Bosto Thomas Te Teal, al, The Loya (Boston: n: Harvard Business School Press, 1996). 2. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base”; Susan Keaveney, “Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study” Journal of Marketing , vol. 59 (April 1995), pp. 71–82; Louise O’Brien and Charles Jones, “Do Rewards Really Create Loyalty?” Harvard Busivol. l. 73 (M (May ay–J –June1995 une1995), ), pp pp.. 75– ness Revi Review ew, vo 83; and Frederick Reichheld and David W. Kenny,, “The Hidden Advantages of Customer Kenny Retention,” Journa Journall of Retail Banking , vol. 4, no. 1 (Winter 1990), pp. 19–23. 3. Stephanie Seacord, “Who’s “Who’s Been Sleeping in Our Beds?” American Demographics , vol. 58 (March–April 1996), pp. 58–65. 4. As As put fort forth h in:Ganes in:Ganesh, h, Arn Arnold old,, and Rey Reynol nolds, ds, “Understanding the Customer Base. Base.””


231

LOYALTY


5. Se See, e, for exa exampl mple: e: Rut Ruth h N. Bol Bolton ton,, “A Dyna Dynamic mic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction,” Marketing Science , vol. 17, no. 1 (1998), pp. 45–65; Joseph J. Cronin Jr. and Steven A. Taylor, “Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension,” Journal of Marketing , vol. 56 (July 1992), pp. 55–68; Priscilla A. LaBarbera and David Mazursky, “A Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer Satisfaction/ Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process,” Journall of Marketin Journa Marketing g Researc Research h , vol. 20 (November vem ber 1983), pp. 393–404; and Raja Rajan n Sambandam and Kenneth R. Lord, “Switching Behavior in Automobile Markets: A Consideration Sets Model,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , vol. 23 (Winter 1995), pp. 57–65. 6. Kristof De Wulf, Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, Odekerken-Schröder, and Dawn Iacobucci, “Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-country and Cross-industry Exploration, Exploration,”” Journa Journall of Marketing, vol. 65 (October 2001), pp. 33–50. 7. Josee Bloemer and Ko de Ruyter, Ruyter, “Customer Loyalty in High and Low Involvement Involvement Service Settings: The Moderating Impact of Positive Emotions,” Journal of Marketing Management , vol. 15 (May 1999), pp. 315–30. 8. Sharon E. Beatty, Beatty, Pamela Homer, Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle, “The Involv Involvement-Commit ement-Commitment ment Model: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 16 (March 1988), pp. 149–67; and Palto Ranjan Datta, “The Determinant term inantss of BrandLoyalty BrandLoyalty,,” Jo Journa urnall of Amer Amer-ican Academy of Business , vol. 3 (September 2003), pp. 138–44. 9. PattiWarri PattiWarrington ngton and Soyeo Soyeon n Shim,“AnEmpirical Investigation Investigation of the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment,” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 17 (September 2000), pp. 761–82. 10. O’B O’Brie rien n andJones andJones,, “DoRewa “DoRewardsReall rdsReally y Cre Create ate Loyalty?”; Richard L. Oliver, Satisfacti Satisfaction: on: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer , (Boston: Richard D. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1997); and Reichheld and Teal, The Loyalty Effect . 11. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” 12. Eugene W. W. Anderson, Claes Fornell, Fornell, and Donald Lehman, “Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Swe-

232


den,” Journal of Marketing , vol. 58 (July 1994), pp. 53–66; and Claes Fornell, “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 56 (January 1992), pp. 6–21. 13. Bolton, “A Dynamic Dynamic Model”; LaBarbera and Mazursky,, “A Longitudinal Assessment”; and Mazursky Steven A. Taylor and Thomas L. Baker, “An Assessment of the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers’ Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing , vol. 70, no. 2 (1994), pp. 163–78. 14. Terrence Oliva, Richard L. Oliver, and Ian MacMillan, “A Catastrophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Satisfaction Strategies,” Strategies,” Journal of Marketin Marketing g, vol. 56 (July 1992), pp. 83–95; andJoseM. M.Bloem M.Bloemer er andHansD. P. Kas Kaspar par,, “The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Econ Economic omic Psychology Psychology, vol. 16 (July 1995), pp. 311–29. 15. Mic Michae haell A. Jon Jones,Davi es,David d L. Mot Mother hersba sbaugh ugh,, and Sharon E. Beatty, “Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services,” Journal of Retailing , vol. 76 (Summer 2000), p. 260. 16. Richard L. Oliver, “A “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedent Antec edentss and Conseq Consequence uencess of Sati Satisfac sfaction tion Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research , vol. 17 (November 1980), pp. 460–69; and John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley, The Social Psychology of Groups (New York: John Wiley, 1959). 17. Christ Christian ian Homb Homburg urg and Annet Annette te Gieri Giering, ng, “Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty—An Empirical Analysis, Analysis,”” Psychology and Marketing Journal , vol. 18, no. 1 (2001), pp. 43–66. 18. Oliver, “A “A Cognitive Model.” 19. Thibaut and Kelley Kelley,, The Social Psychology. 20. Ibid. 21. Ernest R. Cadotte, Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger Jenkins, “Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction,” Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Resear Research ch , vol. 24 (August 1987), pp. 305– 305–14; 14; and Rob Robert ert B. Wood oodruf ruff, f, Ern ErnestR. estR. Cadotte, and Roger L. Jenkins, “Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms,” Journal of Marketing Research,vol.20(August1983),pp.296–304. 22. Valarie A. Zeithaml, Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman, “The Nature and Determi-

AUGUST 20 04


nants of Customer Expectations of Service,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , vol. 21 (Winter 1993), pp. 1–12. 23. Ronald T. T. Rust and Anthony J. Zahorik, Zahorik, “Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention, and Market Share,” Journal of Retailing , vol. 69 (Summer 1993), pp. 193–215. 24. According to: A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “A Conceptua cep tuall Mod Model el of Ser Servic vicee Qua Qualit lity y andIts Imp Implilications for Future Research, Research,”” Journal of Marketing , vol. 49 (Fall 1985), pp. 41–50; A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: “SERVQUAL: A MultipleItem Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing , vol. 64 (Spring 1988), pp. 12–37; and A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research,” Jo vol.. 58 (Ja (Janua nuary ry Journa urnall of Mark Marketin eting g , vol 1994), pp. 111–24. 25. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base”; Atila Yüksel and Fisun Yüksel, “Measurement of Tourist Satisfaction With Restaurant Services: A SegmentBased Approach,” Journalof Vacation acationMarketMarketing, vol. 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 52-68. 26. Leona Leonard rd L. Berry Berry,, “Rela “Relations tionship hip Mark Marketing eting,,” in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing , ed. Leonard L. Berry, Lynn Shostack, and Gregory Upah (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1983); John A. Czepiel, “Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research, Research,”” Journal of Business Research, vol. 20, no. 1 (1990), pp. 13–21. 27. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” 28. According to: Banwari Banwari Mittal and Myung-soo Lee, “A Causal Model of Consumer Involvement,” Journa Journall of Economic Psycholo Psychology gy, vol. 10 (November 1989), pp. 363–89; and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky, Zaichkowsky, “Measuring the Involvement Construct, Con struct,”” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 12 (December 1985), pp. 341–52. 29. Valerie S. Folkes, “The Availability Heuristic and Perc Percei eived ved Risk, Risk,”” Jour Journal nal of Consumer Research , vol. 15 (June 1988), pp.1 3–23. 30. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” 31. Richard L. Oliver and Russell S. Winer, “A Framework for the Formation and Structure of

AUGUST 2004

LOYALTY

Consumer Expectations: Review and Propositions,” Journal of Economic Psychology , vol vol.. 8 (December 1987), pp. 469–99. 32. Mittal and Lee, “A “A Causal Model.” Model.” 33. Pet Peter er H. Blo Bloch ch and Mar MarshaL. shaL. Ric Richin hins, s, “A The The-oretic ore tical al Mode Modell for the Stu Study dy of Pro Produc ductt Imp Impor or-tance Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing , vol. 47 (Summer 1983), pp. 69–81. 34. Bloemer and de Ruyter, “Customer Loyalty”; Loyalty”; and Warrington and Shim, “An Empirical Investigation.” 35. Bloemer and de Ruyter, “Customer Loyalty”; Loyalty”; Warrington and Shim, “An Empirical Investigation”; and Marsha L. Richins and Peter H. Bloch, “After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research , vol. 13 (September 1986), pp. 280–85. 36. Musafer Musafer She Sherif rif and H. Can Cantri tril, l, The Psycholo Psychology gy of Ego-In Ego-Involvement volvement (New York: John Wiley, 1947). 37. Bloch and Richins, “A “A Theoretical Model.” Model.” 38. Arjun Chaudhuri and Morris B. Holbrook, “The Chain of Effe Effects cts from Brand Trus Trustt and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing , vol. 15 (April 2001), pp. 81–94. 39. Richa Richard rd L. Oliver, Oliver, “When “Whence ce Consumer Loyalty?” Journa Journall of Marketin Marketing g , vol. 63 (Special Issue 1999), pp. 33–44. 40. Thibaut and Kelley Kelley,, The Social Psychology. 41. J. Sco Scott tt Arm Armstr strongand ongand Terr erry y S. Ove Overto rton, n, “Es “Estitimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 14, no. 3 (1977), pp. 396–402. 42. Rust and Zahorik, “Customer Satisfaction”; Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” 43. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understand “Understand-ing the Customer Base.” 44. Hombur Homburg g and Giering Giering,, “Personal “Personal Characte Characterisristics as Moderators.” 45. Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” 46. According to: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, “A “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality”; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, “SERVQUAL”; and Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, “Reassessment of Expectations. Expectations.”” 47. Ala Alan n S. Dic Dick k and Kun Kunal al Bas Basu, u, “Cu “Custo stomer mer Loy Loy-alty: Toward Toward an Integrated In tegrated Conceptual Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , vol. 22, no. 2 (1994), pp. 99-113;


233

LOYALTY


48. 49.

50.

51.

Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds, “Understanding the Customer Base.” Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty, Beatty, “Switching Barriers.” Abod Ali Khatibi, Ismail Hishamuddin, and Venu Thyagarajan, “What Drives Customer Loyalty: An Analysis from the TelecommuniTelecommunications Industry,” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing , vol. 11, no. 1 (2002) (2002),, pp. 34–44; and Banwari Mittal and W. M. Lassar, “Why Do Customers Switch?” Journal of Service Marketing , vol. 12, no. 3 (1998), pp. 177–94. LaBarbera and Mazursky, “A Longitudinal Assessment”; David Mazursky, Priscilla LaBarbera, and Al Aiello, “When Customers Switch Brands,” Psychology and Marketing , vol. 4 (Spring 1987), pp. 17–30. Judy A. Siguaw and Cathy A. Enz, “Best Practices in Hotel Architecture,” Architecture,” Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4 (October 1999), pp. 44–49. See also: Laurett Laur ettee Dubé Dubé,, Cat Cathy hy A. Enz, Leo M. Renaghan, and Judy A. Siguaw, American LodgingExcelle Lodg ingExcellence: nce: The Ke Keyy To Best Pra Practic ctices es (New w York: Amer Amer-in theU.S. Lodg LodgingIndustr ingIndustryy (Ne ican Express and American Hotel Foundation, 1999). 52. Bloch and Richins, “A Theoretical Model”; Mittal and Lee, “A Causal Model”; and Oliver and Winer, “A Framework for the Formation.” 53. Parasuraman Parasuraman,, Zeit Zeithaml,and haml,and Berry Berry,, “A Conce Concepptual Model of Service Quality”; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, “SERVQUAL”; and Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, “Reassessment of Expectations. Expectations.”” 54. Bloch and Richins, “A Theoretical Model”; Mittal and Lee, “A Causal Model”; and Oliver and Winer, “A Framework for the Formation.”

Iselin Skoglan Skogland d is a gra gradu duateof ateof theCorn theCornellUniellUniversi ve rsity ty Sc Scho hool ol of Ho Hote tell Ad Admi mini nist stra rati tion on,, wh wher ere e Judy A. Siguaw, Siguaw, DB DBA, A, is J. Th Thom omas as Cl Clar ark k Pro ro-fessor fes sor of En Entre trepre preneu neursh rship ip an and d Pe Perso rsona nall En Enter ter-prise (jas92@corne ([email protected]). ll.edu).

234


AUGUST 20 04

Customer Loyalty

Recommend Documents