Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

The empirical study of consumers' loyalty for display technology☆

Chiu Hui Lin a,⁎, Chih-Wen Wu b, Yi-Han Cheng b
a
Tainan University of Technology, Taiwan
b
National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The introduction of new services to satisfy customers' needs is a critical issue for managers. Management of
Received 1 September 2014 display technologies advocates as a new and promising service innovation research field. The research conducts
Received in revised form 1 March 2015 a comprehensive study of the impacts of display technology on consumer loyalty. This study examines customer
Accepted 1 April 2015
loyalty from some research constructs, namely service quality, service leadership, easy to use and satisfaction.
Available online 24 June 2015
The authors use online survey data from 545 consumers. The conceptual framework investigates the relevant
Keywords:
relationships among the constructs by using structural equation modeling (SEM) and fuzzy set qualitative
Service quality analysis (FsQCA) approach. Findings from the research sample support the argument that service quality, service
Service leadership leadership, easy to use and satisfaction are the key determinants of customer loyalty. The display technology for
Easy to use service provider can enhance the customer loyalty in the fashion industry.
Satisfaction © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Loyalty

1. Introduction
Advancements in information and communication technology (ICT)
are made possible with rapid technological evolution (Huarng, 2011;
Kim & Huarng, 2011). These technological innovations complement
each other to meet consumers' needs (Danaher, Hardie, & Putsis,
2001; Huarng, 2015; Thakur & Hale, 2013), which cause new challenges
of service innovation to service providers in the business environment
(Huarng & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2014; Ribeiro-Soriano & Huarng, 2013). As
the service providers offer display technology to meet consumers'
needs, understanding the impacts of consumer responses to service
innovation on customer loyalty is crucial to service providers in the
display technology context.
Firms use technology both internally and externally to improve op-
erations and provide functional benefits for customers (Parasuraman
& Grewal, 2000; Song, Song, & Di Benedetto, 2009). Many service
providers and retailers begin to use a wide range of technologies, in-
cluding display technology, to allow customers to consume services
electronically, for example, cloth trying display technology in the
☆ The author thanks Arch Woodside (Boston College), Kun Huang Huarng (Feng Chia
University), Wen-Hsiang Lai (Feng Chia University), and other researchers at the 2014
GIKA-Asia/Pacific Conference on Innovation and Diffusion of High-Tech Products,
Services, and Systems for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. The author
thanks three anonymous referees for valuable comments on earlier versions of this
work. The author is responsible for any remaining errors.
⁎ Correspondence author at: Tainan University of Technology, No. 529, Zhongzheng Rd.,
Yongkang District, Tainan City 71002, Taiwan.
E-mail address: t30071@ms.twcat.edu.tw (C.H. Lin).
fashion industry. However, neither of all consumers choose to use the
new technologies nor do they see these changes as improvements.
Technology acceptance model centers on consumers' initial adoption
decision and subsequent use (Meuter, Ostrom, Bitner, & Roundtree,
2003; Meuter, Ostrom, Roundtree, & Bitner, 2000; Szajna, 1996;
Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
When display technology evolves rapidly over time and companies
shift their attention from technology to services (Bitner & Brown,
2006; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000), there is a pressing need to under-
stand the strategic impacts of display technology on consumer' decision
marking (Okada, 2006; Thakur & Hale, 2013). The display technology
into the consumer market raises the need to understand consumer deci-
sion other than technology adoption (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005;
Venkatesh & Brown, 2001).
Display technology provides on a long-term basis for service pro-
viders in a competitive market. Marketing literature has a long history
on customer loyalty (Oliver, 1980). Despite increasing availability in
the service innovation, customers may not use an innovation technology
including display technology option unless they perceive an advantage
for using it and feel comfortable with the technology (Parasuraman &
Grewal, 2000). Therefore, understanding the impacts of display technol-
ogy on customer loyalty toward their service providers is worth academ-
ic researchers' attention.
2. Literature review
Managing technological innovation is important for firms to gain
and sustain competitive advantages (Huarng, 2011, 2015; Kim, Han, &

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.008
0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 C.H. Lin et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265
Srivastava, 2002; Kim & Huarng, 2011; Valette, Guizani, & Merunka,
2011). As display technology becomes ubiquitous, customers' responses
to service innovation become an important managerial issue
(Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004; Chaparro-Pelaez, Pereira-Rama, &
Pascual-Miguel, 2011; Grewal, Comer, & Mehta, 2001; Stahl, Heitmann,
Lehmann, & Neslin, 2012). In the consumer market, a firm's innovation
efforts can influence the customers' satisfaction and loyalty (Buil, de
Chernatony, & Martinez, 2013; Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1989; Chen,
Su, & Lin, 2011; Liao & Cheng, 2013).
2.1. Loyalty
Loyalty refers to the degree to which customers intend to repeat their
purchases in the future, express a positive willingness toward the pro-
vider, and consider this provider the sole option for future transactions
(Colgate, Tong, Lee, & Farley, 2007; Tsai, Huang, Jaw, & Chen, 2006;
Woisetschläger, Lentz, & Evanschitzky, 2011). Among the academic
and professional fields, interest is growing in identifying the factors
that influence customer loyalty with developing the most appropriate
market action strategies (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997; Dick & Basu, 1994;
Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005). From this customer perspective,
customers are loyal because they really wish to maintain the relation-
ship (Fuentes-Blasco, Saurab, Berenguer-Contri, & Moliner-Velazquez,
2010; Yang & Peterson, 2004). The service providers make efforts to in-
crease customer loyalty including pleasing customers, providing them
with complete satisfaction (Balabanis, Reynolds, & Simintiras, 2006;
Srinivasan, Anderson, & Ponnavolu, 2002) or setting up switching
barriers (Bansal & Taylor, 2002; Burnham, Frels, & Mahajan, 2003;
Meuter et al., 2003).
2.2. Service quality
Research on service quality reveals a variety of reasons why cus-
tomers choose to stay with their service providers (Bell, Auh, &
Smalley, 2005; Liang, Ma, & Qi, 2013; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
1985, 1988). For example, Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) provide a
conceptual model of service quality and develop an instrument, namely
SERVQUAL, for measuring service quality. Research shows that percep-
tions of service quality affect customer loyalty (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;
Elliot, Li, & Choi, 2013; Kuo, 2003; Rust & Zahorik, 1993). Therefore,
H1. Service quality has a positive effect on loyalty.
2.3. Service leadership
Service leadership offers the opportunity of enjoying the benefits to
a greater extent (Kahn, 1998; Lindgreen, Beverland, & Farrelly, 2010).
Research shows that customers' positive responses to new technology
can increase a firm's overall value (Lee & Grewal, 2004). Service leader-
ship can increase the extra value and consumer attention to his/her
service provider, which in turn affects loyalty. Service leadership
enhances loyalty in the service industry (Heide & Weiss, 1995; Kunz,
Schmitt, & Meyer, 2011; Lee & Grewal, 2004). Therefore,
H2. Service leadership has a positive effect on loyalty.
2.4. Easy to use
Davis (1989) defines easy to use as the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would be free from effort. Tech-
nology acceptance model specifies easy to use as a pre-condition for
usefulness perceptions (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989; Porter & Donthu, 2006) and other studies support that easy
to use predicts perceived usefulness (Lanseng & Andreassen, 2007;
2261
Oh, Jeong, & Baloglu, 2013). Further, the research posits that easy to
use affects the loyalty of customers.
H3. Easy to use has a positive effect on loyalty.
2.5. Satisfaction
Satisfaction is a function of a product's ability to fulfill customer
expectations (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Oliver, 1999). A person's ca-
pability to use a product or service successfully results in higher satisfac-
tion (Antón, Camarero, & Carrero, 2007; Bagomolova, 2010; Torres &
Tribo, 2011). Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, and Murthy (2004) and Voss,
Parasuraman, and Grewal (1998) suggest that customer satisfaction is
a kind of evaluation between prior expectations and perceived service
performance. Bolton and Lemon (1999) and Gustafsson et al. (2005)
think that if a customer feels a service more than he or she expected,
the customer rates the exchange as more satisfied. However, satisfac-
tion is also an emotional experience that consumers feel good about
and appreciate as an experience (Athanassopoulos, 2000; Garbarino &
Johnson, 1999).
Guo, Xiao, and Tang (2009) and Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman
(1996) argue that satisfaction with the value of the product or service
is the key determinant of customer loyalty. Accordingly, the positive
evaluation of the product or service is a major reason to continue a rela-
tionship with a company's products or services, and an important deter-
minant of loyalty. Satisfied customers are more likely to repurchase,
engage in positive word-of-mouth recommendations, and become
loyal customers (Olsen, 2002; Picon, Castro, & Roldan, 2013). Colgate
et al. (2007) and Oliver (1999) establishes that satisfaction is the key de-
terminant of customer loyalty. The degree of satisfaction level is the
main factor in determining loyalty toward that service provider
(Coelho & Henseler, 2013; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Malhorta, 2002).
Therefore,
H4. Satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty.
After reviewing the management and marketing literature and
conducting a pilot study with 30 consumers with display technology
use, four major groups of construct appear to influence customer loyal-
ty: service quality, service leadership, easy to use and satisfaction. Fig. 1
shows the research framework in the study.
service quality
H1
service
leadership H2
loyalty
H3
easy to use
H4
satisfaction
Fig. 1. Research framework.
2262 C.H. Lin et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265

Table 1 3.2. Data collection

Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 545).

Frequency for buying the fashion Percentage The research collects data from questionnaire distribution. The study
cloth per month (n = 545) employs a mixed approach with both web-based and personal inter-
Less than 1 2.5 view, which gain the advantages of increasing respondent rate. There-
2−4 times 45.7 fore, administering an online survey is a very effective means of
5−7 times 39.5 reaching the majority of the population when personal interview survey
8 times and over 12.3
can increase response rate. Characteristics of the sample are shown in
Gender (n = 545) Table 1.
Male 21.4
Female 78.6
3.3. Variable definition and measurement
Level of education (n = 545)
High school or less 7.6 The study adapts most of the measurement instruments from
University (undergraduate) 69.5
existing literature. On the basis of literature review, this research iden-
Graduate or high level 22.9
tifies key constructs and opinions from a panel of industrial experts
Age (n = 545) and researchers. The research employs pre-test before putting the ques-
20 and younger 20.5
tionnaire online.
21–30 47.8
31–40 15.6 The study draws the scale for loyalty from Balabanis et al. (2006).
41–50 7.2 The items for service quality are from Zeithaml et al. (2002) which re-
51–60 6.6 flect consumers' preference toward the current service provider. The
61 and older 2.3 scale for easy to use is from Davis (1989). Similarly, the scale for service
leadership adapts from Lee and Grewal (2004) and Ladhari, Pons,
Bressolles, and Zins (2011). Finally, on the basis of literature, the study
develops satisfaction scale (Yang & Peterson, 2004). In Table 2, there is
3. Research methodology a 7-point Likert scale to measure these items.

3.1. Sampling 4. Empirical results

The research selects display technology use of consumers in the
fashion industry in Taiwan. Due to the intense competition, service pro-
viders in the fashion markets rely on service innovation to gain compet-
itive advantages. Consumers in the fashion industry prefer the latest
display technology service innovation. In summary, fashion product
consumers offer an interesting context for investigating the strategic
impacts of display technology innovation.
This research process provides a confirmatory technique that allows
assessment of the reliabilities and validities of the research constructs.
The research conducts confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path anal-
ysis on all the research constructs of service quality, service leadership,
easy to use, satisfaction and loyalty. In the research CFA shows a good fit
for the theoretical model. The average variance extracted (AVE) of con-
structs exceeds the minimum criteria of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 2
Measures used with mean and standard deviation.

Construct and scale items Mean SD Standardized

loadings

Service quality (7-point scales anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree)
1. The display technology is visually appealing 4.5 1.3 0.85
2. The display technology is prompt service 4.9 1.6 0.83
3. The display technology is well-organized 4.3 1.5 0.77
4. The display technology can solve problem 3.9 1.5 0.82

Service leadership (7-point scales anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree)
5. My service provider offers a larger choice of services for customers. 4.7 1.3 0.82
6. My service provider satisfies customers' needs with more diversified service. 4.6 1.4 0.83
7. My service provider offers services with great variety. 4.4 1.7 0.89

Easy to use (7-point scales anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree)
8. The display technology requires little hard work 4.9 1.6 0.79
9. The display technology easy to accomplish what I want 4.7 1.4 0.85
10. The display technology would be convenient to use 4.6 1.3 0.72

Satisfaction (7-point scales anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree)

11. This display technology meets my needs. 4.3 1.4 0.84
12. This display technology is very competent. 4.3 1.8 0.86
13. This display technology gives me the service that I expect. 4.2 1.5 0.78
14. This display technology gives an excellent service. 4.3 1.6 0.72
15. My experience with the display technology is positive. 4.5 2.3 0.73

Loyalty (7-point scales anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree)

16. I would recommend my service provider to my relative and friends. 4.1 1.8 0.82
17. I will choose my service provider in the future. 3.9 1.6 0.82
18. My service provider is my first choice. 3.7 1.3 0.83
19. I will say positive things about my service provider 4.3 1.5 0.75
 C.H. Lin et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265 2263

Table 3 Table 5
Construct measures in the study. Empirical results: SEM model.

Measures construct Cronbach's α AVE Hypotheses Standardized estimate t-Value Sig.

Service quality 0.82 0.72 H1: service quality → loyalty 0.42 6.63 s
Service leadership 0.85 0.75 H2: service leadership → loyalty 0.28 5.27 s
Easy to use 0.84 0.74 H3: easy to use → loyalty 0.36 7.43 s
Satisfaction 0.83 0.76 H4: satisfaction → loyalty 0.54 5.12 s
Loyalty 0.91 0.85
ns = not significant, s = significant, t values all significant at p b .05.

The convergent validity of each construct and discriminant validity for
all constructs are accepted and shown in Table 3.
4.1. Overall model fit
The relevant overall fit indices for each of the service quality, service
leadership, easy to use, satisfaction and loyalty constructs appear in
Table 4. To further assess model fit, it is necessary to look beyond the
chi-squared value and consider a number of additional indices such as
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.061 and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.92. These fit indices provide values
that support a good model fit for the data set.
4.2. Measurement model fit
The measurement model output shows in Table 2. All 19 standard-
ized loadings are high. All standard errors are small and acceptable.
Thus, all indicators confirm the postulated relationships among re-
search constructs. Reliability estimates for each construct using coeffi-
cient alpha and all composite reliabilities exceed the 0.70 level.
All shared variances are acceptable as they exceed the recommend-
ed 0.50 value (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). To investigate the discrimi-
nant validity of the research constructs, the study calculates whether
the average variance extracted is greater than the square of the
construct's correlations with the other factors (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). Overall, the measurement model statistics provide support for
the psychometric properties of the survey instruments.
4.3. Structural model
The research results in Table 5 analyze the causal paths hypothe-
sized in the structural model. The theoretical model supports the four
hypotheses. Therefore, service quality has a positive impact on loyalty
(H1); service leadership has a positive effect on loyalty (H2); easy to
use has a positive effect on loyalty (H3); and satisfaction has a positive
effect on loyalty (H4).
4.4. FsQCA analysis
The analysis of necessary conditions determines if any of the four
conditions are necessary for causing the outcome. Therefore, the study
examines whether a single condition is always present or absent in all
cases where the outcome is present (or absent) (Ragin, 2008). A condi-
tion is necessary if the consistency score exceeds the threshold of 0.9
(Woodside, 2013).
Ragin (2009) and Woodside and Zhang (2013) provide more detail
on how to perform calibrations. In the process of fsQCA analysis, vari-
ables or combinations of variables may be either necessary or sufficient
Table 4
Overall model fit.
Chi-square DF p-Value RMSEA CFI NFI
645.24 542 0.0000 0.061 0.92 0.93
Note: RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index;
NFI: Normed Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index.
conditions depending on how they affect the outcome (Woodside,
Camacho, & Lai, 2013). The consistency measures the degree to which
the cases fit to the particular rule. The more cases that fail to meet this
rule for necessary conditions, the lower will be the consistency score
(Ragin, 2009). With regard to loyalty conditions, the consistency scores
range between 0.84 and 0.87 in Table 6. Furthermore, the raw coverage
scores are from 0.96 to 0.99. To demonstrate predictive validity, this
study conducts prediction analysis. For fsQCA analysis, consistency
and coverage test results reveal relationships between the variables in
Table 6. Empirical results show that fsQCA has better predictive capabil-
ities than SEM. Although SEM analysis shows that the model is signifi-
cant in Table 5. However, all t values are significant at p b 0.05, but no
research constructs of t value is significant at p b 0.01 in SEM model.
In the fsQCA analysis the high consistency score is strong evidence
that the antecedent combination is sufficient to produce the outcome
(loyalty). The research demonstrates that fsQCA successfully identifies
conditions sufficient for loyalty outcome.
5. Discussions and implications
The study is a comprehensive examination of the loyalty for display
technology, namely service quality, service leadership, easy to use and
satisfaction. The research finds significant impacts of all research con-
structs on loyalty. Particularly, service quality, service leadership, easy
to use and satisfaction have direct impacts on loyalty, confirming the
importance of the pioneering and innovation strategy in the service
industry.
Empirical results suggest the potential importance of the customers'
loyalty of service innovation. Display technology adoption becomes the
most important differentiation and innovation strategy. On the other
hand, service quality, service leadership, easy to use and satisfaction
are relatively more important for enhancing customers' loyalty in the
display technology context. In this research the differential main effects
of service quality, service leadership, easy to use and satisfaction on loy-
alty are present in the extensive technology acceptance model.
Management of service innovation advocates as a new and promis-
ing research field. When technology innovation becomes ubiquitous
and markets become saturated, the role of service innovation is the
source of sustainable competitive advantages. Particularly, technology
evolution reaches a high level so that display technology users already
get much more than what they need.
For practitioners, in the consumer market the research also provides
strategic implications for the management of service innovation. First,
the empirical results confirm the strategic value of active and positive
response to service innovation. From the consumer perspective, speedy
introduction of new technology generations, greater quality of
Table 6
FsQCA results.
Subset analysis.
Outcome: loyalty.
Consistency Raw coverage Combined
GFI
Service quality 0.850473 0.993425 0.943764
0.92 Service leadership 0.872758 0.987146 0.942566
Easy to use 0.847786 0.968406 0.928374
Satisfaction 0.851823 0.965438 0.932099
2264 C.H. Lin et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265
complementary services, easy to use mechanism and satisfaction em-
phasis can differentiate a service provider from its competitors. Accord-
ingly, it can compete by offering better service innovation design with
easy to use, service quality, service leadership and satisfaction.
The significant effects of these factors indicate that individual con-
sumers can appreciate service innovation efforts by display technology
service providers in the fashion industry. Display technology service
providers should continue to provide service innovation for maintaining
competitive advantage in the business world. One possible reason for
the enduring impact of display technology innovation is that consumers
may co-create value with the display technology. As technology evolu-
tion accelerates in the ICT industry, consumers' preference and demand
also change rapidly to find a way to release the full potential of the tech-
nology innovation.
6. Conclusion and research limitations
The research conducts a comprehensive study of the impacts of dis-
play technology on customer loyalty. The study examines five research
constructs from the consumer perspective, namely customer loyalty,
service quality, service leadership, easy to use and satisfaction. These
four constructs including service quality, service leadership, easy to
use and satisfaction correspond respectively to explain loyalty. The em-
pirical findings from the research show support for the main effects of
loyalty. The study contributes to the promising research field of service
management and service marketing, particularly to the management of
service innovation in the consumer market. Hopefully, the research can
serve as a first step for this promising research filed.
However, the study has some limitations. First, the data is self-
reported. Future research should adopt more objective measures such
as customer record data from service providers. Second, the findings
limit the generalizability to other countries because of only surveying
fashion product customers in Taiwan. For that reason, further research
should test the applicability of the theoretical in other countries. Third,
the size of the sample means that the generalizability of present findings
needs further testing. Further research might need more resources to
increase the sample size and consider other types of firms or industries.
Fourth, the research design is not longitudinal. Therefore, the causal at-
tribution of relationships is relatively weak. Future work should consid-
er adopting a longitudinal design to further test the causal relationship
of these factors. Finally, the structural model assumes unidirectional re-
lationships among the various research constructs, but bidirectional
linkages may exist, which need further investigation.
References
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Carrero, M. (2007). The mediating effect of satisfaction on con-
sumers' switching intention. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 511–538.
Athanassopoulos, A.D. (2000). Customer satisfaction cues to support market segmenta-
tion and explain switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 47(3), 191–207.
Bagomolova, S. (2010). Life after death? Analyzing post-defection consumer brand equity.
Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1135–1141.
Balabanis, G., Reynolds, N., & Simintiras, A. (2006). Bases of e-store loyalty: Perceived
switching barriers and satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 59, 214–224.
Bansal, H.S., & Taylor, S.F. (2002). Investigating interactive effects in the theory of planned
behavior in a service-provider switching context. Psychology and Marketing, 19(5),
407–425.
Bell, S.J., Auh, S., & Smalley, K. (2005). Customer relationship dynamics: Service quality
and customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of customer expertise and
switching costs. Journal of Marketing Science, 33(2), 169–183.
Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L.L. (1997). Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships
with service providers. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 15–37.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude
toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS
Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254.
Bitner, M.J., & Brown, S.W. (2006). The evolution and discovery of services science in busi-
ness schools. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 73–83.
Bolton, R.N., & Lemon, K.N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers' usage of services:
usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36(2), 171–186.
Brown, S.A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A
baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle1. MIS
Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Martinez, E. (2013). Examining the role of advertising and sales
promotion in brand equity creation. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 115–122.
Burnham, T.A., Frels, J.K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: A typology, an-
tecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2),
109–126.
Carpenter, G.S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering
advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285–298.
Chaparro-Pelaez, J., Pereira-Rama, A., & Pascual-Miguel, F.J. (2011). Inter-organizational
information systems adoption for service innovation in building sector. Journal of
Business Research, 67, 673–679.
Chen, Y., Su, Y., & Lin, F. (2011). Country-of-origin effects and antecedents of industrial
brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1234–1238.
Coelho, P.S., & Henseler, J. (2013). Creating customer loyalty through service customiza-
tion. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 331–356.
Colgate, M., Tong, V.T., Lee, K.C., & Farley, J.U. (2007). Back from the brink: Why customers
stay. Journal of Service Research, 9, 211–228.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & Hult, G.T.M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.
Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–216.
Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and exten-
sion. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
Danaher, P.J., Hardie, B.G.S., & Putsis, J.W.P. (2001). Marketing-mix variables and the dif-
fusion of successive generations of a technological innovation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(4), 501–514.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of infor-
mation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
Dick, A.S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual frame-
work. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.
Elliot, S., Li, G., & Choi, C. (2013). Understanding service quality in a virtual travel commu-
nity environment. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1234–1238.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F.L. (1982). Two structural equation models: Lisrel and PlS ap-
plied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuentes-Blasco, M., Saurab, I., Berenguer-Contri, G., & Moliner-Velazquez, B. (2010). Mea-
suring the antecedents of e-loyalty and the effect of switching costs on website.
Service Industries Journal, 30(11), 1837–1852.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and com-
mitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Grewal, R., Comer, J.M., & Mehta, R. (2001). An investigation into the antecedents of
organizational participation in business-to-business electronic markets. Journal of
Marketing, 65(3), 17–33.
Guo, L., Xiao, J.J., & Tang, C. (2009). Understanding the psychological process underlying
customer satisfaction and retention in a relational service. Journal of Business
Research, 62(11), 1152–1159.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction,
relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal
of Marketing, 69(4), 210–218.
Heide, J.B., & Weiss, A.M. (1995). Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyers
in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 30–43.
Huarng, K.H. (2011). A comparative study to classify ICT developments by economies.
Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1174–1177.
Huarng, K.H. (2015). Configural theory for ICT Development. Journal of Business Research,
68(4), 748–756.
Huarng, K.H., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E. (2014). Developmental management: Theories,
methods, and applications in entrepreneurship, innovation, and sensemaking.
Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 657–662.
Kahn, B.E. (1998). Dynamic relationships with customers: High-variety strategies. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 45–53.
Kim, N., Han, J.K., & Srivastava, R.K. (2002). A dynamic It adoption model for the Soho
market: PC generational decisions with technological expectations. Management
Science, 48(2), 222–240.
Kim, S.H., & Huarng, K.H. (2011). Winning strategies for innovation and high-technology
products management. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1147–1150.
Kunz, W., Schmitt, B., & Meyer, A. (2011). How does perceived firm innovativeness affect
the consumer? Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 816–822.
Kuo, Y.F. (2003). A study on service quality of virtual community web sites. Total Quality
Management, 14(4), 461–473.
Ladhari, R., Pons, F., Bressolles, G., & Zins, M. (2011). Cultural and personal values: How
they influence perceived service quality. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 951–957.
Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service con-
text. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293–311.
Lanseng, E., & Andreassen, T.W. (2007). Electronic healthcare: A study of people's readi-
ness and attitude toward performing self-diagnosis. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 18(4), 394–417.
Lee, R.P., & Grewal, R. (2004). Strategic responses to new technologies and their impact
on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 157–171.
 C.H. Lin et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2260–2265
Liang, D., Ma, Z., & Qi, L. (2013). Service quality and customer switching behavior in
China's mobile phone. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 1161–1167.
Liao, S., & Cheng, C. (2013). Consumer evaluation of self-service innovation failure: The
effect of brand equity and attribution. Service Industries Journal, 33(5), 467–485.
Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M.B., & Farrelly, F. (2010). From strategy to tactics: Building,
implementing, and managing brand equity in business markets. Industrial Marketing
Management, 39(8), 1223–1225.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., & Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of technol-
ogy anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies.
Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 899–906.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A., Roundtree, R., & Bitner, M.J. (2000). Self-service technologies:
Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters.
Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64.
Oh, H., Jeong, M., & Baloglu, N. (2013). Tourists' adoption of self-service technologies at
resort hotels. Journal of Business Research, 66, 692–699.
Okada, E.M. (2006). Upgrades and new purchases. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 92–102.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Olsen, S.O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfac-
tion, and repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3),
240–249.
Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value-
loyalty chain: A research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1),
168–174.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Picon, A., Castro, I., & Roldan, J.L. (2013). The relationship between satisfaction and loyal-
ty: A mediator analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67, 746–751.
Porter, C.E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how
attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demo-
graphics. Journal of Business Research, 59, 999–1007.
Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Ragin, C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fs/QCA). In B. Rihoux,
& C.C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative analysis: Qualitative comparative anal-
ysis (QCA) and related techniques (application social research methods). Thousand Oaks
and London: Sage publications.
Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E., & Huarng, K.H. (2013). Innovation and entrepreneurship in knowl-
edge industries. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1964–1969.
Rust, R.T., & Zahorik, A.J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market
share. Journal of Retailing, 69, 193–215.
Song, L.Z., Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C.A. (2009). A staged service innovation model.
Decision Sciences, 40(3), 571–599.
2265
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in E-commerce: An
exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 41–50.
Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D.R., & Neslin, S.A. (2012). The impact of brand equity
on customer acquisition, retention and profit margin. Journal of Marketing, 76(4),
44–63.
Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.
Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.
Thakur, R., & Hale, D. (2013). Service innovation: A comparative study of U.S. and Indian
service firms. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1108–1123.
Torres, A., & Tribo, J.A. (2011). Customer satisfaction and brand equity. Journal of Business
Research, 64(10), 1089–1096.
Tsai, H., Huang, H., Jaw, Y., & Chen, W. (2006). Why on-line customers remain with a par-
ticular E-retailer: An integrative model and empirical evidence. Psychology and
Marketing, 23, 447–464.
Valette, F.P., Guizani, H., & Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brand personality and sales
promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 24–28.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S.A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in
homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
71–102.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gen-
der, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS
Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of informa-
tion technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (1998). The roles of price, performance, and ex-
pectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. Journal of Marketing,
62(4), 46–61.
Woisetschläger, D.M., Lentz, P., & Evanschitzky, H. (2011). How habits, social ties, and
economic switching barriers affect customer loyalty in contractual service settings.
Journal of Business Research, 64, 800–808.
Woodside, A.G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Call-
ing for a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis
and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66, 463–472.
Woodside, A.G., Camacho, A.R., & Lai, W.H. (2013). Sense making, dilemma, and solutions
in strategic management. International Journal of Business and Economics, 12(2),
91–95.
Woodside, A.G., & Zhang, M. (2013). Cultural diversity and marketing transactions: Are
market integration, large community size, and world religions necessary for fairness
in ephemeral exchanges? Psychology and Marketing, 30(3), 263–276.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R.T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The
role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), 799–822.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of ser-
vice quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhorta, A. (2002). Service quality delivery through
web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30(4), 362–375.