Post on 02-Jan-2016
description
THE ROLE OF SERVICE INVOLVEMENT THE ROLE OF SERVICE INVOLVEMENT BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY
USING CONVENIENCE-STORE, USING CONVENIENCE-STORE, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,
EDUCATION, FILM, BANK, AND EDUCATION, FILM, BANK, AND INSURANCE AS EXAMPLESINSURANCE AS EXAMPLES
Fenghueih Huarng and Yun-Chi Hsieh
contentscontentsResearch motivation and purpose
Research MethodsResults of empirical analysisConclusions
Research motivation and Research motivation and purposepurpose
Research motivation Research motivation (1/2)(1/2)The service industries different from the
general manufacturing industry characteristics
Intangibility
Indivisibility
Heterogeneity
No need
to invento
ry
Service features
Research motivation Research motivation (2/2)(2/2) What are determinants of Service loyalty?
Involvement• Directly affect loyalty (Kim, Scott & Crompton, 1997; Bloemer & Kasper, 1995; Knox & Walker, 2003) • Is moderator or mediator (Chen & Tsai 2007; Suh & Yi, 2006; Olsen, 2007; Homburg and Giering, 2001)
Satisfaction:• Is direct determinant of loyalty in many previous studies
• But it’s effect is various among industries and not sufficient to explain loyalty
Service Loyalty
The distinctive characteristics of services:
intangibility, customization,
simultaneity, and perish ability may cause the
different roles of these factors in forming loyalty
Research Purpose (1/2)Research Purpose (1/2)
•Passenger transport•Convenience store
•Education•Theater
•Bank•Insurance
peoplepeople thingsthingstangible
tangibleInvisi ble
Invisi ble
Service Receiver
Service Management for Competitive Advantage, by J.A. Fritzsimmons, M.J. Fritzsimmons (1997)
Research purposes Research purposes (2/2)(2/2) How does the role of involvement
play in the customer satisfaction – loyalty relationship?
Will the direct service recipient affect the relationship among involvement, customer satisfaction, and loyalty?
Will the tangibility affect the relationship among involvement, customer satisfaction, and loyalty?
Research MethodsResearch Methods
FFour different modelsour different modelsOlsen （ 2007 ）
Satisfation
Loyalty
Involvement
Satisfation
Loyalty
Involvemen
t
Satisfation
Loyalty
Involvement
Satisfation
Loyalty
Involvement
Partial Mediation
Partial Mediation
Full MediationFull Mediation
Direct EffectDirect Effect
ModerationModeration
Research MethodsResearch Methods (1/5)(1/5)
Satisfaction Item Content of Item
SATSAT
Sat1
Sat2
Sat3
Sat4
Sat5
I am satisfied with my decision to ___here
I am very unsatisfied with this service.
I think this company is _____: very bad – very good
Overall, I rate my level of satisfaction with ___ as:Very low – very high
I am ___% satisfied with the ___
Research MethodsResearch Methods (2/5)(2/5)
Involvement Factors Item Content of item
Inv1
Inv3
Inv5
Inv7
Inv2
Inv4
Inv6
Inv8
Inv9
Boring - Interesting
Appealing – unappealing
Mundane - Fascinating
Unexciting - Exciting
Important – unimportant
Valuable – worthless
Means a lot to me
Not needed – Needed
Irrelevant - Relevant
Research MethodsResearch Methods (3/5)(3/5)
Involvement factor Item Content of item
Inv10
Inv11
Inv13
Inv15
Inv12
Inv14
Inv16
Choosing it is simple
I never know if I am making the right purchase
In purchase it, I am certain of my choice
I feel a bit at loss in choosing it
It’s not a big deal if I make a mistake in choosing it
It’s really annoying to make unsuitable purchase
A poor choice wouldn’t be upsetting
Research MethodsResearch Methods (4/5)(4/5)
Loyalty factor Item Content of item
behavioral
behavioral
attitudinal
attitudinal
trust
Loy1
Loy2
Loy3
Loy4
Loy5
Loy7
Loy8
Loy10
Loy6
Loy9
Loy11
Loy12
I will transact with this _____again for future needsI will try new services that are provided by this____ I will recommend other people to patronize to this__I will say positive things to other people about the services provided at this
I will continue to patronize this ___ even if the service charges are increased moderately
I have strong preference to this ___
I will keep patronizing this ____ regardless of everything being changed somewhatI am likely to pay a little bit more for using the services of this ____This is like a friend to me
The people here respond caringly when I share my problems
Personnel are filled with professionalism and dedication
c
Personnel will consider my personal needs.
Research MethodsResearch Methods (5/5)(5/5)
SEMSEM
MediatiMediation / on /
ModeraModerationtion
1-1-leveleve
llCFACFA 2-2-
levelevell
CFACFAReliabiReliability & lity & ValiditValidit
yy
Results of empirical Results of empirical analysisanalysis
※※1.1.IInsurance 2.Banknsurance 2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6. Education6. Education
Frequency (Ratio)
1 ※※ 2 3 4 5 6
M
124
(48.4%
)*
130
(49.2
%)
186
(74.7
%)
128
(52.7
%)
135
(55.6
%)
152
(59.4
%)
F
132
(51.6%
)
134
(50.8
%)
63
(25.3
%)
115
(47.3
%)
108
(44.4
%)
104
(40.6
%)
Cumulated
256
(100%)
264
(100
%)
249
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
256
(100
%)
Demographic information (1/7)
Monthly income
Frequency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
20000 and under
46
(18.0
%)
38
(14.4
%)
55
(22.1
%)
67
(27.6
%)
74
(30.5
%)
65
(25.4
%)
20001~30000
58
(22.7
%)
64
(24.2
%)
59
(23.7
%)
61
(25.1
%)
58
(23.9
%)
60
(23.4
%)
30001~40000
68
(26.6
%)
64
(24.2
%)
69
(27.7
%)
44
(18.1
%)
48
(19.8
%)
71
(27.7
%)
40001~50000
38
(14.8
%)
34
(12.9
%)
21
(8.4%
)
21
(8.6%
)
26
(10.7
%)
34
(13.3
%)
50001~60000
31
(12.1
%)
41
(15.5
%)
27
(10.8
%)
36
(14.8
%)
26
(10.7
%)
15
(5.9%
)
60001 and above
15
(5.9%
)
23
(8.7%
)
18
(7.2%
)
14
(5.8%
)
11
(4.5%
)
11
(4.%)
Demographic information (2/7) ※※ 1.1.IInsurance nsurance
2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
Demographic information (3/7) ※※
1.1.IInsurance nsurance 2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
AgeFrequency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
17 and under
7
(2.7%)
3
(1.1%
)
11
(4.4%
)
6
(2.5%
)
3
(1.2%
)
12
(4.7%
)
18~2580
(31.3%)
71
(26.9
%)
79
(31.7
%)
76
(31.3
%)
89
(36.6
%)
68
(26.6
%)
26~3381
(31.6%)
89
(33.7
%)
76
(30.5
%)
74
(30.5
%)
88
(36.2
%)
65
(25.4
%)
34~4135
(13.7%)
48
(18.2
%)
35
(14.1
%)
36
(14.8
%)
33
(13.6
%)
40
(15.6
%)
42 and above
53
(20.7%)
53
(20.1
%)
48
(19.3
%)
51
(21.0
%)
30
(12.3
%)
71
(27.7
%)
Cumulated256
(100%)
264
(100%
)
249
(100%
)
243
(100%
)
243
(100%
)
256
(100%
)
Highest Education
Frequency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Junior High
12
(4.7%
)
3
(1.1%
)
15
(6.0%
)
5
(2.1%
)
6
(2.5%
)
27
(10.5
%)
High School
59
(23.0
%)
64
(24.2
%)
70
(28.1
%)
61
(25.1
%)
62
(25.5
%)
90
(35.2
%)
College
166
(64.8
%)
169
(64.0
%)
149
(59.8
%)
151
(62.1
%)
154
(63.4
%)
119
(46.5
%)
Master and Ph.D.
19
(7.4%
)
28
(10.6
%)
15
(6.0%
)
26
(10.7
%)
21
(8.6%
)
20
(7.8%
)
Cumulated256
(100%
)
264
(100%
)
249
(100%
)
243
(100%
)
243
(100%
)
256
(100%
)
Demographic information (4/7) ※※ 1.1.IInsurance nsurance 2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
OccupationFrquency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Teaching, Military,
Public service
118
(46.1
%)
120
(45.5
%)
159
(63.9
%)
100
(41.2
%)
90
(37.0
%)
75
(29.3
%)
Agriculture, Forest, Fishing
4
(1.6%
)
7
(2.7%
)
5
(2.0%
)
7
(2.9%
)
3
(1.2%
)
22
(8.6%
)
Manufacturing
16
(6.3%
)
26
(9.8%
)
22
(8.8%
)
21
(8.6%
)
18
(7.4%
)
20
(7.8%
)
Commerce
15
(5.9%
)
29
(11.0
%)
13
(5.2%
)
20
(8.2%
)
20
(8.2%
)
22
(8.6%
)
Service
33
(12.9
%)
37
(14.0
%)
8
(3.2%
)
36
(14.8
%)
30
(12.3
%)
37
(14.5
%)
Demographic information (5/7) ※※ 1.1.IInsurance nsurance
2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
Occupation
Frequency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Self-employed
23
(9.0%
)
18
(6.8%
)
7
(2.8%
)
14
(5.8%
)
16
(6.6%
)
20
(7.8%
)
Student
29
(11.3
%)
21
(8.0%
)
19
(7.6%
)
35
(14.4
%)
49
(20.2
%)
43
(16.8
%)
Housewife/Househusban
d
13
(5.1%
)
2
(0.8%
)
12
(4.8%
)
6
(2.5%
)
15
(6.2%
)
14
(5.5%
)
Others
5
(2.0%
)
4
(1.5%
)
4
(1.6%
)
4
(1.6%
)
2
(0.8%
)
3
(1.2%
)
Cumulated256
(100
%)
264
(100
%)
249
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
256
(100
%)
Demographic information (6/7) ※※ 1.1.IInsurance nsurance
2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
Marital Status
Frequency (Ratio)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Single
142
(55.5
%)
123
(46.6
%)
147
(59.0
%)
137
(56.4
%)
144
(59.3
%)
128
(50.0
%)
Married
without Kids
24
(9.4%
)
30
(11.4
%)
19
(7.6%
)
17
(7.0%
)
25
(10.3
%)
20
(7.8%
)
Married with
Kids
90
(35.2
%)
111
(42.0
%)
82
(32.9
%)
89
(36.6
%)
74
(30.5
%)
108
(42.2
%)
Others0
(0)
0
(0)
1
(0.4)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Cumulated
256
(100
%)
264
(100
%)
249
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
243
(100
%)
256
(100
%)
Demographic information (7/7) ※※ 1.1.IInsurance nsurance
2.Bank2.Bank 3.Convenience Store3.Convenience Store 4.Transportaion4.Transportaion 5. Film5. Film 6.Education6.Education
Insurance &Bank
Var Factpr Item FL CR AVE
Cronbach’s
α
Sat
Sat1 0.76
0.897 0.745 0.884Sat3 0.93Sat4 0.89
Inv
Affec-tive
(Inv3) 0.74
0.855 0.66 0.853Inv5 0.85Inv7 0.85
Congni-tive
Inv2 0.86
0.896 0.68 0.893(Inv4) 0.91Inv6 0.78
(Inv9) 0.75
Loy
Beha-vioral
(Loy2) 0.74
0.858 0.67 0.857Loy3 0.84Loy4 0.87
Attitu-dinal
(Loy5) 0.78
0.858 0.6 0.858(Loy7
) 0.72
Loy8 0.83Loy1
0 0.77
Trust
(Loy9) 0.71
0.853 0.66 0.849Loy11 0.83
Loy12 0.89
Dicriminant Validity
Involvement ：Affective -congnitive
0.83
Loyalty ：Behavioral-AttitudinalBehavioral-TrustAttitudinal-Trust
0.880.750.75
FL ≧ 0.71CR ≧ 0.7AVE≧ 0.5Cronbach ≧ 0.6Correlation
coefficient ≦ 0.85
One-level CFAOne-level CFA
Convenience Store&TransportationOne-level CFAOne-level CFA
Var Factpr Item FL CR AVE
Cron-bach
α
Sat
Sat1 0.7
0.87 0.628 0.859Sat3 0.92Sat4 0.82Sat5 0.71
Inv
Affec-tive
Inv1 0.730.76 0.519 0.76Inv3 0.74
Inv7 0.69
Congni-tive
(Inv2) 0.71
0.86 0.615 0.866(Inv4) 0.69Inv8 0.86Inv9 0.86
Loy
Beha-vioral
(Loy2) 0.60.76 0.521 0.758Loy3 0.77
Loy4 0.78
Attitu-dinal
Loy7 0.70.75 0.507 0.742Loy8 0.79
Loy10 0.64
Trust
(Loy6) 0.69
0.81 0.516 0.809Loy9 0.68(Loy1
1) 0.72
Loy12 0.78
Dicriminant Validity
Involvement ：Affective -congnitive
0.65
Loyalty ：Behavioral-AttitudinalBehavioral-TrustAttitudinal-Trust
0.680.700.83
FL ≧ 0.71CR ≧ 0.7AVE≧ 0.5Cronbach α ≧
0.6 Correlation
coefficient ≦ 0.85
Education & FilmOne-level CFAOne-level CFA
Var Factpr Item FL CR AVE Cronba
ch α
Sat
Sat2 0.75
0.886 0.663 0.877Sat3 0.91Sat4 0.87Sat5 0.71
Inv
Affec-tive
(Inv1) 0.84
0.908 0.711 0.904(Inv3) 0.79Inv5 0.85Inv7 0.89
Congni-tive
(Inv2) 0.89
0.912 0.723 0.908Inv4 0.93Inv6 0.74Inv9 0.83
Loy
Beha-vioral
Loy1 0.86
0.907 0.71 0.906Loy2 0.84
(Loy3) 0.84(Loy4) 0.83
Attitu-dinal
Loy7 0.690.816 0.598 0.808Loy8 0.86
Loy10 0.76
Trust
Loy9 0.81
0.861 0.673 0.859(Loy11
)0.80
Loy12 0.85
Dicriminant Validity
Involvement ：Affective -congnitiv
0.93
Loyalty ：Behavioral-attitudinalBehavioral-TrustAttitudinal-Trust
0.870.850.9
FL ≧ 0.71CR ≧ 0.7AVE≧ 0.5Cronbach ≧
0.6Correlation
coefficient ≦ 0.85
Insurance&Bank 、 Convenience store & Transportation
Two-level CFATwo-level CFA
Variable Factor FL CR AVE Item
Insurance&
Bank
Sat 0.8836 0.719 3,4,5
InvAffective 0.91
0.906 0.82815,7
Congnitive
0.91 2,6,9
Loy
Behavioral
0.92
0.9133 0.7795
3,4
Attitudinal
0.94 8,10
Trust 0.78 11,12
Convenience
Store&Transpor-tation
Sat 0.8697 0.6282 1,3,4,5
InvAffective 0.95
0.8333 0.71771,3,7
Congnitive
0.73 8,9
Loy
Behavioral
0.79
0.9021 0.7554
3,4
Attitudinal
0.86 7,8,10
Trust 0.95 9,12
FL (factor loading) ≧ 0.71 CR (construct reliability) ≧ 0.7AVE (average variance extracted) ≧ 0.5
教育 & 電影Two-level CFATwo-level CFA
Variable Factor FL CR AVE Item
Education&
Film
Sat 0.8862 0.6629 2,3,4,5
InvAffective 0.93
0.8955 0.81095,7
Congnitive
0.87 4,6,9
Loy
Behavioral
0.91
0.9531 0.8714
1,2
Attitudinal
0.95 7,8,10
Trust 0.94 9,12FL (factor loading) ≧ 0.71 CR (construct reliability) ≧ 0.7AVE (average variance extracted) ≧ 0.5
Insurance &Bank ： SEM Model Fit
Model fit index
Criterion
FMM
PMM
DEM
Moderation
Unrestricted
Restricted （ w1=
w2 ）
χ2 value Smaller 215.462 174.714 193.875 104.215 107.2
d.f. 61 60 61 50 51
χ2/df 1<NC<3 3.532 2.912 3.178 2.084 2.102
GFI >.90 0.943 0.951 0.947 0.957 0.955
RMR <0.05 0.964 0.049 0.058 0.040 0.049
RMSEA <0.08 0.07 0.061 0.065 0.046 0.046
AGFI >.90 0.914 0.926 0.921 0.922 0.921
NFI >.90 0.953 0.962 0.958 0.961 0.960
RFI >.90 0.94 0.951 0.946 0.944 0.943
CFI >.90 0.966 0.975 0.971 0.979 0.978
Convenience store & Transportation ： SEM Model Fit
Model fit index
Criterion
FMM
PMM
DEM
Moderation
Unrestricted
Restricted （ w1=
w2 ）
χ2 smaller 146.268 146.250 150.552 146.655 164.423
d. f. 73 72 73 66 67
χ2/df 1<NC<3 2.004 2.031 2.062 2.222 2.454
GFI >.90 0.922 0.922 0.919 0.944 0.939
RMR <0.05 0.051 0.050 0.052 0.039 0.059
RMSEA <0.08 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.050 0.054
AGFI >.90 0.888 0.886 0.884 0.907 0.9
NFI >.90 0.932 0.932 0.930 0.922 0.912
RFI >.90 0.915 0.914 0.913 0.893 0.882
CFI >.90 0.964 0.964 0.962 0.955 0.945
Education & Film ： SEM Model Fit
Model fit index
Criterion
FMM
PMM
DEM
Moderation
Unrestricted
Restricted （ w1=
w2 ）
χ2value smaller 300.775 284.186 312.545 249.375 249.527
d.f. 131 130 131 126 127
χ2/df 1<NC<3 2.296 2.186 2.386 1.979 1.965
GFI >.90 0.937 0.94 0.935 0.93 0.93
RMR <0.05 0.045 0.04 0.044 0.31 0.31
RMSEA <0.08 0.051 0.049 0.053 0.044 0.044
AGFI >.90 0.918 0.921 0.915 0.899 0.9
NFI >.90 0.958 0.96 0.956 0.925 0.925
RFI >.90 0.951 0.953 0.949 0.908 0.908
CFI >.90 0.976 0.978 0.974 0.961 0.962
Belonging & Invisible
Customer & Invisible
Customer & Visible
Insurance Bank Film EducationTransportatio
nConv. Store
DEM76%
PMM71%
PMM77%
DEM72%
Moderator (L27%, H83%)
Moderator (L28%, H66%)
PMM (71%) PMM (76%)Moderator
(L19%, H44%)
※Best Fit Model & Explanatory power for different service recipient and tangibility
ConclusionConclusionss
customers belongs
tangible Passenger transport
Convenience store
Moderation
invisible Education Banking
Theater Insurance
PMM PMM
Involvement play as partial mediator or moderator.
Direct service recipient has no effect on relationship for invisible service.
Tangibility affects the relationship for customers themselves.
Thank Thank youyou