Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science-2006-Chiou-613-27

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
http://jam.sagepub.com/ Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework
Jyh-Shen Chiou and Cornelia Droge Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2006 34: 613 DOI: 10.1177/0092070306286934 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jam.sagepub.com/content/34/4/613
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Academy of Marketing Science
Additional services and information for Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jam.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jam.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jam.sagepub.com/content/34/4/613.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Sep 6, 2006 What is This?
Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011
Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework
Jyh-Shen Chiou
National Chengchi University, Taiwan
Cornelia Droge
Michigan State University
This study proposes an integrated framework explaining loyalty responses in high-involvement, high-service luxury product markets. The model is rooted in the traditional (attribute satisfaction)-(overall satisfaction)-(loyalty) chain but explicitly incorporates facility versus interactive service quality, trust, specific asset investment (SAI), and product-market expertise. The authors focus on disentangling the direct versus indirect effects of model constructs on attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty responses. The results support the traditional chain but also show loyalty can be increased by building a trustworthy image and creating exchange-specific assets. The authors found that overall satisfaction is the precursor both to loyalty and to building SAI. Finally, consumers have different costs in reducing adverse selection problems with information, and thus the negative effect of product-market expertise on behavioral loyalty needs to be controlled if the direct versus indirect effects of model constructs on loyalty are to be disentangled. Keywords: loyalty; specific asset investment; transaction cost analysis; satisfaction; service quality
Satisfaction is a major driver of customer retention and loyalty, and therefore achieving high consumer satisfaction is a key goal of practitioners (Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, and Bryant 1996; Oliver 1997). Since the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Volume 34, No. 4, pages 613-627. DOI: 10.1177/0092070306286934 Copyright 2006 by Academy of Marketing Science.
cost of obtaining a new consumer is very high and the profitability of a loyal consumer grows with the relationships duration, understanding loyalty cultivation or retention is key to long-term profitability (Bolton, Kannan, and Bramlett 2000; Bolton, Lemon, and Verhoef 2004; Reichheld 1996, 2001). Models of satisfaction-loyalty chains have been proposed but often have trouble incorporating the many satisfied consumers who eventually defect (Jones and Sasser 1995; Reichheld 1996). Reasons for defections include consumer characteristics (Frank 1967; Mittal and Kamakura 2001), industry particulars (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Fornell 1992; Jones and Sasser 1995), switching experience (Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds 2000), and switching cost (Burnham, Frels, and Mahajan 2003; Hauser, Simester, and Wernerfelt 1994; Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000; Lee and Cunningham 2001; Lee, Lee, and Feick 2001). On the other hand, temporary dissatisfaction may not affect loyalty (Day 1969; Jones and Sasser 1995), for example, by members of loyalty programs (Bolton et al. 2000). In the high-involvement, premium, or luxury product markets of interest to us in this research, each consumer transaction is of very high value, and thus understanding combinations of satisfied-defection and dissatisfied-loyalty is crucial. Research on loyalty in exchange relationships has occurred in both business-to-consumer (B2C) and businessto-business (B2B) domains. In the former, such research often goes under the rubrics of satisfaction and/or customer lifetime value research, while in B2B and/or services marketing, it is often known as relationship marketing or service quality research. For high-involvement, luxury
614 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
FALL 2006
consumer product markets where close relationships with consumers are paramount, B2B models of loyalty seem to capture some constructs germane to B2C relationships (constructs such as trust and specific asset investment). We thus propose a general framework that (1) incorporates aspects of agency theory and transaction cost analysis from the B2B domain into the traditional chain of consumer (attribute satisfaction)-(overall satisfaction)-(loyalty) and (2) explicitly disentangles direct versus indirect effects of model constructs on attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty. Thus, the overarching goal of this study is to construct an integrated framework explaining the direct versus indirect antecedents of consumer loyalty in high-involvement premium or luxury product markets. Specifically, our first objective is to incorporate facility versus interactive service quality, along with attribute satisfaction, as antecedents to both trust and overall satisfaction. Service quality constructs have been examined primarily in the B2B and consumer services literatures, but many products actually have a high service component. In particular, luxury product markets often have high service content. The second objective is to investigate the effects of trust on overall satisfaction and on attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty (building on the work of Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). Trust is important in relationship marketing, such as in B2B contexts. While we concur with Atuahene-Gima and Li (2002) that the inherent value of the trust construct is in danger of being oversold, the direct versus indirect effects of trust must be addressed in our product-market context. Third, we explore the relationships among satisfaction, asset specificity, and attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty. Asset specificity, or specific asset investment (SAI), is one way to create loyalty without maximum satisfaction (although we argue that satisfaction makes SAI more likely). The construct originates in the B2B transaction cost literature. Finally, our fourth objective is to specify the role of productmarket expertise: consumers with different product-market expertise will have different costs in reducing adverse selection problems and therefore have different propensities to stay with current brands independent of whether they are satisfied. The article is organized as follows. In the next sections, we provide an overview of the model, definitions of the key constructs, and a detailed development of the hypotheses. The specific product-market context is premium cosmetics, a high-involvement, credence product chosen because the exchange relationships with consumers are very trust relevant and involve SAI. The next section describes methodology, including measurement and the development of a scale to measure consumer asset specificity. The results of the hypothesis testing are then presented, followed by the discussion of the results.
MODEL FRAMEWORK: PRODUCT-MARKET CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW The Product-Market Context: High-Involvement, High-Service Content We focus on high-involvement product markets encompassing products having a significant service component. Examples abound in home remodeling product markets, where products are purchased (such as custom kitchen cabinets, or bathroom remodeling) but most consumers require design and installation services. Another example is the premium cosmetics product market, which is the focus of our study and thus deserves some elaboration. Premium cosmetic products are high-involvement, credence products that require a lot of personal service (Bolan 2005; Ellison and Fowler 2004; Prasso 2005). These luxury cosmetics are typically sold by highly trained beauty consultants at dedicated (rented) counters in highend department stores. The consultants are usually the employees of the cosmetics company, not the department store. Their job has educational, experiential, and relational aspects and is similar in many respects to the job of B2B salespersons. Many strong interactive relationships develop between consumers and these beauty consultants. The price differentials between these lines and the typical drug store or supermarket cosmetic lines are substantial. For example, a lipstick can be found for $3 or less at drug stores or supermarkets but costs $15 or more at these counters. Clearly, the beauty consultants are not selling tubes of colored wax but rather the ever-changing ideal of beauty and the hope of achieving that look. The price differentials for a variety of antiaging skin products is even greater, with some of these high-end products costing $450+ per month to use (see, e.g., Ellison and Fowler 2004). Medicinal-type outcomes are often claimed or implied, such as impacts on the chemistry and structure of the skin. Often, specific products must be used in a specific sequence at specific times of the day (such as prescription drugs); educating consumers about this idiosyncratic product knowledge is the job of the beauty consultants. Outcomes are sometimes demonstrated to consumers using computerized photographs, but many products effects on the skin are long-term, and thus trust is important. The chief competitors of these top-of-the-line antiaging skin products are the spa experience and/or the plastic surgeon. This luxury market is international, for example, Shiseidos Cle de Peau line sells for about $500 for 30 grams in an upscale mall in Shanghai, China (Prasso 2005). Overview of the Model Figure 1 presents a model of loyalty responses for highinvolvement, high-service-content product markets such as
Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 615
FIGURE 1 Research Model Framework

Satat H4a SQfac H4b H2b SQint H8 H2a H3 H1 H5 Sat H7 Loyat H9 SAI H10 H11 Loybeh Trust H6 PMexp H12
NOTE: Satat = attribute satisfaction; SQfac = facility service quality; SQint = interactive service quality; Sat = overall satisfaction; Trust = perceived trust; PMexp = product-market expertise; Loyat = attitudinal loyalty; SAI = specific asset investment; Loybeh = behavioral loyalty.
effects over time on loyalty in high-involvement, highservice product markets. Trust and asset specificity (consumers investments in a supplier, e.g., such as represented by loyalty points) were modeled as endogenous variables because (1) providers past performance may affect consumers perceptions of trust, and (2) overall satisfaction will affect consumers willingness to engage in closer relationships and invest in specific assets. In the premium cosmetics product market, trust and SAIs are relevant constructs, as described in the sections below. Productmarket expertise (tapping overall knowledge of the product class) is modeled as an exogenous control variable because it is affected more by market information and individual factors than by model antecedents. MODEL FRAMEWORK: HYPOTHESES Hypotheses 1-2: Attribute Satisfaction and Perceived Service Quality as Antecedents to Overall Satisfaction Past research modeled two kinds of satisfaction (Bitner and Hubbert 1994; Jones and Suh 2000). The first one is attribute satisfaction (Satat), referring to a consumers cognitive satisfaction with individual product or service attributes. For example, Westbrook (1981) proposed that satisfaction with a retail establishment is an accumulation of separate satisfaction evaluations of salespersons, store environments, products, and other factors (see also Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996). The second is overall satisfaction (Sat) or cumulative satisfaction over time from an aggregation of transaction experiences (rather than a onetime transaction; see Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer 2005; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1994). Overall satisfaction is defined as pleasurable fulfillment and is an affective response (Oliver 1999:34). Since Satat is defined as a cognitive construct, while overall satisfaction is an affective construct, it is hypothesized that Satat will affect overall satisfaction for the high-involvement product markets considered in this research (Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Oliver 1997). Therefore (see Figure 1), Hypothesis 1: Attribute satisfaction is positively associated with overall satisfaction. Perceived service quality evaluations are cognitive responses at the attribute level. Consumers perceive at least two types: (1) facility service quality (SQfac), provided by the physical environment (such as modern equipment) and representing the tangible aspects of service, and (2) interactive service quality (SQint) provided by employees (such as promptness and courtesy). The latter has been called the interactive factor, an essential
the premium cosmetics described above. Loyalty, as defined by Oliver (1997), is a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior (p. 392). This definition actually encompasses two different aspectsbehavioral and attitudinal (see Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Dick and Basu 1994; Ganesh et al. 2000; Pritchard, Havitz, and Howard 1999). Behavioral loyalty (Loybeh) represents repeat brand purchase by consumers. Attitudinal loyalty (Loyat) includes a degree of dispositional commitment toward the brand by consumers. We model both. Note that attitudinal loyalty is not the same as brand attitude because the former represents an attitude toward being loyal to the brand (a conative construct), while the latter is an attitude toward an object. In the model, perceived service quality (facility and interactive) and attribute satisfaction are modeled as direct antecedents to trust and overall satisfaction; trust, overall satisfaction, asset specificity, and product-market expertise are modeled as direct and/or indirect antecedents to loyalty responses (attitudinal vs. behavioral). The models network of constructs is rooted in the cognitive-affectiveconative loyalty framework of Oliver (1997, 1999; see also, e.g., Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Tailor and Baker 1994). The causal ordering reflects Olivers (1999) proposal that the analysis needed to detect true brand loyalty requires researchers to assess consumer beliefs, affect, and intention within the traditional consumer attitude structure (p. 35). The traditional attitude structures order of cognitive-affective-conative responses is suitable for high-involvement decision making, such as that characteristic of premium cosmetics. Thus, perceived service quality and attribute satisfaction precede trust and overall satisfaction, which in turn precede loyalty responses. Trust, asset specificity and product-market expertise were incorporated into the model to reflect cumulative
FALL 2006
component of perceived service quality according to the services marketing literature (e.g., Bitner 1990; Brady and Cronin 2001; White and Schneider 2000). In the premium cosmetics product market, the service quality delivered by the beauty consultant lies at the core of firms marketing strategies. We follow Oliver (1999) and other researchers who maintain that perceived service quality is cognitive and thus followed (not preceded) by satisfaction. For example, using the framework of appraisal emotional response proposed by Lazarus (1991), Bagozzis (1992) perceived service quality was an appraisal construct; appraisal normally precedes emotional responses such as satisfaction (see also Carver and Scheier 1990; Oliver 1997, 1999). Several other empirical studies also confirm the perceived service quality satisfaction ordering, which corresponds to the traditional attitude structure sequence (Cronin and Taylor 1992; Patterson 2000; Woodside, Frey, and Daly 1989). Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994) directly tested models of differing causal directions and found service quality affects satisfaction, which in turn affects intention (see also Taylor and Baker 1994). Therefore (see Figure 1), Hypothesis 2: Service quality of the (a) facility and of the (b) interaction are positively associated with overall satisfaction. Hypotheses 3-4: Attribute Satisfaction, Perceived Service Quality as Antecedents to Trust Trust is the belief that another party can be relied on with confidence to perform role responsibilities in a fiduciary manner (Doney and Cannon 1997; Morgan and Hunt 1994). The domain of trust in our context is the brand experience in its entirety (encompassing both product and service aspects offered by the brands provider) but not focusing on specific attributes or specific retail stores. As in Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000), we define trust as a cognitive rather than affective construct. Several researchers have proposed different dimensions of trust. For example, Ganesan and Hess (1997) included credibility and benevolence dimensions, while Smiths (1997) trust construct encompasses perceptions of honesty/integrity, reliability/dependability, responsibility, and positive motives/intentions. Trust is important in many high-involvement, premium product markets because consumers are exposed to costs associated with adverse selection and moral hazard, both agency costs. Agency cost arises when the desires or goals of the principal and the agent conflict and it is difficult or expensive for the principal (e.g., consumer) to verify what the agent (i.e., the provider) is actually doing (Eisenhardt 1989). The problem of adverse selection occurs when consumers are unable to discriminate between different quality providers and thus choose
incorrectly (Akerlof 1970; Wilson 1980). Moral hazard originates in the lack of effort on the part of the agent (Eisenhardt 1989), and an opportunistic agent may decide to reap greater payoffs by delivering less than promised (Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000). For example, the premium cosmetics examined in our research are characterized by secret ingredients (hence, adverse selection risks), ambiguous performance (hence, moral hazard risks), and possibly significant social risk. Thus, transactions within this product market fit the definition of trustrelevant exchange in Sitkin and Roth (1993; see also Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000). Avoiding adverse selection involves costs. Consumers may suffer from information asymmetry in favor of providers and thus spend time and effort searching for more information (e.g., friends, public information) and evaluating competitive claims. However, even if a consumer can resolve the adverse selection problem ex ante, he or she is still exposed to the problem of moral hazard ex post (Kirmani and Rao 2000). Therefore, consumers want to perceive that the provider is trustworthy, to believe that the provider will act according to what was agreed upon (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Doney and Cannon 1997). Consumers can evaluate several explicit and implicit cues concerning the provider to gradually build up trust (Doney and Cannon 1997). Among these cues, product attribute satisfaction and perceived service quality represent evaluations of direct experiences (Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000). If favorably perceived, adverse selection and moral hazard concerns will be reduced, and consumers will have more confidence in the provider; this in turn will increase their trust in the provider. Thus, Hypothesis 3: Attribute satisfaction is positively associated with trust. Hypothesis 4: Service quality of the (a) facility and of the (b) interaction are positively associated with trust. Hypotheses 5-7: Trust, Satisfaction, and Loyalty Responses In many product categories, consumers may not know the exact outcome before buying the product and experiencing the associated service, and since many products contain credence elements of quality (such as the cosmetics we examine), some consumers may not have the ability to discern performance even after experiencing it. For example, Trawick and Swan (1981) claimed that ambiguous performance tends to be misinterpreted in the direction of a priori expectations, while Kirmani and Rao (2000) concluded that moral hazard issues remain unresolved after purchase when violations of quality claims cannot be unambiguously recognized. For this kind of product or service, strong consumer confidence is paramount. Thus, the management over time of consumers trust is especially
important in the marketing of services (Berry and Parasuraman 1991) and credence products such as highend cosmetics. Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) distinguished trust before initiation of an exchange (pretrust) from trust after an exchange (posttrust). On the basis of social exchange theory, they proposed that consumers pretrust will have direct influence on their postpurchase satisfaction. Therefore, one could argue that cumulative trust perceptions will affect cumulative satisfaction over time. In any case, if a consumer does not trust the provider based on past experience, he or she will probably be dissatisfied with that provider. Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998; see also Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001) provided another rationale for the relationship from trust to satisfaction. They found that consumers in long-term relationships with service firms experience three primary types of benefits: confidence, social, and special-treatment benefits. Among the three benefits, the confidence benefit (which is very similar to trust in the current study) was the most important to consumers across several categories of services. Confidence benefits include a sense of reduced anxiety, faith in the provider, reduced perceptions of anxiety and risk, and knowing what to expect. When consumers feel these benefits related to trust, their overall satisfaction is enhanced over the long term. Thus, Hypothesis 5: Trust is positively associated with overall satisfaction. Following Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), we also propose that commitment in the form of consumer attitudinal loyalty is a result of trust. Trust and commitment are two of the most important constructs in the relationship marketing paradigm (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Spekman 1988), and trust seems implicit to true consumer attitudinal loyalty (Oliver 1999:42). Since trust involves confidence in the exchange partners reliability and integrity, it is a necessary ingredient for a long-term orientation because it shifts the focus to future conditions and continuity (Doney and Cannon 1997; Ganesan 1994). However, we propose no direct relationship from trust to behavioral loyalty, thus limiting the role of trust as suggested by Atuahene-Gima and Li (2002). Rather, we propose in Hypothesis 11 below that trust indirectly affects behavioral loyalty through attitudinal loyalty. Thus, Hypothesis 6: Trust is positively associated with attitudinal loyalty. Satisfied consumers are more likely to repeat purchase, to resist competitive offers, and to generate positive word of mouth (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Bolton 1998;
Bolton and Lemon 1999; Cronin and Taylor 1992; HennigThurau, Gwinner, and Gremler 2002; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1996). Research in the American Customer Satisfaction Index provides additional empirical support for loyalty responses as the major consequence of consumer satisfaction (Fornell et al. 1996). In addition, since overall satisfaction is affective attitude and attitudinal loyalty is a conative construct, the latter is normally hypothesized to mediate the relationship between affective attitude and behavior in the marketing and psychology literature (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Bansal, Taylor, and James 2005). Therefore, we model a direct effect of overall satisfaction to attitudinal loyalty but not to behavioral loyalty; rather, the effect on behavioral loyalty is modeled as indirect (through attitudinal loyalty in Hypothesis 11) to account for the fact that loyal consumers do purchase competitive products. Thus, Hypothesis 7: Overall satisfaction is positively associated with attitudinal loyalty. Note that Hypotheses 5-7 as a set state that (1) trust has both a direct effect on attitudinal loyalty (Hypothesis 6) and an indirect effect through overall satisfaction (Hypotheses 5 and 7), and (2) neither trust nor overall satisfaction have a direct effect on behavioral loyalty (rather, their effects are indirect, through attitudinal loyalty, for example). Hypotheses 8-11: Overall Satisfaction, Asset Specificity, and Loyalty Asset specificity refers to investments in assets that are dedicated to a particular supplier and whose redeployment entails considerable switching costs (Williamson 1985). These idiosyncratic SAIs to support a particular exchange relationship may take different forms: they may be physical assets, monetary assets, knowledge, personal relationships, skills, and so on (Williamson 1991). For example, the exchanges between a premium cosmetics company and consumers involve SAI. Consumers have to spend time getting acquainted with several different product types, functions, combinations, and suitability for occasion and skin texture; this leads to knowledge asset specificity. In addition, because of the way in which premium cosmetics brands are sold, consumers often engage in social relationships with favorite beauty consultants and possibly with other consumers (an invisible social SAI). Asset specificity is a very important concept in transaction cost analysis because it can cause dependence on the supplier and hence discourage switching (Ganesan 1994; Joshi and Stump 1999). Asset specificity can be viewed as a type of switching cost (Burnham, Frels, and Mahajan 2003; Dick and Basu 1994; Hauser, Simester,
FALL 2006
and Wernerfelt 1994; Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty 2000; Lee and Cunningham 2001; Lee, Lee, and Feick 2001). Firms can encourage idiosyncratic SAI on the part of the consumer: loyalty rewards programs such as those based on service or product usage levels, cobranded credit cards, or frequent flyer mileage programs are examples. Consumers can lose unredeemed reward points or other benefits if they switch to other suppliers, and thus these SAIs encourage consumer retention. A consumers investment of specific assets in a provider gives the provider some control over the consumer (Jap and Ganesan 2000). The most prominent B2B solution offered by transaction cost analysis to safeguard specific asset investments is vertical integration (Williamson 1985). However, unlike firms, it is very difficult for a consumer to vertically integrate the functions provided by the provider (DiMaggio and Louch 1998). Therefore, rational consumers will try to avoid dependency in unsatisfactory relationships (that perhaps they dont want to last) by reducing the buildup of SAI. On the other hand, a consumer will increase SAI with a satisfactory provider. Therefore, Hypothesis 8: Overall satisfaction is positively associated with SAIs (asset specificity). Asset specificity creates dependency because considerable switching costs are involved to replace the provider (Heide and John 1988; Joshi and Stump 1999). A consumer may not be fully satisfied and indeed feel little attitudinal loyalty but still wont want to switch suppliers because of SAI. Therefore, asset specificity should be a direct antecedent of behavioral loyalty (Klemperer 1987; Wernerfelt 1985). A more difficult question is whether attitudinal loyalty will also be affected by SAI (and thus the effects of SAI on behavioral loyalty would be indirect as well as direct). We propose that attitudinal loyalty is affected by SAI since most SAIs are built up because of the consumers willingness to engage in a long-term relationship. A longterm orientation may be prerequisite to securing the rents from SAI (Williamson 1985). In addition, consumers may gradually perceive that SAI increases exchange efficiency (Gwinner et al. 1998; Stauss, Chojnacki, Decker, and Hoffmann 2001). Gwinner et al. (1998) found confidence, social, and special-treatment benefits from long-term relational exchanges: the latter two are created through SAI by the consumer and by the supplier. Examples include salesclerks communicating more efficiently with consumers because of human specific assets, consumers reducing buying task complexity through knowledge SAI, and loyalty rewards programs creating SAI through nontransferable points or bonuses (Bolton et al. 2000). Therefore, Hypothesis 9: Specific asset investments are positively associated with attitudinal loyalty.
Hypothesis 10: SAIs are positively associated with behavioral loyalty. Finally, attitudinal loyalty affects behavioral loyalty. This assertion is well rooted in most attitude and satisfaction research (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Dick and Basu 1994; Oliver 1997). Hypothesis 11: Attitudinal loyalty is positively associated with behavioral loyalty. Hypothesis 12: Product-Market Expertise and Behavioral Loyalty Product-market expertise comprises overall knowledge levels of brands, product types, usage methods, purchase information, and so on in the product market and represents the ability to perform product- and marketrelated tasks successfully. Expertise is different conceptually and theoretically from familiarity (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Park, Mothersbaugh, and Feick 1994): familiarity is a function of product-related experiences, which may or may not result in expertise. Consumers search for more product-market information in part to reduce adverse selection problems. However, information search costs deter a consumer from switching providers (Sharma and Patterson 2000; Thibault and Kelley 1959). Consumers generally have a disutility for cognitive effort, and less effort is expended when using the same product or brand (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Also, a consumer may have an existing information schema, and acquiring additional information may cause dissonance and disruption between the existing schema and the new one (Festinger 1957). In summary, the goal of reducing information search cost encourages the inertia of staying with the current provider, and consumers exhibit behavioral but not necessarily attitudinal loyalty. We argue furthermore that both information search costs and information resolution costs will be higher for those consumers with less product-market expertise, and thus product-market expertise and behavioral loyalty will be inversely related. Research on the structuring of concepts (Alba and Hutchinson 1987) supports this assertion. Experts as compared to novices have higher abilities to (1) categorize below the basic category, thus forming finer discriminations with greater reliability and permitting consideration of a more homogeneous set of alternatives when need is specific (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, and Boyes-Braem 1976), and (2) categorize above the basic category, thus making more abstract comparisons with greater reliability and permitting consideration of a more heterogeneous set of alternatives when need is general (Adelson 1984; Schoenfeld and Herrmann 1982). Therefore, expert consumers have lower
costs of resolving information asymmetry than novices, even if both groups are exposed to the same amount of information. The findings of Capraro, Broniarczyk, and Srivastava (2003) also lend support to the following: in studying the factors that influence defection, they found that the level of objective and subjective knowledge about alternatives has a positive and direct effect on the likelihood of defection. Thus, it is important to control for the impact of expertise: Hypothesis 12: Product-market expertise is negatively associated with behavioral loyalty. METHOD Sample Because we cannot identify this premium cosmetics company, we will call it XYZ. XYZ is the companys family brand that is attached to numerous individual products (like Kelloggs __). A preliminary qualitative study was conducted. Four consumers of XYZ were recruited for in-depth interviews. Reasons for loyal or disloyal behaviors were elicited, and the effects of all constructs on loyalty were then probed. The results of this preliminary study were used to explore the proposed model qualitatively, to create a pool of items for the asset specificity scale, and to modify the service quality scale. For data collection quality, a professional market research firm was hired to collect data by telephone. Interviews took about 10 minutes. The member database of the XYZ cosmetics company served as the sampling frame. About 30,000 members had signed up to receive the latest product/service/event information and coupons for new products (but only those who spend more than $300 per year get full benefits). Stratified random sampling by age-group was used, ensuring that nonrespondents were replaced by respondents of the same age-group. The target 300 completed questionnaires represent a response rate of 35 percent of 857 contacts, which is high because members are motivated and interviewers were highly trained. All respondents were female and aged 25 to 54 years (M = 35.6, SD = 6.54), 77 percent had jobs, and 94 percent had at least high school. Respondents profiles were not significantly different from nonrespondents on these demographic variables, and thus we concluded that nonresponse bias is not a problem. One important issue is whether the fact that the respondents were members could have an impact on model results. If a respondent has very little or no experience with the focal company, it is very difficult to assess model constructs, especially trust and asset specificity. Thus, experience itself is not a problem, while inexperience may cause serious biases. The question is whether these members generated adequate variance in loyalty. We examined the
variance of the amount actually purchased in the past year. Variance was very high, and about half of the respondents can be classified as inactive (i.e., spent something, but not the $300 necessary for full benefits of membership). Therefore, not all respondents are very loyal, and this sample appears to have adequate variance. Measurement Where possible, established scales were used. Construct names, Cronbachs alphas, and specific scale wordings are shown in the measurement appendix. Service quality (facility and interactive). These measures were drawn from the shortened SERVQUAL used by Teas (1993). The item opening hours was dropped because all premium cosmetics are sold in high-end department stores with the same hours of operation. In addition, the term employee was substituted by salesclerk at the sales counter to more accurately reflect the encounter point with consumers. Finally, only perceptions of service quality were used; perceptions are adequate for explaining the variance in dependent constructs, as opposed to objectively diagnosing actual shortfalls (see Zeithaml et al. 1996). Attribute satisfaction. Attribute satisfaction was operationalized by asking Please rate your satisfaction with the following product attributes of XYZ brand. The 5-point Likert-type scales were anchored by very dissatisfied/ very satisfied. The six attributes were selected on the basis of a pretest exploring important attributes of premium cosmetics. Overall satisfaction. Overall satisfaction was a three-item construct taken from Oliver Likert-type (1980). The 5-point Likert-type scales were anchored by strongly disagree/ strongly agree. Perceived trust. Perceived trust was measured by six items revised from Smith (1997). The items included honesty, reliability, responsibility, and motives/intentions and were rated on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. SAI. Since most scales tapping transaction-specific assets were developed for B2B situations, SAI measures for consumers were developed according to Churchills (1979) recommendations. A pool of items was created by consulting industry experts and cosmetics consumers. For example, the pool included items focusing on consumer product knowledge (e.g., regarding product lines or usage methods), items focusing on salesclerks (e.g., consumers knowledge of, and social relationship with, salesclerks; salesclerks professional knowledge), items focusing on product-consumer fit (e.g., the fit of the brand
FALL 2006
to the consumers skin). All items referred to assets that could be lost if brand usage were terminated (Burnham et al. 2003). Probing for asset specificity usually involves asking whether consumers have invested time, energy, or money specifically to accommodate suppliers (Jap and Ganesan 2000; Joshi and Stump 1999). However, preliminary qualitative work showed that respondents had difficulties in answering these questions. Unlike B2B consumers, most premium cosmetics consumers do not devote much thought to cost or value. To help consumers identify visible and invisible assets, we tried to use phrases emphasizing what the loss of the asset would mean. This probing method produced better reactions from consumers. Therefore, most of the SAI items were rephrased accordingly; four of the final six specifically state, If I switch to other cosmetic brands . . . so that the respondent is aided in identifying the value. The preliminary scales were then pretested with 35 users. Internal consistency and item-to-total correlation analyses showed that one item (concerning salesclerks) did not fit (< .4), and therefore it was dropped. Exploratory factor analysis supported unidimensionality of the final six retained items. Product-market expertise. The five measures of productmarket expertise were adapted from Park et al.s (1994) self-assessed knowledge scales. However, the items were broader, including knowledge of purchase methods and new information. The 5-point Likert-type scales ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty was measured by using scales developed from Selin, Howard, Udd, and Cable (1988) and Muncy (1983) (see also Pritchard et al. 1999). The 5-point Likert-type scales ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The three behavioral loyalty scales were modified from Pritchard et al.s (1999). They tapped future monetary proportion intention, purchase frequency proportion in the past 12 months, and monetary proportion in the past 12 months devoted to XYZ (see appendix). Measurement Model Testing and Results The two-step procedure proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was used. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated construct validity, and then hypotheses were tested. All models used the covariance matrix as input to LISREL 8.5. The CFA results for overall fit were 2(824) = 1,233.14, p = .00; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .98, Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI) = .98, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .041, standardized root mean square residual (RMR) = .046. These indices were acceptable (Bollen 1989; Hoyle and Panter 1995; Hu and Bentler 1995). Convergent validity
TABLE 1 Factor Loadings for Exogenous Constructs

Measurement Model Facility service quality Interactive service quality SQfac1 SQfac2 SQint1 SQint2 SQint3 SQint4 SQint5 SQint6 SQint7 SQint8 Satat1 Satat2 Satat3 Satat4 Satat5 Satat6 PMexp1 PMexp2 PMexp3 PMexp4 PMexp5 Unstandardized Solution (t-values; all at p < .05) 1 1.33 (6.37)x 1 1.02 (12.36) 1.08 (13.74) 1.05 (14.01) 1.02 (12.98) 1.03 (13.14) 1.01 (12.24) 0.99 (11.60) 1 1.18 (13.26) 0.75 (9.32)x 0.57 (6.82)x 0.73 (7.91)x 0.94 (13.20) 1 0.98 (16.72) 1.14 (18.08) 0.99 (16.91) 1.09 (17.31) Completely Standardized Solution .62 .72 .73 .73 .80 .82 .76 .77 .72 .68 .74 .79 .56 .42 .48 .79 .84 .82 .87 .83 .84
Attribute satisfaction
Product-market expertise
was assessed by examining the indicator loadings: all were significant (see Tables 1 and 2, which present the measurement results from the full structural model). In addition, reliabilities were adequate (see appendix). Thus, convergent validity was supported. However, of the 43 measurement estimates, 5 were below 0.65. We did not engage in model trimming by dropping these measures (the main results do not change much in any case). A common test of discriminant validity is determining whether the confidence interval around two constructs correlation includes 1 (Smith and Barclay 1997). None of the 36 included 1. A more conservative test involves comparing models that either free or constrain to 1 the phi value and testing for a significant decrease in fit: in all 36 cases, the overall fit significantly decreased. Therefore, discriminant validity was adequate. RESULTS Overall Structural Model: Tests of the Hypotheses The results for the full structural model were 2(840) = 1,251.99, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .041; RMR = .028 (standardized = .048). The model converged in 16 iterations, and the t-rule for identification holds (Bollen 1989). Overall fit was good. The squared multiple correlations for the structural equations were as follows: trust, .58; satisfaction, .71; SAI, .23; attitudinal
TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Endogenous Constructs

Measurement Model Facility service quality Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 Trust4 Trust5 Trust6 Sat1 Sat2 Sat3 SAI1 SAI2 SAI3 SAI4 SAI5 SAI6 Loyat1 Loyat2 Loyat3 Loyat4 Loybeh1 Loybeh2 Loybeh3 Unstandardized Solution (t-values; all at p < .05) 1 1.09 (14.02) 1.08 (13.15) 1.13 (12.90) 1.08 (12.30) 1.18 (12.78) 1 1.00 (25.02) 1.02 (26.28) 1 1.39 (12.52) 1.41 (13.18) 1.36 (12.74) 1.12 (10.94) 1.04 (11.13) 1 1.16 (18.29) 0.97 (13.92) 0.35 (4.83)x 1 1.27 (13.94) 0.91 (12.71) Completely Standardized Solution .74 .82 .77 .75 .72 .75 .90 .92 .94 .66 .83 .88 .85 .71 .72 .84 .89 .72 .29 .74 .90 .77 Path
TABLE 3 Tests of the Hypotheses

Path Coefficientsa .82 (7.93, p < .05) .13 (1.29, ns)xxix .20 (3.39, p < .05) .56 (7.65, p < .05) .13 (1.43, ns)xxix .19 (3.57, p < .05) .28 (2.94, p < .05) .29 (3.06, p < .05) .39 (5.23, p < .05) .46 (7.42, p < .05) .56 (8.09, p < .05) .16 (5.15, p < .05) .07 (2.83, p < .05) .05 (3.12, p < .05) Completely Standardized .61 .09 .19 .56 .11 .23 .21 .19 .35 .48 .48 .47 .24 .17
Overall satisfaction Specific asset investments
Hypothesis 1: SatatSat Hypothesis 2a: SQfacSat Hypothesis 2b: SQintSat Hypothesis 3: SatatTrust Hypothesis 4a: SQfacTrust Hypothesis 4b: SQintTrust Hypothesis 5: TrustSat Hypothesis 6: TrustLoyat Hypothesis 7: SatLoyat Hypothesis 8: SatSAI Hypothesis 9: SAILoyat Hypothesis 10: SAILoybeh Hypothesis 11: LoyatLoybeh Hypothesis 12: PMexpLoybeh
Attitudinal loyalty
NOTE: Satat = attribute satisfaction; SQfac = facility service quality; SQint = interactive service quality; Sat = overall satisfaction; Trust = perceived trust; PMexp = product-market expertise; Loyat = attitudinal loyalty; SAI = specific asset investment; Loybeh = behavioral loyalty. a. t-value in parentheses.
Behavioral loyalty
loyalty, .72; and behavioral loyalty, .44. Thus, a substantial proportion of variance in each of these constructs is explained. We tested each hypothesis by examining path significance (Table 3). Part A of Table 4 shows the standardized indirect effects, while Part B of Table 4 shows the standardized total effects. The results in Table 3 show that attribute satisfaction significantly influenced perceived trust and overall satisfaction, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 3. In addition, interactive service quality (but not facility service quality) significantly affected perceived trust and overall satisfaction, thus partially supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4. Facility service quality plays no role in the model, as the total effects in Table 4 clearly show (first column in Table 4, Part B). Trust was found to positively affect overall satisfaction (Hypothesis 5) as well as attitudinal loyalty (Hypothesis 6). Hypotheses 7 and 8 were also supported since overall satisfaction was found to influence attitudinal loyalty and SAI. Consistent with Hypotheses 9 and 10, SAI affected both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, and attitudinal loyalty affected behavioral loyalty, supporting Hypothesis 11. Finally, product-market expertise was negatively related to behavioral loyalty (.17, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 12. Other than the column for facility service quality, the t-values for total effects in Part B of Table 4 are all significant at .05 or better, indicating that constructs antecedent in a chain of effects have a significant downstream impact.
For example, attribute satisfaction has (1) a direct effect on overall satisfaction (.61, as per Hypothesis 1, Table 3); (2) an indirect effect on overall satisfaction through trust (.12, as per Table 4, Part A), making a total effect of .73 (Table 4, Part B); and (3) total effects, all of which are indirect, on SAI (.35), attitudinal loyalty (.54), and behavioral loyalty (.29). Competing Models: Examining Other Direct or Indirect Paths Since our goal is to untangle direct versus indirect effects within a complex chain of constructs, it is important to verify that other paths are not significant. One possibility is that the immediate antecedents to the loyalty constructs (i.e., product-market expertise, trust, and overall satisfaction) may directly affect both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. The issue is important because (1) we model attitudinal loyalty as an important mediator of the impacts of trust and satisfaction on behavioral loyalty, and (2) we model product-market expertises impact at the behavioral (not attitudinal) loyalty level. If either proves false, the chain of direct and indirect effects would be significantly different, having major theoretical and practical implications. To test the alternative model, the direct links between (expertise)-(attitudinal loyalty), (overall satisfaction)-(behavioral loyalty), and (trust)(behavioral loyalty) were added. The difference in 2 was not significant, 2(837) = 1,246.94, 2 = 5.05, df = 3, p > .05). Therefore, product-market expertise affects only behavioral loyalty, and trusts and overall satisfactions effects on behavioral loyalty are indirect. In addition,
FALL 2006
TABLE 4 Analysis of Indirect and Total Effects

A. Completely Standardized Indirect Effects (t-values in parentheses) SQfac Trust Sat SAI Loyat Loybeh NA (Hypothesis 4a) 0.02 (ns) 0.03 (ns) 0.01 (ns) 0.02 (ns) SQint NA (Hypothesis 4b) 0.05 (2.31) 0.12 (3.68) 0.19 (4.48) 0.10 (3.80) Satat NA (Hypothesis 3) 0.12 (2.97) 0.35 (6.30) 0.54 (8.98) 0.29 (6.18) Trust NA NA (Hypothesis 5) 0.10 (2.75) 0.12 (2.79) 0.12 (3.34) Sat NA NA NA (Hypothesis 8) 0.23 (6.43) 0.37 (7.18) SAI NA NA NA NA (Hypothesis 9) 0.11 (2.71)
B. Completely Standardized Total Effects (t-values in parentheses) SQfac Trust Sat SAI Loyat Loybeh 0.11 (ns) 0.06 (ns) 0.03 (ns) 0.01 (ns) 0.02 (ns) SQint 0.23 (3.57) 0.24 (4.17) 0.12 (3.68) 0.19 (4.48) 0.10 (3.80) Satat 0.56 (7.65) 0.73 (10.64) 0.35 (6.30) 0.54 (8.98) 0.29 (6.18) Trust NA 0.21 (2.94) 0.10 (2.75) 0.32 (4.52) 0.12 (3.34) Sat NA NA 0.48 (7.42) 0.59 (8.32) 0.37 (7.18) SAI NA NA NA 0.48 (8.09) 0.58 (7.71) Loyat NA NA NA NA 0.24 (2.83)
NOTE: SQfac = facility service quality; SQint = interactive service quality; Satat = attribute satisfaction; Trust = perceived trust; Sat = overall satisfaction; SAI = specific asset investment; Loyat = attitudinal loyalty; Loybeh = behavioral loyalty.
since the antecedents of attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty are different, our contention that these are two different constructs is further supported. Other possible challenges to the hypothesized model are that facility and/or interactive service quality may affect loyalty directly or that attribute satisfaction may affect loyalty directly (i.e., that these effects are not mediated by other constructs such as overall satisfaction). To test this assertion, the links from service quality (both facility and interactive) and attribute satisfaction to attitudinal and behavioral loyalty were freed (six new paths). The results show that the difference in chi-square was not significant, 2(834) = 1,246.26, 2 = 5.73, df = 6, p > .05). Freeing the links from service quality and from attribute satisfaction in separate models leads to the same conclusion. Thus, service quality and attribute satisfaction affect attitudinal and behavioral loyalty indirectly through overall satisfaction and trust. DISCUSSION This study proposed an integrated framework explaining loyalty responses in high-involvement, high-service premium product markets. The model is rooted in the traditional (attribute satisfaction)-(overall satisfaction)(loyalty) chain but explicitly differentiated attitudinal
from behavioral loyalty and incorporated (1) facility versus interactive service quality to account for the highservice component in these product markets; (2) trust and SAI to reflect high-end cosmetics consumers demand for credence and involvement; and (3) productmarket expertise, which was modeled as an exogenous control variable inversely affecting only behavioral loyalty. The results supported the core traditional chain but also supported the roles of service quality, trust, and SAI in increasing consumers loyalty. We focused on disentangling the direct versus indirect effects of model constructs, and these results are discussed in the following sections. The Effects of Service Quality and Attribute Satisfaction The results show that attribute satisfaction and interactive service quality (but not facility service quality) generate overall satisfaction and trust. Of these four relationships, only the (attribute satisfaction)-(overall satisfaction) link forms part of the traditional B2C chain, while the other links have some counterparts in the B2B or services literatures. The impact of service quality was predictable in our high-involvement, high-service premium product market, but this is not necessarily true in product markets that have lower service content.
Supporting Ganesh et al.s (2000) assertion, interactive service quality (it is termed people factor in their study) has a stronger impact on overall satisfaction than facility service quality dimensions. The encounters with service personnel appear to be key to a consumers overall satisfaction and, as our results show, to overall trust. Facility service quality, however, had no impact in our model. One possible reason is that almost all sales counters of premium cosmetics brands are modern and appealing, and hence facilities do not differentiate competitors. In other contexts with higher variance in facilities (such as restaurants), facility service quality may indeed be a driver for trust and satisfaction (or at least a driver for reducing dissatisfaction). This, as well as the impact of other types of service quality, remains for future research. Neither attribute satisfaction nor service quality had any direct effects on attitudinal or behavioral loyalty; rather, these effects were indirect through trust, overall satisfaction, and asset specificity. However, these results do not suggest that marketers can ignore the details of attribute satisfaction and interactive service quality by focusing only on overall satisfaction or other intermediate links in the chain. The antecedents matter; for example, these antecedents effects on perceived trust show marketers how to build trustworthy images to reduce moral hazard issues in the exchange relationship. The Effects of Trust, Satisfaction, and Asset Specificity (SAI) We found that trust affects overall satisfaction. As in Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000), we defined trust as a cognitive construct and hence argued that it precedes overall satisfaction, which we defined as affective (following Oliver 1999). Our arguments were rooted in the transaction costs associated with adverse selection and moral hazard, concepts originating in the B2B literature and applicable to the high-involvement, high-service product markets considered in this research. Nonetheless, in low-involvement contexts where an affective-cognitive causal ordering may dominate, trust may be the consequence of overall satisfaction. Causal ordering contingent on high- versus low-involvement context is an area for future research on trust in consumer markets. Our results show that both trust and overall satisfaction affect attitudinal loyalty. The effect of overall satisfaction on attitudinal loyalty is not new, of course. However, our research demonstrates the pervasive effects of trust, effects that are both direct on attitudinal loyalty and indirect through satisfaction, resulting in a total standardized effect of .32 on attitudinal loyalty. Marketers of highinvolvement, high-service premium products should not neglect building trust, whose domain was defined in this research as the total experience with the brand/company. We did not define trust on an attribute basis, such as in
trust that the antiwrinkle skin cream will reduce under-eye wrinkles. Although standard in the trust literature, our approach may be a limitation in understanding the exact nature of trust because only some attributes may be credence attributes. A more disaggregated conceptualization and measurement of trust may be theoretically and managerially valuable. Next, neither trust nor overall satisfaction directly affects behavioral loyalty; rather, these effects are significant but indirect through attitudinal loyalty (which precedes behavioral loyalty in our high-involvement context, exactly as the traditional chains ordering suggests). Stated differently, our results show that attitudinal versus behavioral loyalties have different antecedent chains. This means that it is not advisable to focus exclusively on attitudinal loyalty constructs for managerial or theoretical insight. Our investigation of SAI yielded several interesting insights. This study developed a SAI scale for high-end cosmetics, but the scales direct usefulness is limited to cosmetics products. Our approach to SAI scale development may be generalizable, however; highlighting what the consumer would lose, it appeared to be better received than the common B2B approach. This approach to SAI requires investigation using other high-involvement, highservice product markets. Overall, each product category may involve unique SAIs, but it may be possible to develop a general SAI scale at a higher conceptual level if core commonalities can be found. Brand knowledge SAI could be such a core commonality. We found that SAI is influenced by overall satisfaction and that SAI has separate direct effects on both attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Thus, the total effect of SAI on behavioral loyalty is direct and indirect through attitudinal loyalty. This total standardized effect was 0.58, as compared to satisfactions total effect of 0.37 (which was second in rank order); this result may be of some importance to marketers in similar product market contexts. Satisfactions total effect on behavioral loyalty operates through SAI and attitudinal loyalty. Marketers encourage consumer SAI to increase switching cost and thus enhance consumers attitudinal and behavioral loyalty; our results support such a strategy. However, we focused only on consumer SAI. Although consumer SAI is important in causing dependency and discouraging switching behavior, mutual specific investment and mutual dependency may further increase the stability of the relationship. A supplier making idiosyncratic investments is unlikely to engage in opportunistic behavior, and the willingness to make such investments provides signals that providers are sincere (Ganesan 1994; Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000). Therefore, the investment of idiosyncratic assets by the supplier can induce SAI on the part of the consumer. These kinds of mutual idiosyncratic investments have been explored in
FALL 2006
B2B marketing (e.g., Jap and Ganesan 2000; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992), and it is important that they be researched in the consumer field. This studys approach shares similarities with that of relationship marketing studies. Research in relationship marketing explains the benefits of engaging in long-term buyer-seller relationships (cf. Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner 1998), such as confidence, social, and special-treatment benefits. All these benefits will increase consumers loyalty toward a provider. The confidence benefit is similar to the trust benefit in this research, while the social- and specialtreatment benefits are encompassed in the concept of SAI. Asset specificity emphasizes the nonredeployable investment in the relationship made by one party, but consumers will reduce switching behavior only if they perceive that the benefits received are specific to the supplier. For example, if social-treatment benefits are from a particular employee, then consumers may follow if that employee switches to another company; if the special-treatment benefits can be copied, then consumers may lose less by switching. The Effects of Product-Market Expertise This study confirmed that in high-involvement, highservice product markets, consumers with more productmarket expertise are less behaviorally loyal (i.e., this relationship was inverse). Loyalty research should control for this effect. Note that expertise was defined in relation to the product market as a whole and not in relation to the brand specifically (i.e., this is not brand knowledge). For some product markets that are considered inherently of low involvement overall, high expertise may signal highinvolvement processing on the part of some consumers: in this case, product-market expertise could be a moderator of model relationships. Finally, product-market expertise had no impact on attitudinal loyalty, which further demonstrates that attitudinal versus behavioral loyalty are different constructs with different antecedents. Our result is consonant with the results by Mittal and Kamakura (2001) and may actually provide an explanation for their results. The finding of a negative relationship
also supports the emphasis of various consumer and governmental organizations on informing and educating the consumer: informed consumers are less behaviorally loyal and thus as a group may encourage competition, thereby improving quality and reducing prices over the long term. However, the finding calls into question whether it is a good idea for marketers to engage in informing and educating, such as producing comparative print ads with extensive direct comparisons to competitors on numerous product attributes. If the marketer is tracking only attitudinal loyalty measures, the possible reduction in behavioral loyalty may be under the radar. Conclusion Trust and consumer satisfaction are the seeds for behavioral loyalty not only because they increase attitudinal loyalty in a high-involvement, high-service product market but also because they directly or indirectly persuade the consumer to invest in specific assets. Marketers should not count on satisfaction alone to induce consumers to invest in specific assets: they should try to devise creative marketing programs that permit and encourage consumers to make SAIs. Loyalty programs and properly trained personnel are but two examples. In the future, database assets may prove critical. Marketers can build up a consumer database to accumulate data on past usage, purchases, complaining behaviors, and returns. For example, Amazon.com uses database information to determine which product and purchase information should go to which consumer; if a consumer switches, other online sellers will not have this consumer knowledge. Similarly, eBays credit system is a vehicle to increase asset specificity: the greater the number of favorable transaction records a seller or a buyer accumulates, the higher eBays credit ranking (which is lost upon switching). Database information increases the marketers ability to improve the exchange, enables the marketer to avoid unprofitable exchanges (e.g., limiting excessive returns), and the database itself can be an idiosyncratic asset for the marketer and consumer alike.
APPENDIX Measurement
Construct Facility Service Quality ( = .62) Interactive Service Quality ( = .91) Item SQfac1 SQfac2 SQint1 SQint2 SQint3 SQint4 SQint5 Scale 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 Measurea XYZ brands sales counter facilities are visually appealing XYZ brand has modern-looking equipment When you have a problem, XYZ brand shows a sincere interest in solving it XYZ brand performs the service right the first time Salesclerks at XYZ sales counters give you prompt service Salesclerks at XYZ sales counters are never too busy to respond to your requests Salesclerks at XYZ sales counters are consistently courteous
APPENDIX (continued)
Construct Item SQint6 SQint7 SQint8 Satat 1 Satat 2 Satat 3 Satat 4 Satat 5 Satat 6 PMexp1 PMexp2 PMexp3 PMexp4 PMexp5 Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 Trust4 Trust5 Trust6 Sat1 Sat2 Sat3 SAI1 SAI2 SAI3 SAI4 SAI5 SAI6 Loyat1 Loyat2 Loyat3 Loyat4 Loybeh1 Scale 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 (b) Measurea Salesclerks at XYZ sales counters can answer your questions Salesclerks at XYZ sales counters understand your specific needs XYZ brand shows a sincere interest in solving problems Please rate your satisfaction level on product quality Please rate your satisfaction level on product effectiveness Please rate your satisfaction level on product variety Please rate your satisfaction level on product packages Please rate your satisfaction level on product odor Please rate your satisfaction level on overall quality Compared to average people, I know cosmetics well Compared to average people, I thoroughly understand how to purchase cosmetic products I have broad exposure to cosmetic product-related information I know cosmetic products thoroughly I know all kinds of new information regarding cosmetic products XYZ brand is very honest XYZ brand is very reliable XYZ brand is responsible XYZ brand understands consumers XYZ brand is always professional XYZ brand acts with good intentions I am happy about my decision to choose XYZ brand I believe I did the right thing when I used XYZ brand Overall, I am satisfied with the decision to use XYZ brand If I switch to other cosmetics brands, I have to spend a lot of time explaining my cosmetics usage behavior to the salesclerks Cosmetic products from other brands may not fit my skin well because I believe that my skin is used to XYZ brand If I switch to other cosmetics brands, I have to spend a lot of time understanding how to use their products If I switch to other cosmetics brands, I have to spend a lot of time understanding their product lines If I switch to other cosmetics brands, I will lose social relationships with XYZ salesclerks and have to start new ones with new brands I dont think that other cosmetic brands are as congruent with my image as XYZ cosmetics If I had to do it over again, I would choose XYZ brand I try to use XYZ brand because it is the best choice for me I consider myself to be a loyal patron of XYZ brand To me, XYZ brand is the same as other cosmetics brands (reversed) If you had $100 to buy cosmetics at this moment, how much would you spend on XYZ cosmetic products? (Scale was calculated by monetary proportion devoted to XYZ cosmetics brand.) Times purchasing XYZ cosmetics in the past 12 months (divided by times purchasing any cosmetic products) $ amount devoted to XYZ cosmetics in the past 12 months (divided by $ amount devoted to any cosmetic products)
Attribute Satisfaction ( = .80)
Product Market Expertise ( = .92)
Perceived Trust ( = .89)
Overall Satisfaction ( = .94) Specific Asset Investments (SAIs) ( = .90)
Attitudinal Loyalty ( = .77)
Behavioral Loyalty ( = .84)
Loybeh2 Loybeh3
(b) (b)
a. XYZ brand substitutes for the real name. b. These proportions were calculated by the researchers from behaviors reported in response to open-ended questions.
REFERENCES
Adelson, Beth. 1984. When Novices Surpass Experts: The Difficulty of a Task May Increase With Expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10 (July): 483-495. Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Akerlof, George A. 1970. The Market for Lemons: Qualitative Uncertainty and the Market Mechanisms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (August): 488-500. Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411-454.
Anderson, Eugene W. and Mary W. Sullivan. 1993. The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Marketing Science 12 (Spring): 125-143. Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411-423. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku and Haiyang Li. 2002. When Does Trust Matter? Antecedents and Contingent Effects of Supervisee Trust on Performance in Selling New Products in China and the United States. Journal of Marketing 66 (Spring): 61-81. Bagozzi, Richard P. 1992. The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2): 178-204.
FALL 2006
Bansal, Harvir S., Shirley F. Taylor, and Yannik St. James. 2005. Migrating to New Service Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers Switching Behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (Winter): 96-115. Berry, Leonard L. and A. Parasuraman. 1991. Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality. New York: Free Press. Bitner, Mary Jo. 1990. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing 54 (April): 69-82. and Amy R. Hubbert. 1994. Encounter Satisfaction Versus Overall Satisfaction Versus Quality. In Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Eds. R. T. Rust and R. L. Oliver. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 72-94. Bolan, Cristen. 2005. Not Just Any Luxury Shopper. Global Cosmetic Industry 173 (October): 28-30. Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley. Bolton, Ruth N. 1998. A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customers Relationship With a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction. Marketing Science 17 (1): 45-65. , P. K. Kannan, and Matthew D. Bramlett. 2000. Implications of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experiences for Customer Retention and Value. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 28 (Winter): 95-108. and Katherine N. Lemon. 1999. A Dynamic Model of Customers Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and Consequence of Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (May): 171-186. , , and Peter C. Verhoef. 2004. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Customer Asset Management: A Framework and Propositions for Future Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (Summer): 271-292. Brady, Michael K. and L. Joseph Cronin Jr. 2001. Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach. Journal of Marketing 65 (July): 34-49. Burnham, Thomas A., Judy K. Frels, and Vijay Mahajan. 2003. Consumer Switching Costs: A Typology, Antecedents, and Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (Spring): 109-126. Capraro, Anthony J., Susan Broniarczyk, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 2003. Factors Influencing the Likelihood of Customer Defection: The Role Consumer Knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (Spring): 164-175. Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier. 1990. Origins and Functions of Positive and Negative Affect: A Control-Process View. Psychological Review 97 (January): 19-35. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris Holbrook. 2001. The Chain of Effects From Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65 (April): 81-93. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 64-73. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr. and Steven A. Taylor. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing 56 (July): 55-68. Day, George S. 1969. A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research 9 (September): 29-35. Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu. 1994. Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 22 (Summer): 99-113. DiMaggio, Paul and Hugh Louch. 1998. Socially Embedded Consumer Transactions: For What Kinds of Purchases Do People Most Often Use Networks? American Sociological Review 63 (5): 619-637. Doney, Patricia M. and Joseph P. Cannon. 1997. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing 61 (April): 35-51. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14 (November): 57-74. Ellison, Sarah and Geoffrey A. Fowler. 2004. Aisle 9 to Saks: P&G Brings Its $130 Skin Treatment to U.S. Wall Street Journal, Marketplace Section, March 12, p. B1. Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fornell, Claes. 1992. A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience. Journal of Marketing 56 (January): 6-21. , Michael D. Johnson, Eugene W. Anderson, Jaesung Cha, and Barbara Everitt Bryant. 1996. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 1-13. Frank, Ronald E. 1967. Correlates of Buying Behavior for Grocery Products. Journal of Marketing 31 (October): 48-53. Ganesan, Shankar. 1994. Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing 58 (April): 1-19. and Ron Hess. 1997. Dimensions and Levels of Trust: Implications for Commitment to a Relationship. Marketing Letters 8 (4): 439-448. Ganesh, Jaishankar, Mark J. Arnold, and Kristy E. Reynolds. 2000. Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers: An Examination of the Differences Between Switchers and Stayers. Journal of Marketing 64 (July): 65-87. Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson. 1999. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing 63 (April): 70-87. Gotlieb, Jerry B., Dhruv Grewal, and Stephen W. Brown. 1994. Customer Satisfaction and Perceived Quality: Complementary or Divergent Constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (6): 875-885. Gwinner, Kevin, Dwayne Gremler, and Mary Jo Bitner. 1998. Relational Benefits in Service Industries: The Customers Perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (Spring): 101-114. Hauser, J. R., D. I. Simester, and B. Wernerfelt. 1994. Customer Satisfaction Incentives. Marketing Science 13 (4): 327-350. Heide, Jan B. and George John. 1988. The Role of Dependency Balancing in Safeguarding Transaction-Specific Assets in Conventional Channel. Journal of Marketing 52 (January): 20-35. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2002. Understanding Relationship Marketing Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality. Journal of Service Research 4 (3): 230-247. Homburg, Christian, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D. Hoyer. 2005. Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay. Journal of Marketing 69 (April): 84-96. Hoyle, Rick H. and Abigail T. Panter. 1995. Writing About Structural Equation Modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling. Ed. Rick H. Hoyle. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 158-76. Hu, Li-Tze and Peter M. Bentler. 1995. Evaluating Model Fit. In Structural Equation Modeling. Ed. Rick H. Hoyle. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 76-99. Jap, Sandy D. and Shanker Ganesan. 2000. Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (May): 227-245. Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty. 2000. Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services. Journal of Retailing 76 (2): 259-274. and Jaebeom Suh. 2000. Transaction-Specific Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Services Marketing 14 (2): 147-159. Jones, Thomas O. and W. Earl Sasser Jr. 1995. Why Satisfied Customers Defect. Harvard Business Review 73 (November/December): 88-99. Joshi, Ashwin W. and Rodney L. Stump. 1999. The Contingent Effect of Specific Asset Investment on Joint Action in ManufacturerSupplier Relationships: An Empirical Test of the Moderating Role of Reciprocal Asset Investment, Uncertainty, and Trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (Summer): 291-305. Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson. 1992. First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions. Journal of Marketing 56 (October): 33-52. Kirmani Amna and Akshay R. Rao. 2000. No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality. Journal of Marketing 64 (April): 66-79. Klemperer, Paul. 1987. Markets With Consumer Switching Costs. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (May): 375-394. Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Jonathan, Janghyuk Lee, and Lawrence Feick. 2001. The Impact of Switching Costs on the Customer Satisfaction-Loyalty Link: Mobile Phone Service in France. Journal of Service Marketing 15 (January): 35-48. Lee, Moonkyu and Lawrence F. Cunningham. 2001. A Cost/Benefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty. Journal of Service Marketing 15 (November): 113-130. Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura. 2001. Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (February): 131-142. Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. The CommitmentTrust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (July): 20-38. Muncy, James D. 1983. An Investigation of Two-Dimensional Conceptualization of Brand Loyalty. Ph.D. dissertation. Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Oliver, Richard L. 1980. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (November): 460-469. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 1999. Whence Consumer Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 33-44. Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. 1994. Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research. Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 111-124. Park, C. Whan, David L. Mothersbaugh, and Lawrence Feick. 1994. Customer Knowledge Assessment. Journal of Customer Research 21 (January): 71-82. Patterson, Paul G. 2000. A Contingency Approach to Modeling Satisfaction With Management Consulting Services. Journal of Service Research 3 (November): 138-153. Pritchard, Mark P., Mark E. Havitz, and Dennis R. Howard. 1999. Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (Summer): 333-348. Prasso, Sheridan. 2005. Battle for the Face of China. Fortune, December 12, pp. 156-178. Reichheld, Frederick. 1996. The Loyalty Effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2001. Lead for Loyalty. Harvard Business Review VOLUME (July-August): 76-84. Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn B. Mervis, Wayne D. Gray, David M. Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 8 (July): 382-439. Schoenfeld, Alan H. and Douglas L. Herrmann. 1982. Problem Perception and Knowledge Structure in Expert and Novice Mathematical Problem Solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 8 (September): 484-494. Selin, Steven, Dennis R. Howard, Edward Udd, and Ted Cable. 1988. An Analysis of Consumer Loyalty to Municipal Recreation Programs. Leisure Science 10 (3): 217-223. Sharma, Neeru and Paul G. Patterson. 2000. Switching Costs, Alternative Attractiveness and Experience as Moderators of Relationship Commitment in Professional, Consumer Services. International Journal of Service Industry Management 11 (November): 470-490. Singh, Jagdip and Deepak Sirdeshmukh. 2000. Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (Winter): 150-167. Sitkin, Sim and Nancy Roth. 1993. Examining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic Remedies for Trust/Distrust. Organization Science 4 (August): 367-392. Smith, J. Brock. 1997. Selling Alliances: Issues and Insights. Industrial Marketing Management 26 (2): 146-161. and Donald W. Barclay. 1997. The Effects of Organizational Differences and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Partner Relationships. Journal of Marketing 61 (January): 3-21. Spekman, Robert E. 1988. Perceptions of Strategic Vulnerability Among Industrial Buyers and Its Effect on Information Search and Supplier Evaluation. Journal of Business Research 17 (4): 313-326.
Spreng, Richard A., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1996. A Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60 (July): 15-32. Stauss, Bernd, Klaus Chojnacki, Alexander Decker, and Frank Hoffmann. 2001. Retention Effects of a Customer Club. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12 (November): 7-19. Taylor, Steven A. and Thomas L. Baker. 1994. An Assessment of the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Customers Purchase Intentions. Journal of Retailing 70 (2): 163-178. Teas, R. Kenneth. 1993. Expectations, Performance Evaluation, and Customers Perceptions of Quality. Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 18-34. Thibault, John W. and Harold H. Kelley. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley. Trawick, Fredrick and John E. Swan. 1981. Satisfaction Related to Predictive vs. Desired Expectation. In New Finding on Customer Satisfaction and Complaining. Eds. Ralph Day and Keith Hunt. Bloomington: Indiana University School of Business, 7-12. Wernerfelt, Birger. 1985. Brand Loyalty and User Skills. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 6 (December): 381-385. Westbrook, Robert A. 1981. Sources of Satisfaction With Retail Outlets. Journal of Retailing 57 (Fall): 68-85. White, Susan S. and Benjamin Schneider. 2000. Climbing the Commitment Ladder. Journal of Service Research 2 (February): 240-253. Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press. . 1991. Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization. Strategic Management Journal 12 (Special Issue): 75-94. Wilson, Charles. 1980. The Nature of Equilibrium in Markets With Adverse Selection. Bell Journal of Economics 11 (1): 108-130. Woodside, Arch G.., Lisa L. Frey, and Robert T. Daly. 1989. Linking Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Health Care Marketing 9 (December): 5-17. Zeithaml, Valerie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1996. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (April): 31-46.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jyh-Shen Chiou (jschiou@nccu.edu.tw) (PhD in marketing, Michigan State University) is a professor of marketing in the Department of International Business at National Chengchi University, Taipei. His research interests include satisfaction and loyalty, strategic marketing, and international marketing. His work has been published in the Journal of Service Research, Psychology & Marketing, the European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Interactive Marketing, Information & Management, the Journal of Social Psychology, the Journal of Business Logistics, Advances in Consumer Research, and other scholarly journals. He has taught courses in marketing research, strategic marketing, and global marketing. Cornelia Droge (droge@msu.edu) is a professor of marketing in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, at Michigan State University. Her research interests focus on satisfaction/ loyalty and strategic marketing (especially areas related to the interface of marketing with logistics, supply chain, and operations). Her work has appeared in Management Science, the Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Business Logistics, the Journal of Operations Management, the Journal of Product Innovation Management, and other scholarly journals. She is also coauthor of three books.

Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science-2006-Chiou-613-27

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science-2006-Chiou-613-27

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Academy of Marketing Science

>> Version of Record - Sep 6, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

614 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 615

FIGURE 1 Research Model Framework

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

616 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 617

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

618 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 619

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

620 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings for Exogenous Constructs

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 621

TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Endogenous Constructs

TABLE 3 Tests of the Hypotheses

Overall satisfaction Specific asset investments

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

622 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

TABLE 4 Analysis of Indirect and Total Effects

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 623

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

624 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 625

Attribute Satisfaction ( = .80)

Product Market Expertise ( = .92)

Perceived Trust ( = .89)

Overall Satisfaction ( = .94) Specific Asset Investments (SAIs) ( = .90)

Attitudinal Loyalty ( = .77)

Behavioral Loyalty ( = .84)

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

626 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Chiou, Droge / CONSUMER SATISFACTION 627

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com by guest on December 10, 2011

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi