Journa of Customer Satisfaction

CAN SERVICE QUALITY, TRUST, AND CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION ENGENDER CUSTOMERS LOYALTY?
By Mohammad Muzahid Akbar1 and Noorjahan Parvez2
ABSTRACT
This research has proposed a conceptual framework to investigate the effects
of customers’ perceived service quality, trust, and customer satisfaction on customer
loyalty. To test the conceptual framework, structural equation modeling (SEM) has
been used to analyze the data collected from 304 customers of a major private telecommunication
company operating in Bangladesh. The results of the study indicate
that trust and customer satisfaction are significantly and positively related to customer
loyalty. Customer satisfaction has found to be an important mediator between
perceived service quality and customer loyalty. A clear understanding of the postulated
relationships among the studied variables might encourage the mobile service
provider(s) to figure out appropriate course of action to win customers’ trust by
providing better services in order to create a loyal customer base.
Introduction
In the past three decades, due to liberalization
and privatization the entire telecommunications
industry has become a dynamic
service industry subject to increasing competition
with huge growth potential (Graack,
1996). In recent years, in some Asian countries
the number of mobile subscribers even
passed the number of fixed-line subscribers
(Fink, Matto, & Rathindran, 2003).
Hence, the strategic behavior of telecommunications
companies has attracted so
much attention in recent years, both in the
academic literature and in the popular press.
In Bangladesh the scenario is not much different
as its socioeconomic profile offers the
industry a tremendous opportunity to expand.
_________________________
1Mohammad Muzahid Akbar received his MBA from Lahore University of Management
Science (LUMS) and Master of Commerce (Accounting) from University of Dhaka, Dhaka. He
is currently working as a Senior Lecturer (Marketing and Management) in the School of Business
in the Independent University, Bangladesh.
2Noorjahan Parvez received her BBA and MBA (Marketing) from Independent University,
Bangladesh (IUB). She is currently working as a Research and Development Officer in the
School of Business, Independent University, Bangladesh.
24 ABAC Journal Vol. 29, No. 1 (January-April 2009, pp.24-38)
Currently the number of telecommunications
companies operating Bangladesh is
six (five private and one state-owned); but
the aggressive competition has forced the
incumbent telecommunications companies or
mobile operators to reconfigure their strategy
and business to sustain or improve their
competitive advantage.
In this emerging market customers are
not that loyal to one particular private
telecommunication company. Hence, the
major private telecommunication companies
forced to consider how to create a
loyal customer base that will not be
eroded even in the face of fierce competition.
Therefore, the these telecommunication
companies must realize the necessity
of studying and understanding
various antecedents (viz. service quality,
switching cost, trust, corporate image,
and customer satisfaction) of the customer
loyalty which might help them to
develop a loyal customer base (Sharp &
Sharp, 1997).
As reported in the relevant literature
high quality service helps to generate
customer satisfaction, customer loyalty,
and growth of market share by soliciting
new customers, and improved productivity
and financial performance (Lewis,
1993; Andereson, Fornell, & Lehmann,
1994). Hackl, Scharitzer, and Zuba
(2000) had substantiated the point by
adding that customer satisfaction is a prerequisite
of customer retention and loyalty.
Corbitt, Thanasankit, and Yi (2003)
have investigated the effect of trust on
customer loyalty in telecommunication
sector and found trust has a strong effect
on customer loyalty.
The objective of this study is to analyze
a conceptual framework empirically that
considers the interrelationships of customers’
perceived service quality, trust, and customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty in
the context of a group of customers of a
major private telecommunication company
in Bangladesh.
Review of Literature
Service Quality
Traditionally, service quality has been
conceptualized as the difference between
customer expectations regarding a service
to be received and perceptions of the
service being received (Grönroos, 2001;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988).
In some earlier studies, service quality
has been referred as the extent to which
a service meets customers’ needs or expectations
(Lewis & Mitchell, 1990;
Dotchin & Oakland, 1994). It is also conceptualized
as the consumer’s overall
impression of the relative inferiority or
superiority of the services (Zeithaml,
Berry, & Parasuraman, 1990).
Service Quality Dimensions
Parasuraman et al. (1988) identified five
dimensions of service quality (viz. reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and
tangibles) that link specific service characteristics
to consumers’ expectations.
(a) Tangibles - physical facilities, equipment
and appearance of personnel;
(b) Empathy - caring, individualized
attention;
(c) Assurance - knowledge and cour-
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
25
tesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence;
(d) Reliability - ability to perform the
promised service dependably and accurately;
and
(e) Responsiveness - willingness to
help customers and provide prompt service.
After a comprehensive review of service
quality studies, Asubonteng,
McCleary, and Swan (1996) concluded
that the number of service quality dimensions
varies in different industries. For
example, Kettinger and Lee (1994) identified
four dimensions in a study of information
systems (IS) quality, which did
not have tangible dimension. Cronin and
Taylor (1992) developed a one-factor
measurement instrument instead of the
five-factor measures proposed by
Parasuraman et al. (1988).
Besides SERVQUAL, Sureshchandar,
Rajendran, and Anantharaman
(2003) have identified five factors of service
quality from the customers’ perspective.
Those are: a) Core service or service
product, b) Human element of service
delivery, c) Systematization of service
delivery: non- human element, d)
Tangibles of service, and e) Social responsibility.
After a close inspection it
could be safely concluded that the newly
defined construct of service quality by
Sureshchandar et al. (2003) has some
resemblance with the definition provided
by Parasuraman et al. (1988). For this
study the researchers have employed the
five dimensions of service quality proposed
by Parasuraman et al. (1988).
Trust
In business trust is viewed as one of the
most relevant antecedents of stable and
collaborative relationships. Researchers had
established that trust is essential for building
and maintaining long-term relationships
(Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998;
Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000). Morgan and
Hunt (1994) stated that trust exists only
when one party has confidence in an exchange
partner’s reliability and integrity.
While defining trust Moorman, Deshpande,
and Zaltman (1993) referred to the willingness
to rely on an exchange partner in whom
one has confidence. According to Lau and
Lee (1999), if one party trusts another party
that eventually engenders positive behavioral
intentions towards the second party.
From Anderson and Narus (1990) it can
be safely deduced that if one party believes
that the actions of the other party will bring
positive outcomes to the first party, trust can
be developed. Doney and Cannon (1997)
added that the concerned party also must
have the ability to continue to meet its obligations
towards its customers within the
cost-benefits relationship; so, the customer
should not only foresee the positive outcomes
but also believe that these positive
outcomes will continue in the future. The
definition provided by Morgan and Hunt
(1994) has been used for this study.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a well known
and established concept in several areas like
marketing, consumer research, economic
psychology, welfare-economics, and economics.
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
26
The most common interpretations obtained
from various authors reflect the notion
that satisfaction is a feeling which results
from a process of evaluating what has
been received against what was expected,
including the purchase decision itself and the
needs and wants associated with the purchase
(Armstrong & Kotler, 1996). Bitner
& Zeithaml (2003) stated that satisfaction
is the customers’ evaluation of a product or
service in terms of whether that product or
service has met their needs and expectations.
According to Boselie, Hesselink, and
Wiele (2002) satisfaction is a positive, affective
state resulting from the appraisal of
all aspects of a party’s working relationship
with another. The definition provided by
Boselie et al. (2002) has been used for this
study.
Customer Loyalty
As identified by the researchers that
customer loyalty as a construct is comprised
of both customers’ attitudes and behaviors.
Customers’ attitudinal component represents
notions like: repurchase intention or
purchasing additional products or services
from the same company, willingness of recommending
the company to others, demonstration
of such commitment to the company
by exhibiting a resistance to switching
to another competitor (Cronin & Taylor,
1992; Narayandas, 1996; Prus & Brandt,
1995), and willingness to pay a price premium
(Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman,
1996). On the other hand, the behavioral
aspect of customer loyalty represents- actual
repeat purchase of products or services
that includes purchasing more and different
products or services from the same company,
recommending the company to others,
and reflecting a long-term choice probability
for the brand (Feick, Lee, & Lee,
2001). It can be concluded that customer
loyalty expresses an intended behavior related
to the product or service or to the
company. Pearson (1996) has defined customer
loyalty as the mind set of the customers
who hold favorable attitudes toward a
company, commit to repurchase the
company’s product/service, and recommend
the product/service to others. The
researchers have used the definition of
Pearson (1996) for this study.
Relationship between Service quality
and Customer Satisfaction
Over the past few years there has been
a heightened emphasis on service quality
and customer satisfaction in business and
academia alike. Sureshchandar et al, (2003)
identified that strong relationships exist between
service quality and customer satisfaction
while emphasizing that these two are
conceptually distinct constructs from the
customers’ point of view.
Spreng and Mackoy (1996) also
showed that service quality leads to customer
satisfaction while working on the
model developed by Oliver (1997). In a
recent study conducted by Ribbink et.al
(2004) revealed that this relationship also
exists in the e-commerce industry. Consistent
with these findings, the researchers
have hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: Customers’ perceived
service quality has a positive effect on
customer satisfaction.
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
27
Relationship between Service quality
and Customer Loyalty
In various studies the relationship between
service quality and customer preference
loyalty had been examined (Boulding,
Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993; Cronin
& Taylor, 1992). In their study Cronin and
Taylor (1992) focused solely on repurchase
intentions, whereas Boulding et al. (1993)
focused on the elements of repurchasing as
well as the willingness to recommend. In the
study by Cronin and Taylor service quality
did not appear to have a significant (positive)
effect on repurchase intentions (in contrast
to the significant positive impact of satisfaction
on repurchase intention), whereas
Boulding et al. (1993) found positive relationships
between service quality and repurchase
intentions and willingness to recommend.
Therefore, following hypothesis has
been proposed:
Hypothesis 2: Customers’ perceived
service quality has a positive effect on
customer loyalty.
Relationship between Trust and Customer
Loyalty
A number of researchers have advocated
that trust is fundamental in developing
customer loyalty (Moorman,
Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993; Morgan &
Hunt, 1994). The importance of trust in explaining
loyalty is also supported by authors
like Lim and Razzaque (1997), Garbarino
and Johnson (1999), Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001), Singh and Sirdeshmukh
(2000), and Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol
(2002). However, in a market with suitable
alternatives lack of trust might lead to negative
loyalty. Corbitt, Thanasankit, and Yi
(2003) have pointed out that a strong positive
effect of trust on customer loyalty in case
of telecommunications sector. Therefore,
following hypothesis has been formulated:
Hypothesis 3: Trust has a positive effect
on customer loyalty.
Relationship between Customer Satisfaction
and Customer Loyalty
Several authors have found a positive
correlation between customer satisfaction
and loyalty (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;
Bolton & Drew, 1991; Fornell, 1992).
Numerous studies in the service sector have
also empirically validated the link between
satisfaction and behavioral intentions such
as customer retention and word of mouth
(Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Bansal & Taylor,
1999; Cronin & Taylor, 2000). Hart and
Johnson (1999) have added that one of the
conditions of true customer loyalty is total
satisfaction. Hence, the researchers have hypothesized
the following:
Hypothesis 4: Customer satisfaction
has a positive effect on customer loyalty.
Conceptual Framework
Based on the literature review, a twolevel
analysis has been employed to draw
causal inferences regarding the postulated
relationship among the studied variables.
The first level investigated whether customer
satisfaction has been mediating the relationship
between customers’ perceived service
quality and customer loyalty, and the direct
relationship between trust and customer loyalty.
At the second level, the researchers
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
28
have tried to investigate both direct and
mediated (indirect) relationship between
customers’ perceived service quality, and
customer loyalty where customer satisfaction
has been identified as a mediating variable,
and also the direct relationship between
trust and customer loyalty.
Figure 1: Hypothesized model 1 with results
Figure 2: Hypothesized model 2 with results
Methodology
Sample
Data have been collected from 304 subscribes/
customers of a major private telecommunication
company of Bangladesh and
the response rate was 90%. The average
age of the respondents was 29 years. 59 %
respondents were male and 41 % were female.
Measures
Structured questionnaires comprised of
four sections have been used to collect data.
For all of these variables the previous researchers
used 5 points Likert scale. Therefore,
the researchers have also used 5 points
Likert scale to measure all of these variables.
Service quality has been measured by using
21 items developed by Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman (1996). This scale of service
quality has reported reliability ranging from
0.75- 0.93.
The trust has been measured by using 5
items adapted from Morgan and Hunt
(1994) and the reported reliability is 0.86.
Customer satisfaction has been measured
by using 3 items adopted from the American
Customer Satisfaction Index study
(NQRC, 1995) and Feick, Lee, and Lee
(2001), and the reported reliability of this
scale is above 0.77. The customer loyalty
has been measured by using 5 items developed
by Narayandas (1996), and the reported
reliability of this scale is above 0.88.
Data Analysis
To assess direct and indirect relationships
among the studied variables the researchers
have followed a two-step procedure
using confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation modeling (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). Amos 5.0 has been used
to perform these analyses.
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
29
In the Model 1 of Table I all paths from
the service quality to customer satisfaction
have been examined. The paths from customer
satisfaction to customer loyalty, and
trust to customer loyalty have also been
examined. In Model 2 all paths from perceived
service quality to customer loyalty,
paths from perceived service quality to customer
loyalty as mediated through customer
satisfaction, and trust to customer loyalty
have been examined.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Matrix
The Descriptive statistics and the Reliability
coefficients of the studied variables
are presented in Table II. The reliability coefficient
or alphas for the different constructs
were computed using the reliability procedure
in SPSS (version 12.0). The reliabilities
of all the constructs used in this study found
to be above the standard set by Nunnally
(1978), which is 0.50-0.60.
Table I: Summary of Theoretical Models
Model Theoretical Models
Model 1 Paths from customers’ perceived service quality to customer satisfaction;
customer satisfaction, and trust to customer loyalty.
Model 2 Paths from customers’ perceived service quality to customer satisfaction,
and customer loyalty; customer satisfaction, and trust to customer
loyalty.
Table II: Reliability Coefficient and Descriptive Statistics of Customers’ Perceived
Service Quality (Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, Tangibility),
Trust, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty
Scales Number of Alpha M SD
items
Reliability 5 0.73 4.30 0.46
Responsiveness 3 0.60 4.34 0.49
Assurance 4 0.67 4.32 0.49
Empathy 4 0.75 4.28 0.60
Tangibility 5 0.69 4.35 0.45
Trust 5 0.53 4.41 0.32
Customer satisfaction 3 0.53 4.35 0.43
Customer Loyalty 5 0.69 4.53 0.39
Note: n = 304
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
30
Mean scores have been computed by
equally weighting the mean scores of all the
items. On a five-point scale, the mean scores
of customers’ perceived service quality of
that private telecommunication company
range from 4.28- 4.35 indicate that customers’
perceive that quality of service being
offered by the mobile service provider is
quite high. The mean score of trust is 4.41
(sd = 0.53), which suggests that the customers
find the service provider trustworthy.
The mean score of customer satisfaction
is 4.35 (sd = 0.43) implies that the customers
of the private telecommunication
company are highly satisfied. The mean
score of customer loyalty is 4.53 (sd =
0.39). Apparently it seems that the customers
are very loyal to the service provider.
The bivariate correlation procedure has
been subject to two tailed tests of statistical
significance at two different levels- highly
significant (p<.01) and significant (p<.05).
Correlation Matrix presented in Table III
support all hypothesized positive relationships
among the studied variables with high
statistical significance. The variables significantly
(statistically) and positively correlated
with reliability were customer satisfaction (r
= 0.40, p< .01), and customer loyalty (r =
0.24, p< .01). Responsiveness is found to
be significantly and positively correlated
with customer satisfaction (r = 0.29, p<
.01), and customer loyalty (r = 0.35, p<
.01).
Table III: Correlation Matrix for Service quality (Reliability, Responsiveness,
Assurance, Empathy, and Tangibility), Trust, Customer satisfaction,
and Customer loyalty
REL RES ASSU EMP TAN TRU CUS_SAT CUS_LOY
REL - .51** .46** .51** .48** .15** .40** .24**
RES - .54** .64** .48** .23** .29** .35**
ASSU - .64** .45** .11* .21** .19**
EMP - .55** .12* .23** .22**
TAN - .13* .32** .26**
TRU - .14* .31**
CUS_SAT - .48**
CUS_LOY -
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
31
Assurance has been found to be significantly
and positively correlated with customer
satisfaction (r = 0.21, p< .01), and
customer loyalty (r = 0.19, p< .01). Empathy
is found to be significantly and positively
correlated with customer satisfaction (r =
0.23, p< .01), and customer loyalty (r =
0.22, p< .01). Tangibility is found to be significantly
and positively correlated with customer
satisfaction (r = 0.32, p< .01), and
customer loyalty (r = 0.26, p< .01). Trust
has been found to be positively and significantly
correlated with customer loyalty (r =
0.31, p< .01). Customer satisfaction, and
customer loyalty are found to be positively
and significantly correlated (r = 0.48, p<
.01).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2003), Normed Fit
Index (NFI), and Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990)
have been used in judging the model fit. The
Comparative Fit Index is a recommended
index of overall fit (Gebring & Anderson,
1993), Goodness of Fit Index measures the
fitness of a model compare to another model
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2003),
Normed Fit Index measures the proportion
by which a model is improved in terms of
fit compared to the base model (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2003), and
RMSEA provides information in terms of
discrepancy per degree of freedom for a
model (Steiger, 1990). As suggested in the
literature (Bollen, Long, & Scott, 1993;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 1998)
model fit should be assessed by employing
several indices. The accepted thresholds for
these indices are ÷2/df ratio should be less
than 3; the values of GFI, RFI, NFI, and
CFI should be greater than 0.90; and
RMSEA is recommended to be up to 0.05,
and acceptable up to 0.08 (Gefen, Straub,
& Boudreau, 2000; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2003).
Table IV: Summery of Results of Measurement Models
÷2 df ÷2/df CFI NFI GFI RMSEA
Model 1 17.03 6 2.83 0.987 0.980 0.987 0.076
Model 2 1.396 1 1.396 1.00 0.998 0.999 0.035
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit
Index; NFI= Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index
Structural Equation Analysis
Table IV shows that the results of measurement
models to test the hypothesis with
regard to model paths. The first model has
examined the causal links of customers’ perceived
service quality and customer loyalty
as mediated through customer satisfaction,
and it has also examined the relationship between
trust and customer loyalty (÷2 =
17.03, df = 6). Afterwards, this model has
been compared with another model which
has examined both the direct and mediated
(indirect) causal links between customers’
perceived service quality and customer loyalty
mediated by customer satisfaction be-
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
32
sides examining the direct relationship between
trust and customer loyalty (÷2 =
1.396, df = 1). The results show that the
second model fits the data better. The
changes or improvements in ÷2/ df (2.83 to
1.396); NFI, GFI, and CFI (0.980, 0.987,
and 0.987 to 0.998, 0.999, and 1.00 respectively);
and RMSEA (0.076 to 0.035)
reflect this insight.
Path Analysis
Considering the pattern of significance
for the parameters estimated in Model 1,
only reliability has been found to be significantly
related to customer satisfaction in the
hypothesized direction. Moreover, customer
satisfaction and trust are significantly related
to customer loyalty.
In case of model 2, no significant relationships
have been found in the identified
paths among responsiveness, assurance,
empathy, and tangibility and customer satisfaction,
and customer loyalty although
some of the relationships are found to be in
the hypothesized directions. However, reliability
and customer satisfaction are found
to be significantly related. In addition, customer
satisfaction and trust are found to be
significantly related to customer loyalty in
the hypothesized direction.
Table V: Standardized Path Coefficients for the Models
Path Model 1 Model 2
rel g cus_sat .31*** .31***
res g cus_sat .12 .12
assu g cus_sat -.02 -.02
emp g cus_sat -.09 -.09
tan g cus_sat .17 .17
rel g cus_loy -.07
res g cus_loy .21
assu g cus_loy -.01
emp g cus_loy -.01
tan g cus_loy .05
tru g cus_loy .24*** .21***
cus_sat g cus_loy .45*** .41***
Note- *** p< .001
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
33
Discussion
The present study is noteworthy for a
special reason. As to the knowledge of the
researchers no such study has been done
previously on the subscribers of any telecommunication
company in Bangladesh to
examine whether customers’ perceived service
quality, trust, and customer satisfaction
can engender customer loyalty. Specially, the
researchers have tried to investigate whether
the postulated causal relationships among
the studied variables vary in two measurement
models for the same group of subscribers.
Researchers hope that such study might
induce the mobile service providers to calk
out appropriate course of action to create a
loyal customer base by ensuring judicious
use of valuable marketing resources. Data
supported the proposed model 2, where
direct paths from customers’ perceived service
quality and trust to customer loyalty;
and indirect paths from customers’ perceived
service quality to customer loyalty as mediated
through customer satisfaction have
been examined.
In general, the results have supported
most of the hypothesized relationships.
Customer satisfaction performs an important
mediating role between service
quality and customer loyalty is supported
by this research. Hence, the management
should primarily focus on customer satisfaction
for which service quality is an
important antecedent. Because the impact
of perceived service quality on preference
loyalty is considerably strong
leading to a more favorable disposition
towards the service provider and increased
commitment to re-patronize.
Customer satisfaction alone can not
achieve the objective of creating a loyal customer
base. In both models trust has come
out to be an important antecedent of customer
loyalty. While determining the imperatives
of ‘how to win customers’ trust’ the
service provider(s) must focus on both
present and future time frame. The construct
of trust contains belief in the brand or company,
which provides the customers an assurance
of positive outcomes not only for
the present but also for the future. As illustrated
in the literature, the customers must
be led to believe that the company will not
behave opportunistically for sake of its own
interest; otherwise they will switch their allegiance.
The findings of this study have to be interpreted
considering few limitations.
First, data were collected only from the
subscribers of one private telecommunication
company; so the results might not
hold true for other telecommunication
companies. Second, data collection was
is limited to the subscribers of that private
telecommunication company who
live in Dhaka metropolitan area; so the
findings should not be generalized for all
the subscribers of the entire country.
Third, the current study was a cross-sectional
study but to determine the causal
paths of the studied variables a longitudinal
study would have been more appropriate
(Poon, 2004). In addition, the
current study not being an experimental
one it was not possible to eliminate or
withhold the influence of unidentified
and undesired extraneous variables from
the study. Hence, future researchers
might consider the recommended studies to
draw causal inferences more confidently and
safely. Finally, theoretically other variables
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
34
like price perception, corporate image,
switching cost etc. influence customer loyalty,
and including such variable(s) in the
study would have made the research models
more robust and interesting. In future
research additional variables should be incorporated.
References
Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J.A. (1990). “A
model of distributor firm and manufacturer
firm working partnerships”. Journal
of Marketing, 54 (January), 42-
58.
Anderson, E. & Sullivan, M. (1993). “The
antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”. Marketing
Science, 12 (1), 125-143.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. & Lehmann,
D. R. (1994). “Customer Satisfaction,
Market Share, and Profitability: Findings
from Sweden”. Journal of Marketing,
58 (4), 53-66.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988).
“Structural equation modeling in practice:
A review and recommended two
step approach”. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 411-423.
Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (1996), Principles
of Marketing (seventh edn.),
Prentice Hall, India.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J. & Swan,
J. E. (1996). “SERVQUAL revisited: a
critical review of service quality”. Journal
of Services Marketing, 10 (6), 62-
81.
Bansal, H. S. & Taylor, S.F. (1999). “The
service provider switching model
(SPSM): a model of consumer switching
behavior in the service industry”.
Journal of service Research, 2 (2),
200- 218.
Bitner, M. J. & Zeithaml, V. A. (2003).
Service Marketing (3rd ed.), Tata
McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
Boeselie, P., Hesselink, M. & Wiele, T.V
(2002). “Empirical evidence for the relationship
between customer satisfaction
and business performance”. Managing
Service Quality, 12 (3), 184-193.
Bollen, K.A. & Long, J. Scott (1993). Testing
Structural Equation Models, Sage,
Thousand Oaks: CA.
Bolton, R. N. & Drew, J. H. (1991). “A
multistage model of customers’ assessments
of service quality and value”.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17
(January), 375-384.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. &
Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). “A dynamic process
model of service quality: from expectations
to behavioral intentions”.
Journal of Marketing Research, 30
(February), 7-27.
Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. (2001).
“The chain of effects from brand trust
and brand effect to brand performance:
the role of brand loyalty”. Journal
of Marketing, 65 (2), 81-93.
Corbitt, B. J., Thanasankit, T. & Yi, H.
(2003). “Trust and e-commerce: a study
of consumer perceptions”. Electronic
Commerce Research & Applications,
2 (3), 203-215.
Cronin Jr, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992).
“Measuring service quality: a reexamination
and Extension”. Journal of Marketing,
56 (July), 55-68.
Doney, P.M. & Cannon, J.P. (1997). “An
examination of the nature of trust in
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
35
buyer-seller relationships”. Journal of
Marketing, 61 (April), 35-51.
Dotchin, J. A. & Oakland, J. S. (1994).
“Total Quality Management in Services
Part 2: Service. Quality”. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
11 (3), 27-42.
Feick, L. & Lee, J. (2001). “The impact of
switching cost on the customer satisfaction-
loyalty link; mobile phone service
in France”. Journal of Service Marketing,
15 (1), 35-48.
Fink, C., Matto, A. & Rathindran, R.
2003. “An assessment of Telecommunications
Reform in Developing Countries”.
Information Economics and
Policy, 15: 443- 466.
Fornell, C. (1992). “A national customer
satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”.
Journal of Marketing, 56
(January), 6-21.
Garbarino, E. & Johnson, M. (1999). “The
different roles of satisfaction, trust
and commitment in customer relationships”.
Journal of Marketing, 63 (2),
70-87.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. & Boudreau, M.C.
(2000). “Structural equation modeling
and regression: guidelines for research
practice”. Communication of the Association
for Information Systems, 4
(7), 1-30.
Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1993).
“Monte Carlo evaluation of goodnessof-
fit indices for structural equations
model”, In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation
models, 40-65. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Graack, C. (1996). “Telecom operators in
the European Union: Internationalized
strategies and network alliances”. Telecommunications
Policy, 20 (5), 341-
355.
Grönroos, C. (2001). “The perceived service
quality concept - a mistake?” Managing
Service Quality, 11 (3), 150-
152.
Hackl, P., Scharitzer, D. & Zuba, R.
(2000). “Customer satisfaction in the
Austrian food retail market”. Total
Quality Management, 1 (7), 999-
1006.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R.
L. & Black, W. C. (2003). Multivariate
Data Analysis (5th Ed.), Pearson
Education, India.
Hart, C. W. & Johnson, M. D. (1999).
“Growing the trust relationship”. Marketing
Management, 14 (Spring), 8-
19.
Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1993).
LISREL 8: structural Equation Modeling
with the SIMPLIS Command
Language: Scientific International
Software, Chicago, IL.
Kettinger, W. J. & Lee, C. C. (1994). “Perceived
service quality and user satisfaction
with the information services functions”.
Decision Sciences, 25 (5/6),
737-66.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice
of Structural Equation Modeling,
The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Lau, G. & Lee, S. (1999). “Consumers’
trust in a brand and link to brand loyalty”.
Journal of Market Focused
Management, 4, 341-70.
Lewis, B. R. (1993). “Service quality: recent
developments in financial services”.
International Journal of Bank Marketing,
2 (6), 19-26.
Mohammad Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Parvez
36
Lewis, B. R. & Mitchell, V. W. (1990).
“Defining and measuring the quality of
customer service”’. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 8 (6), 11-17.
Lim, K. & Razzaque, A.M. (1997). “Brand
loyalty and situational effects: An
interactionist perspective”. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing,
9 (4), 95-115.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman,
G. (1993). “Factors affecting trust in
market research relationships”. Journal
of Marketing, 57 (January), 81-101.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). “The
commitment-trust theory of relationship
Marketing”. Journal of Marketing, 58
(July), 20-38.
Narayandas, N. (1996). The link between
customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty: an empirical investigation.
Working Paper, No. 97-017, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA.
NQRC (1995). “American Customer Satisfaction
Index Methodology Report”,
University of Michigan Business
School, Ann Arbor, MI. Nunnally,
J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric
theory (2nd edn), McGraw Hill, NY.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral
Perspective on the Consumer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. &
Berry, L. L. (1988). “SERVQUAL: a
multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”.
Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring),
12-40.
Pearson, N. (1996). “Building brands directly:
creating business value from customer
Relationships”. Macmillan Business,
20 (6), 68-82.
Poon, M. L. (2004). “Effects of performance
appraisal politics on job satisfaction
and turnover Intention”. Personnel
Review, 33 (3), 322-334.
Prus, A. & Brandt, D. R. 1995. “Understanding
Your Customers”. American
Demographics, 11.
Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A.C.R., Liljander,
V. & Streukens, S. (2004). “Comfort
your online customer: quality, trust
and loyalty on the internet”. Managing
Service Quality, 14, 446-456.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S.
& Camerer, C.F. (1998). “Not so different
after all: a cross-discipline view
of trust”. Academy of Management
Review, 23 (3), 393-404.
Sharp, B. & Sharp, A. (1997). “Loyalty
programs and their impact on repeatpurchase
loyalty patterns”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing,
14 (5), 473-486.
Singh, J. & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000).
“Agency and trust mechanisms in customer
satisfaction and loyalty judgements”.
Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28 (1), 150-67.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. & Sabol, B.
(2002). “Consumer trust, value and loyalty
in relational exchanges”. Journal of
Marketing, 66 (1), 15-37.
Spreng, R.A. & Mackoy, R. D. (1996).
“An empirical examination of a model
of perceived service quality and satisfaction”.
Journal of Retailing, 72 (2),
201-14.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). “Structural model
evaluation and modification: An interval
estimation approach”. Multivariate
Can Service Quality, Trust, and Customer Satisfaction Engender Customers Loyalty?
37
Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
Sureshchanndra, G. S., Rajendran, C. &
Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). “The relationship
between service quality and
customer satisfaction - a factor specific
approach”. Journal of Service Marketing,
16 (4), 363-379.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. & Parasuraman,
A. (1996). “The behavioral consequences
of service quality”. Journal
of Marketing, 60 (1), 31-46.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.
L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service:
Balancing Customer Perceptions and
Expectations, The Free Press, New
York: NY.

TRANSLATE

LATAR BELAKANG

 Dalam tiga dekade terakhir, karena liberalisasi dan privatisasi seluruh telekomunikasi industri telah menjadi dinamis subjek industri jasa untuk meningkatkan persaingan dengan potensi pertumbuhan yang besar (Graack, 1996). Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, di beberapa negara Asia jumlah pelanggan mobile bahkan melewati jumlah pelanggan fixed-line (Fink, Matto, & Rathindran, 2003). Oleh karena itu, perilaku strategis telekomunikasi perusahaan telah menarik begitu banyak perhatian dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, baik diliteratur akademis dan dalam pers populer. Di Bangladesh skenario tidak jauh berbeda sebagai profil sosial ekonomi yang menawarkan industri kesempatan yang luar biasa untuk memperluas.

TUJUAN

Berdasarkan tinjauan literatur, tingkat dua analisis telah digunakan untuk menarik kesimpulan kausal mengenai didalilkan hubungan antar variabel yang diteliti. Tingkat pertama menyelidiki apakah pelanggan Kepuasan telah memediasi hubungan antara layanan pelanggan yang dirasakan kualitas dan loyalitas pelanggan, dan langsung hubungan antara kepercayaan dan loyalitas pelanggan. Pada tingkat kedua, para peneliti Mohammad Muzahid Akbar dan Noorjahan Parveztelah mencoba untuk menyelidiki  baik langsung dandimediasi (tidak langsung) hubungan antara persepsi kualitas layanan pelanggan, dan loyalitas pelanggan di mana kepuasan pelanggan telah diidentifikasi sebagai variabel mediasi,dan juga hubungan langsung antarakepercayaan dan loyalitas pelanggan.

METODE

contoh

Data telah dikumpulkan dari 304 berlangganan /pelanggan dari telekomunikasi swasta besar Perusahaan Bangladesh dan tingkat respon adalah 90%. Rata-rata usia responden adalah 29 tahun. 59% responden adalah laki-laki dan 41% adalah perempuan. Dalam Model 1 dari Tabel I semua jalur dari kualitas pelayanan untuk kepuasan pelanggan telah diperiksa. Jalur dari pelanggan kepuasan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan, dan kepercayaan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan juga telah diperiksa. Dalam Model 2 semua jalur dari yang dirasakan kualitas pelayanan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan, jalur dari kualitas pelayanan yang dirasakan pelanggan loyalitas sebagai dimediasi melalui pelanggan kepuasan, dan kepercayaan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan telah diperiksa.

KESIMPULAN

 Penelitian ini dicatat untuk alasan khusus. Seperti pengetahuan tentang peneliti tidak ada studi tersebut telah dilakukan sebelumnya pada pelanggan telekomunikasi setiap perusahaan di Bangladesh untuk memeriksa apakah layanan pelanggan yang dirasakan kualitas, kepercayaan, dan kepuasan pelanggan dapat menimbulkan loyalitas pelanggan. Khususnya, peneliti telah mencoba untuk menyelidiki apakah hubungan kausal yang didalilkan antara variabel yang diteliti bervariasi dalam dua pengukuran model untuk kelompok yang sama pelanggan. Para peneliti berharap bahwa kekuatan studi tersebut menginduksi penyedia layanan mobile untuk CaLK out tindakan yang tepat untuk membuat setia basis pelanggan dengan memastikan bijaksana penggunaan sumber daya yang berharga pemasaran. Data mendukung usulan model 2, di mana jalur langsung dari layanan pelanggan yang dirasakan kualitas dan kepercayaan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan; dan jalur tidak langsung dari pelanggan dirasakan kualitas pelayanan terhadap loyalitas pelanggan sebagai dimediasi melalui kepuasan pelanggan memiliki diperiksa. Secara umum, hasil telah mendukung sebagian besar hubungan hipotesis. Kepuasan pelanggan melakukan yang penting mediasi peran antara layanan kualitas dan loyalitas pelanggan didukung oleh penelitian ini. Oleh karena itu, manajemen terutama harus fokus pada kepuasan pelanggan yang kualitas pelayanan merupakan yang penting. Karena dampaknya layanan kualitas yang dirasakan pada preferensi Loyalitas jauh kuat mengarah ke disposisi yang lebih menguntungkan terhadap penyedia layanan dan meningkatkan komitmen untuk kembali menggurui. Kepuasan pelanggan saja tidak bisa mencapai tujuan menciptakan pelanggan setia dasar. Dalam kedua model kepercayaan telah datang keluar menjadi anteseden penting dari pelanggan loyalitas. Sementara penentuan imperative 'bagaimana untuk memenangkan pelanggan' kepercayaan 'yang penyedia layanan (s) harus fokus pada kedua sekarang dan masa depan kerangka waktu. Konstruk kepercayaan mengandung kepercayaan merek atau perusahaan, yang menyediakan pelanggan jaminan dari hasil positif tidak hanya untuk saat ini tetapi juga untuk masa depan. Seperti digambarkan dalam literatur, pelanggan harus akan dituntun untuk percaya bahwa perusahaan tidak akan berperilaku oportunis untuk kepentingan sendiri bunga; jika tidak mereka akan beralih kesetiaan mereka. Temuan penelitian ini harus ditafsirkan mempertimbangkan beberapa keterbatasan. Pertama, data dikumpulkan hanya dari pelanggan telekomunikasi swasta satu perusahaan; sehingga hasilnya mungkin tidak berlaku untuk telekomunikasi lainnya perusahaan. Kedua, pengumpulan data adalah terbatas pada pelanggan yang pribadi perusahaan telekomunikasi yang tinggal di Dhaka wilayah metropolitan; jadi Temuan tidak boleh digeneralisasi untuk semua pelanggan dari seluruh negeri. Ketiga, penelitian ini adalah cross-sectional belajar tetapi untuk menentukan kausal yang jalur dari variabel yang diteliti longitudinal Penelitian akan menjadi lebih tepat (Poon, 2004). Selain itu penelitian ini tidak menjadi eksperimental satu itu tidak mungkin untuk menghilangkan atau menahan pengaruh tak dikenal dan variabel asing yang tidak diinginkan dari pembelajaran. Oleh karena itu, para peneliti masa depan mungkin mempertimbangkan studi dianjurkan untuk menarik kesimpulan kausal lebih percaya diri dan aman. Variabel Akhirnya, secara teoritis lainnya Mohammad Muzahid Akbar dan Noorjahan Parvez seperti persepsi harga, citra perusahaan, beralih biaya dll pengaruh loyalitas pelanggan, dan termasuk variabel seperti (s) di Penelitian akan membuat model penelitian  lebih kuat dan menarik. Di masa depan penelitian variabel tambahan harus dimasukkan.

SUMBER:http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2009/jan09/article02_JanApr2009.pdf