g model article in press - isihome · g model article in press hm-1160; no.of pages10 international...

H

Wv

HD

a

KCLSVPF

1

tcilsettbssq

aaerisr

0d

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelM-1160; No. of Pages 10

International

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

jou rn al hom epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

hy do satisfied customers switch? Focus on the restaurant patronariety-seeking orientation and purchase decision involvement

yo Sun Jung1, Hye Hyun Yoon ∗

epartment of Culinary Service Management, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:ustomer satisfactionoyaltywitching intentariety-seeking orientationurchase decision involvement

a b s t r a c t

Company efforts to make customers switch from competitive brands to their own or induce them torepurchase their own brands are very important in their marketing activities and in this regard stud-ies of customer variety-seeking orientation and level of involvement in decision making play a crucialrole in explaining customers’ product selection activities. The purpose of this study intends to examineinterrelationships among customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent in family restaurants and

Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

amily restaurant verify the moderating effect of customer variety-seeking orientation and purchase decision involvement.A total of 305 patrons in Korea participated. The results showed a positive relationship between customersatisfaction and loyalty. Participants expressing a high level of satisfaction were more likely to switchrestaurants. Whether customers feel loyalty determines their switching intent. There were moderatingeffects related to customer variety-seeking orientation in the causal relationships between customerloyalty and switching intent. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

. Introduction

Under the current circumstances, where there are more cus-omers loyal to multiple brands than those loyal to a single brand,ustomer satisfaction alone does not guarantee loyalty and switch-ng intent is unpredictable. The reason is that customer satisfaction,oyalty, and switching intent are closely related, but their relation-hip is not linear (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Finn, 2005; Homburgt al., 2005) and enhanced satisfaction does not necessarily leado increased loyalty and reduced switching intent. Satisfied cus-omers may still engage in switching behaviors. This happensecause customers feel different levels of satisfaction due to thechema they form from their knowledge, experiences, and dispo-ition (Kahneman and Snell, 1992). This study was motivated by auestion – why satisfied customers make switching behaviors.

Of course, customer satisfaction is the most importantntecedent factor in loyalty and switching intent, but that therere still those who switch despite their increased satisfaction. Lit-rature suggests that diverse variables play moderating roles in theelationship between customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching

Please cite this article in press as: Jung, H.S., Yoon, H.H., Why do satiseeking orientation and purchase decision involvement. Int. J. Hospita

ntent. Studies considering these variables should be conducted. Ifuch studies concluded that satisfied customers switch and if theeasons are customers’ personal traits, such as pursuit of diver-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 961 9403; fax: +82 2 964 2537.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.S. Jung), [email protected] (H.H. Yoon).

1 Tel.: +82 2 961 2321; fax: +82 2 964 2537.

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

sity or the level of involvement in decision making, they wouldpresent good suggestions for corporate-level marketing to main-tain existing customers. Customers who pursue diversity and aredeeply involved in decision making in their process of searchingfor services are less likely to have their former purchase behaviorslead to repurchase and their loyalty is negatively affected by suchpersonal traits (Kahn et al., 1986). In customer purchase behaviors,their pursuit of diversity or level of involvement in purchase deci-sion making are related to their will to make choices different frompast, consistent behaviors and are considered to have importantmeanings in the causation between their satisfaction, loyalty, andswitching intent.

As competition in the restaurant industry is becoming veryfierce and as maintenance of existing customers is a crucial basis forobtaining continuous competitive advantage over other businesses,the significance of defensive marketing strategies as opposed toaggressive marketing strategies for attracting new customers isgrowing (Kim, 2009). Reichheld and Sasser (1990) noted that a5% reduction in customer defection resulted in a 25% increase inearning rates, and Griddin (1995) said that maintaining existingcustomers led to a reduction of costs more than five times as muchas attracting new customers, suggesting that preventing switchingbehaviors is important.

So far, studies have consistently adhered to the position that

sfied customers switch? Focus on the restaurant patron variety-lity Manage. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

satisfied customers had high loyalty and intent to revisit; thesuggestion has been that companies should concentrate on cre-ating customers that have a high degree of satisfaction and loyalty(Bolton and Lemon, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000). Other studies have

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784319

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ARTICLE ING ModelHM-1160; No. of Pages 10

2

feo(Nsoibitm1iivtc

2

2

oCptppticsvatafRiwsReew

H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Ho

Fig. 1. A proposed model of customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent.

ocused on analyzing the effect of customer variety-seeking ori-ntation and the degree of involvement in their decision makingn brand selection, the last stage of purchase decision makingMenon and Kahn, 1995; Mitra, 1995; Mitra and Lyunch, 1995).one have examined the moderating effect of customer variety-

eeking orientation and degree of involvement in decision makingn causation between customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switchingntent, as reasons for nonlinearity of the causation. Studies haveeen confined to those on retailers selling ordinary goods and it

s time to study restaurants. The reason is that the organic causa-ion between customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent

ay vary according to structures of industries (Jones and Sasser,995) or types of industries (Fullerton and Taylor, 2002). This study

ntends to examine the organic causation between customer sat-sfaction, loyalty, and switching intent in family restaurants anderify the moderating effect of customer variety-seeking orienta-ion and level of involvement in purchase decision making on suchausation (Fig. 1).

. Literature review and conceptual model

.1. Relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty

Customer satisfaction is a buyer’s estimation, based on purchasef products and related experiences (Howard and Sheth, 1969).ustomer loyalty is a buyer’s attachment or deep commitment to aroduct, service, brand, or organization (Oliver, 1999). When cus-omers feel satisfied with goods or services provided by serviceroviders, the higher their degree of satisfaction is, the higher theossibility they will have an economic exchange or mutual rela-ionship with a certain company (Dwyer et al., 1987). The reasons that customers tend to maintain continuous relationships withompanies that provide a high level of satisfaction (Kasper, 1988);atisfied customers repetitively purchase the same goods or ser-ices and have a propensity for resisting competitive goods (Croninnd Taylor, 1992; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993). Satisfied customersry to maintain a close relationship with their preferred companiesnd become loyal to them; customer satisfaction is an importantactor in customer loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994; Fornell et al., 1994).eichheld and Sasser (1990) concluded that a company’s profitabil-

ty was determined by customer loyalty and customer satisfactionas a key factor in maintaining customers, and that companies

hould provide goods and services of high quality. Bloemer and


uyter (1998) said that customer loyalty was most greatly influ-nced by customer satisfaction and Reichheld and Schefter (2000)mphasized that for a service provider, customer switching costsere low and customer defection occurred easily, and therefore

PRESS

the company should maintain customers’ loyalty and keep a long-term relationship with them in order to enhance their satisfaction.Gustafsson et al. (2005) and Lin and Wang (2006) assumed apositive linear relationship between customer satisfaction and loy-alty. Many other studies (Oliver, 1997; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999;Bolton et al., 2000; Lee, 2003; Sui and Baloglu, 2003; Chiou andShen, 2006) noted that customer satisfaction was an antecedentvariable to induce customer loyalty. Based on the results of theseprevious studies, this study assumed that customer satisfactionwould positively influence customer loyalty and established thefollowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Customer satisfaction is positively related to loy-alty.

2.2. Relationship between customer satisfaction and switchingintent

Customer switching intent means the possibility of transfer-ring their existing transactions with a company to a competitor(Dekimpe et al., 1997). While customer payment intent increaseswhen they feel a certain level of satisfaction (Lind and Tyler, 1988),dissatisfied customers’ intent to maintain payment decreases,which ultimately leads to switching intent (Homburg et al., 2005).Oliver (1981), and Bearden and Teel (1983) said that customer satis-faction and switching intent had a negative relationship; Keaveney(1995) noted that customer dissatisfaction was the most essen-tial factor for switching of service providers (Ganesh et al., 2000),and Han et al. (2011) noted that satisfied customers always hadlow switching intent, stressing the negative relationship betweencustomer satisfaction and switching intent (Anderson and Sullivan,1993). Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992) showed a contrast-ing viewpoint, in that customers did not switch stores due totheir dissatisfaction, but rather they switched behaviors to try newthings; switching behaviors may happen despite their satisfaction.Reichheld (1993) said that customer satisfaction did not alwayslead to customer maintenance and even satisfied customers contin-uously switched brands (Bitner, 1990) and did complaint behaviors(Halstead and Page, 1992). Fullerton and Taylor (2002) noted thatcustomer switching intent decreased only after customer satis-faction reached a certain threshold and they may have switchingintent before their satisfaction reached the threshold. Yoon and Bae(2010) examined the nonlinear relationship between customer sat-isfaction and defection intent and Durukan et al. (2011) concludedthat customer satisfaction and switching intent had a significantpositive relationship. Even satisfied customers may switch compa-nies, and based on these results, this study assumed that customersatisfaction would positively affect customer switching intent andestablished the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Customer satisfaction is positively related to theswitching intent.

2.3. Relationship between customer loyalty and switching intent

Mittal and Lassar (1998) suggested that customer loyalty andswitching intent were two-sided concepts and low switching intentmeant high loyalty. Lattin and McAlister (1985) stated that cus-tomer loyalty and switching intent should be understood as havinga complementary relationship. Bansal and Taylor (1999) said thatcustomers that were not satisfied with a certain company andhad low loyalty were very likely to switch companies. Kotlerand Gertner (2002) stated that loyal customers did not have any

spitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx


switching intent, and Lee and Murphy (2006) asserted that cus-tomer loyalty resulted from customer satisfaction and customerswith high loyalty had reduced switching intent. In consequence,when customers become loyal to a certain company, they spend

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ING ModelH

mdas

Hs

2a

vibaatfttiimoia

cnsssasitrisptpvs

titieiblicYlOioobbmh

l of Ho

ARTICLEM-1160; No. of Pages 10

H.S.

ore money than less loyal customers and their switching intentecreases. Based on the results of these previous studies, this studyssumed that customer loyalty would negatively affect customerwitching intent and established the following hypothesis:

ypothesis 3. Customer loyalty is negatively related to thewitching intent.

.4. Moderating effects of customer variety-seeking orientationnd purchase decision involvement

Regarding the behaviors of switching brands or stores, customerariety-seeking orientation means that the possibility of purchas-ng a specific brand reduces the possibility of buying the samerand in future consumption situations (Kahn, 1995; Ratneshwarnd Mick, 2005). The reason why customers pursue diversity in

consumption situation is that they want to experience some-hing new or their hedonic motive is stronger than their motiveor benefits (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Meanwhile, the cus-omer level of involvement in purchase decision making refers tohe feeling of personal relevance to an object or level of interestn it (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Peter and Olson, 1996). When customernvolvement in purchasing a certain product is high, they show

uch interest in their decision making process and seek a lotf information on the product; as a result, such a high level ofnvolvement greatly influences their future behaviors (Homburgnd Giering, 2001).

Hirschman (1970) noted that in a consumption situation,ustomer variety-seeking orientation was a motive for seekingewness, Hoyer and Ridgway (1984) explained that a variety-eeking orientation was a crucial factor in purchase behaviors. In atudy with similar concepts, Simonson (1990) asserted that diver-ity crucially affected customer switching behaviors. Steenkampnd Baumgartner (1992) noted that because customers showedwitching behaviors to attempt something new, switching behav-ors may occur in satisfied customers as well, suggesting thatheir variety-seeking orientation played a moderating role in theelationship between customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switchingntent. Kim (2009) agreed that although the more customers wereatisfied with a service, the more likely they revisited the servicerovider, customers who had a high variety-seeking orientationended to seek new stimuli and they were apt to switch serviceroviders. The above results suggest that in customers with lowariety-seeking orientation, their satisfaction with a product or aervice leads to their intent to revisit a provider.

In a consumption situation, customers’ level of involvement inheir purchase decision making affects their behaviors, just like sat-sfaction and loyalty (Novak et al., 2000). Kokkinaki (1999) said thathe higher the customer level of involvement, the more detailednformation on a product or service they wanted and the moreffort they made in selecting a product, resulting in positive sat-sfaction. Homburg and Giering (2001) said that the relationshipetween customer satisfaction and loyalty was moderated by their

evel of involvement and, compared to those with high level ofnvolvement, customers with low level of involvement showed alose relationship between their satisfaction and loyalty. Suh andi (2006) argued that causation between customer satisfaction and

oyalty was moderated by their level of involvement, and Tuu andlsen (2010) verified that customer level of involvement had a pos-

tive moderating effect on causation between satisfaction, intentf repurchase, and loyalty. Based on the results of these previ-us studies, this study assumed that in a restaurant, causation

Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journa


etween customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent woulde moderated by variety-seeking orientation and level of involve-ent in purchase decision making, and established the following

ypotheses

PRESS

Hypothesis 4. The links among customer satisfaction, loyalty, andswitching intent in customer variety-seeking orientations are dif-ferent.

Hypothesis 5. The links among customer satisfaction, loyalty, andswitching intent in customer purchase decision involvements aredifferent.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Sample and data collection

The data used for the current study were collected from cus-tomers in family restaurants in Seoul, the capital of Korea, in 2011.To comply with our objectives and test our research hypotheses, wedesigned a study based on a personal survey of family restaurantcustomers. Five ranked family restaurants were chosen by salesin 2010. A pilot test using 50 customers at family restaurants wasconducted to ensure the reliability of the scales, and several modi-fications were made based on feedback from the pilot test. The finalquestionnaire instrument included 27 items divided into six parts.The data collection was carried out in the period from 10 to 30March 2011. Many discussions were conducted with the mangersof the selected family restaurants on what was necessary to per-form this study (such as research topics and feedback on researchperformance). With the cooperation of the mangers of the fam-ily restaurants involved, a questionnaire survey was conducted incustomers waiting for their dessert. For smooth implementation ofthe questionnaire, drinks were provided free of charge to customerswho participated in the questionnaire and dining fees were grantedto the managers of the family restaurants. A total of 500 question-naires were distributed to visitors of these family restaurants, 442were returned (88.40%). After eliminating the unusable responsesamong the completed questionnaires, 305 responses were codedfor data analysis (61.00% response rate).

3.2. Instrument development

The survey instrument for this study was composed of six parts.The first five parts pertained to customer satisfaction, customerloyalty, switching intent, customer variety-seeking orientation,and customer purchase decision involvement includes a seven-point scale: “How much do you agree or disagree with thesestatements?”(1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The mea-surement items for the study constructs are presented in AppendixA. Part six contained questions about participant demographicinformation (e.g., age, gender, education level, and visiting fre-quency in a month).

3.2.1. Customer satisfactionCustomer satisfaction was measured using four items based on

Fornell et al. (1996), Spreng et al. (1996) and Yuksel and Yuksel(2003). Customer satisfaction items included “I am pleased to visitthis restaurant,” and “Overall, I am satisfied with my experience atthis restaurant.”

3.2.2. Customer loyaltyCustomer loyalty was also measured using four items devel-

oped by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), Putrevu and Lord (1994), andKressmann et al. (2006). The customer loyalty items included “I willkeep an ongoing relationship with the brand,” and “The brand ofthis restaurant would be my first choice over another restaurant.”

spitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3


3.2.3. Switching intentSwitching intent was measured using three items adapted from

Hirschman (1970), Dekimpe et al. (1997) and Anton et al. (2007).

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

IN PRESSG ModelH

4

Awbcior

3

sttu

3

uaiii

3

dmaemtwcAvcmws�tttpdtT

4

4

do1cr

4

Cw

Table 1Profiles of sample (N = 305).

Characteristics N %

GenderMale 117 38.4Female 188 61.6

Age20–29 144 47.230–39 108 35.440∼ 53 17.4

Education level∼College 78 25.6University 144 47.2Graduate school 83 27.2

Visiting frequency in a month1 119 39.0

l of Hospitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx


lthough measurement of switching behaviors is most precisehen such behaviors themselves are measured, behaviors cannot

e measured by observing them and they were measured as a con-ept of intent to switch behaviors instead. The switching intenttems included “I have decided to switch to another restaurant thatffers better services” and “I have decided to switch to anotherestaurant that offers a variety of products and services.”

.2.4. Customer variety-seeking orientationCustomer variety-seeking orientation was also measured using

ix items based on Kahn et al. (1986) and Trijp et al. (1996). Cus-omer variety-seeking orientation items included “I like ‘trying newhings’ to ‘doing familiar things’,” and “I want to try the new prod-cts.”

.2.5. Customer purchase decision involvementCustomer purchase decision involvement was also measured

sing six items developed by Traylor and Joseph (1984), Mittalnd Lee (1988), and O’Cass (2000). Customer purchase decisionnvolvement items included “I like being involved in making vis-ts of restaurant,” and “Purchases decisions for restaurant are verymportant to me.”

.3. Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed to profile the respondentemographic questions. Following the two-step approach recom-ended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a confirmatory factor

nalysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood was first performed tostimate the measurement model, which determined whether theanifest variables reflected the hypothesized latent variables. Once

he measure was validated, a structural equation model (SEM)as used to determine the cause-and-effect relationships among

ustomer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and switching intent.dditionally, in order to test the moderating effects of customerariety-seeking orientation and purchase decision involvement onustomer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent, based on aulti-group approach, �2 differences with two degrees of freedomere used to compare the two models (unconstrained and con-

trained) for each of the three path coefficients, consecutively. The2 value of the unconstrained model (freely estimated) was sub-

racted from the �2 value of the constrained model (constrainedo be equal) (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Frazier et al., 2004). In addi-ion, the customers’ variety-seeking orientation (3.59 ± 1.24) andurchase decision involvement (4.70 ± .99) were recoded by beingivided into high group and low group with variety-seeking orien-ation and purchase decision involvement based on the mean value.his was used in analyzing the moderating effect.

. Results

.1. Profiles of the sample

The profiles of the sample are presented in Table 1. Respon-ents were 38.4% male and 61.6% female. In terms of age, 47.2%f the respondents were 20–29 years old, 35.4% were 30–39, and7.4% were 40 or older. Most respondents (74.4%) were highly edu-ated, holding at least a university degree. A majority (61.0%) ofespondents visited a family restaurant 2–3 times per month.

.2. Measurement model

H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journa


Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach, aFA was first undertaken to assess the fit of the five-factor model,hich was comprised of customer satisfaction, loyalty, switching

2–3 118 38.64∼ 68 22.4

intent, variety-seeking orientation, and purchase decision involve-ment. Based on CFA results, we analyzed convergent validity,discriminant validity, and reliability of all the multi-items, follow-ing the guidelines in previous research (Nunnally, 1978; Fornell andLarcker, 1981; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). As shown in Table 2,the level for internal consistency in each construct was accept-able with Cronbach’s alpha estimates, ranging from .856 to.936(Nunnally, 1978). Composite construct reliability estimates, rang-ing from .827 to .908 above the recommended cutoff.60 (Fornelland Larcker, 1981), were considered acceptable. Convergent valid-ity was observed since all confirmatory factor loadings exceeded.70 (except for PEI6) and were significant at the alpha level of.001. These results were evidence of the convergent validity ofthe measures (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). All variance extractedestimates exceeded the recommended .50 threshold (Fornell andLarcker, 1981). These results suggested that the five factors weredistinct and unidimensional. The �2 fit statistics showed 548.649with 213 degrees of freedom (p < .001; �2/df = 2.576). The RootMean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) was .072, less thanthe recommended .08 threshold. The Normed Fit Index (NFI = .902),Tucker Lewis Index (TLI = .925), Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .937),and the Incremental Fit Index (IFI = .937) values exceeded therecommended .90. All statistics supported the satisfactory mea-surement quality given the number of indicators. To address thepotential concern of common method bias from the use of a survey,we checked for possible common method variance with Harman’ssingle-factor test (Harman, 1967; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Accordingto this approach, common method variance is present if a singlefactor accounts for most of the covariance in the dependent andindependent variables. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the23 variables revealed five factors with Eigen values greater than1.00. No single factor explained most of the variance, suggest-ing that common method bias was not a threat. Our scale itemsrevealed six factors that explained 76.444% of the variance on ourstudy’s constructs, with the first factor explaining 30.844% and thelast factor explaining 6.117% of the total variance.

The correlations, means, and standard deviations of the studyconstructs are presented in Table 3. Results of the correlation anal-ysis provide support for the discriminant validity. Discriminantvalidity was evident since the variance extracted estimates, rang-ing from .591 to .761, exceeded all squared correlations for eachpair of constructs, ranging from.001 to .451.

4.3. Structural equation modeling (SEM)


Structural equation modeling was conducted to test the validityof the proposed model and the hypotheses. The structural param-eter estimates are presented in Table 4. The chi-square statistic

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelHM-1160; No. of Pages 10

H.S.

Table 2Reliabilities and confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct Standardized loadings t-Value CCRa AVE Item-to-total correlation Cronbach’s alpha

Customer satisfaction .856 .664 .864CS1 .776 Fixed .677CS2 .790 18.815*** .624CS3 .868 15.281*** .738CS4 .823 14.624*** .762

Loyalty .908 .761 .931LT1 .890 Fixed .843LT2 .890 21.993*** .834LT3 .845 19.534*** .834LT4 .866 20.572*** .844

Switching intent .827 .673 .856SI1 .721 Fixed .666SI2 .887 13.608*** .784SI3 .845 13.493*** .741

Variety-seeking orientation .875 .698 .936VSO1 .744 Fixed .722VSO2 .860 15.572*** .880VSO3 .814 14.571*** .822VSO4 .775 13.850*** .743VSO5 .940 17.127*** .884VSO6 .867 15.716*** .848

Purchase decision involvement .858 .591 .905PEI1 .818 Fixed .759PEI2 .759 13.911*** .775PEI3 .811 15.309*** .794PEI4 .727 13.380*** .690PEI5 .803 15.048*** .770PEI6 .690 12.355*** .650

�2 = 548.649 (df = 213), p < .001; �2/df = 2.576; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .873; Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .902; Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = .925; Comparative Fit Index(CFI) = .937; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .937; Root Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .072.

a CCR: composite construct reliability; AVE: average variance extracted.

*** p < .001.

Table 3Correlations, means, and standard deviations.

M ± SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Customer satisfaction 4.50 ± 1.03 12. Loyalty 4.15 ± 1.03 .672** 13. Switching intent 4.86 ± 1.00 −.147* −.067 14. Variety-seeking orientation 3.59 ± 1.24 −.243** −.203** −.010 15. Purchase decision involvement 4.70 ± .99 .178** .240** .261** −.246** 1

idsitNb

TS

N

Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

* p < .05 (two-tailed).** p < .01 (two-tailed).

ndicated that the model did not fit the data well (�2 = 125.341;f = 39; p < .001). Given the sensitivity of the chi-square statistics toample size (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Hair et al., 2006), other fit


ndexes were also examined. Other goodness-of-fit indexes provedhat the structural model fit the data reasonably well (GFI = .931;FI = .948; CFI = .964; RMSEA = .085). The model’s fit, as indicatedy these indexes, was deemed satisfactory; thus, it provided a good

able 4tructural parameter estimates.

Hypothesized path Standard

Hypothesis 1: Customer satisfaction → Loyalty .639

Hypothesis 2: Customer satisfaction → Switching intent .189

Hypothesis 3: Loyalty → Switching intent −.193

Goodness-of-fit statistics �239 = 12

�2/df = 3GFI = .93NFI = .94CFI = .96RMSEA =

ote: GFI: Goodness of Fit Index; NFI: Normed Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMS* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

basis for testing the hypothesized paths. The parameter estimatesof the structural model exhibited the direct effects of one constructon the other. A significant coefficient at a certain level of alpha


reveals a significant causal relationship between latent constructs(Fig. 2).

To examine how customer satisfaction affects customer loyalty,Hypothesis 1 was verified and, as a result, supported ( ̌ = .639;

ized coefficients t-Value Results

10.155*** Supported2.091* Supported

−2.183* Supported

5.341 (p < .001).214184

.085

EA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ARTICLE ING ModelHM-1160; No. of Pages 10

6

Fi

tultscibnTc

4o

sudRaasswu�scastltdtTitooivtal

switching intent. In customers with a low level of variety-seeking

H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Ho

ig. 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates. (—) Statistically signif-cant (***p < .001, *p < .05).

= 10.155; p < .001). When customers are satisfied with prod-cts or services provided by a certain restaurant, their level of

oyalty increases. Hypothesis 2, which predicted a positive rela-ionship between customer satisfaction and switching intent, wasupported (ˇ = .189; t = 2.091; p < .05). This result suggests thatustomer satisfaction does not necessarily reduce their switchingntent and even satisfied customers continue to make switchingehaviors. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, loyalty had significantegative effects on switching intent ( ̌ = −.193; t = –2.183; p < .001).his result indicated that as customer loyalty decreased, so did theirhances of switching.

.4. The moderating effect of customer variety-seekingrientation and purchase decision involvement

The results of the moderating effects of customer variety-eeking orientation are shown in Table 5 and Fig. 3. Thenconstrained model for tenure showed a good fit to theata (�2 = 294.154; df = 80; p < .001; GFI = .86; NFI = .89; CFI = .91;MSEA = .09). The link between customer satisfaction and loy-lty, the difference in �2 between the constrained modelnd the unconstrained model, was not significant (Customeratisfaction → Loyalty; ��2

df=1 = 0.034; p > .05). In the relation-hip between customer satisfaction and switching intent, thereas no significant difference between the constrained andnconstrained models (Customer satisfaction → Switching intent;�2

df=1 = 0.016; p > .05). The results showed that customer variety-eeking orientation had no moderating effects on the link betweenustomer satisfaction and loyalty, or between customer satisfactionnd switching intent. Although the moderating effects were notignificant, customers with higher levels of variety-seeking orien-ation more greatly influenced the causation than those with lowerevel of variety-seeking orientation. As for the link between cus-omer loyalty and switching intent, statistically significant groupifferences were detected based on the �2 differences between thewo models (Loyalty → Switching intent; ��2

df=1 = 5.024; p < .05).he results showed that the effects of customer loyalty on switchingntent was significantly stronger in the low-variety-seeking orien-ation group ( ̌ = −.421; p < .001) than in the low-variety-seekingrientation group ( ̌ = −.019; p > .05). In customers with low levelsf variety-seeking orientation, the effect of their loyalty on switch-ng intent is much greater relative to customers with a high level ofariety-seeking orientation. In other words, in a restaurant, cus-


omers with low levels of variety-seeking orientation are morebsorbed in their previous goods and services than those with highevel of such orientation and are afraid of change and their loyalty

PRESS

has a more negative effect on their switching intent. Therefore,Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

The results of the moderating effects of customer purchasedecision involvement are shown in Table 6. The unconstrainedmodel for tenure showed a good fit to the data (�2 = 264.129;df = 80; p < .001; GFI = .87; NFI = .89; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .08). The linkbetween customer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent, thedifference in �2 between the constrained model and the uncon-strained model, was not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 wasnot supported. Despite such non-significant differences, customerswith high levels of involvement in purchase decision making hada stronger influence on the causation between their satisfaction,loyalty, and switching intent than those with low levels of involve-ment.

5. Discussion

5.1. Conclusion

This study attempted to look into the effect of customer satis-faction on loyalty and switching intent.

This study found that customer satisfaction in a family restau-rant had a significant, positive effect on loyalty. These findingssupport previous work (Fornell et al., 1994; Bloemer and Ruyter,1998; Reichheld and Schefter, 2000; Sui and Baloglu, 2003;Gustafsson et al., 2005; Lin and Wang, 2006). In consequence,if customers are satisfied, they have special behaviors favorableto relevant companies, such as recommending them to others(Reichheld and Sasser, 1990) or loyal behaviors such as positiveoral transmission (Sirohi et al., 1998) or voluntary expression ofintent of maintenance (Dick and Basu, 1994). When they are satis-fied, they are likely to repetitively visit the business and are veryloyal to them (Valle et al., 2006).

The influence of customer satisfaction on switching intent wassignificant. This finding supported earlier work (Halstead and Page,1992; Reichheld, 1993; Fullerton and Taylor, 2002). However,even satisfied customers may have switching intent, and althoughcompanies may enhance performance by increasing customer sat-isfaction, it may not discourage switching intent and may notprevent existing customer switching behaviors. Another finding isthat customer loyalty-triggered customer satisfaction had a signif-icant impact on switching intent. These findings support previouswork (Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Bansal and Taylor, 1999; Kotler andGertner, 2002). From these findings that customer satisfaction didnot positively affect switching intent, but customer loyalty nega-tively affected switching intent, it is proved that customer loyaltyis a more absorbed behavior than customer satisfaction. In conse-quence, it was verified that switching intent of customers loyal toa specific company decreases and desirable customers from a com-pany’s perspective are those that are loyal rather than those thatare satisfied.

Finally, as for the moderating effect of customer variety-seekingorientation on causation between customer satisfaction, loyalty,and switching intent, it was verified that there is a significant mod-erating effect on the relationship between customer loyalty andswitching intent. In more detail, where customers have a low levelof variety-seeking orientation, their loyalty has a significant nega-tive effect on switching intent, while customers with a high levelof variety-seeking orientation, their loyalty does not significantlyaffect switching intent. In a restaurant, customers who seek vari-ety are not significantly influenced by their loyalty in deciding their



orientation, their loyalty negatively affects switching intent, whichmeans that their switching intent is determined by their loyalty.These results are similar to those by Hoyer and Ridgway (1984) and

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelHM-1160; No. of Pages 10

H.S.

Table 5Moderating effects of variety-seeking orientation (Hypothesis 4).

Low-VSO (N = 172) High-VSO (N = 133) Unconstrained model�2 (df = 80)

Constrained model �2

(df = 81)��2 (df = 1)

Standardizedcoefficients

t-Value Standardizedcoefficients

t-Value

Hypothesis 1 .602 7.720*** .568 5.921*** 294.154 294.494 .034Hypothesis 2 .244 2.215* .124 1.004 294.154 294.314 .016Hypothesis 3 −.421 −3.661*** −.019 .872 294.154 299.178 5.024*

Note: VSO: variety-seeking orientation; �2/df = 3.677; GFI = .86; NFI = .89; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .09.* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

F ntatio

SeSbbtms

5

ccvosict

TM

N

Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7

ig. 3. Structural equation model with parameter estimates for variety-seeking orie

imonson (1990) who observed that customer variety-seeking ori-ntation acted as an important factor switching intent, and those byteenkamp and Baumgartner (1992) who asserted that causationetween customer loyalty and switching intent was moderatedy their variety-seeking orientation. There have been no studieshat examined the moderating effect of customer level of involve-

ent in purchase decision making on causation between customeratisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent.

.2. Managerial implications

From a company’s perspective, the most important variable thatan strengthen customer loyalty and decrease switching intent isustomer satisfaction, but in a modern, competitive society it isery hard to enhance customer satisfaction through differentiationf product quality. The reason is that customers select goods or


ervices that can provide them with the most benefits among var-ous alternatives and their standard of evaluating them or desireontinuously changes, resulting in changes in customer satisfac-ion or loyalty (Keaveney, 1995). A major reason for this behavioral

able 6oderating effects of purchase decision involvement (Hypothesis 5).

Low-PDI (N = 116) High-PDI (N = 189)

Standardizedcoefficients

t-Value Standardizedcoefficients

t-V

Hypothesis 1 .530 5.140*** .616 8Hypothesis 2 .005 .037 .213 1Hypothesis 3 −.103 −.813 −.281 −2

ote: PDI: purchase decision involvement; �2/df = 3.302; GFI = .87; NFI = .89; CFI = .92; RM* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

n. (—) Statistically significant (***p < .001, *p < .05); (· · ·) statistically not significant.

mechanism is that humans become easily bored and they seekdiversity in stimuli (Suk and Lee, 2010).

To date, studies have examined only simple causation betweencustomer satisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent in ordinaryretailers and there was none that verified the moderating effectsunder the premise of non-linearity in their relationship. At thispoint, this study is of an exploratory nature, focusing on therelationship between many research concepts in customer sat-isfaction, and it is useful as a basic study on restaurants thatexamines organic causation between customer satisfaction, loyalty,and switching intent. This study notes that restaurant customersatisfaction, loyalty, and switching intent had organic causation.It also verified that whereas satisfied customers became loyaland loyal customer switching intent decreased, satisfied cus-tomer switching intent increased. Enhancing customer satisfactionfor performance improvement is crucial, but even satisfied cus-tomers may make switching behaviors and companies should


make more of an effort to maintain loyal customers rather thansatisfied customers. To this end, companies need to performdiverse relationship marketing strategies such as cementing cus-tomer membership and issuing coupons and discount tickets,

Unconstrainedmodel �2 (df = 80)

Constrained model�2 (df = 81)

��2 (df = 1)

alue

.264*** 264.129 264.452 .323

.948* 264.129 265.773 1.644

.552* 264.129 265.462 1.333

SEA = .08.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ING ModelH

8

ti

stoimpcps

vtabcaattfaaeaomarsucfiisesc

5

lsitsIgwdalwnivoisca

l of Ho


hereby strengthening customer loyalty and minimizing switchingntent.

This study is meaningful in that it verified that customer per-onal characteristics played a moderating role. The study showedhat there are moderating effects of customer variety-seekingrientation on causation between customer loyalty and switch-ng intent, and this presents various marketing opportunities for

anagers. First of all, after a certain period passes, foodservice com-anies will have to redesign exteriors or interiors of stores so thatustomers can satisfy their desire for diversity within stores andrevent them from switching brands through a variety of menus,pecial events, and gift providing events.

Then, in order to maintain existing customers, foodser-ice companies should figure out causes of their complaints,hereby reducing risk factors that trigger switching behaviorsnd establish marketing strategies to enhance their goods’ sta-ility through advertisements differentiating their goods fromompetitive ones. In addition, it is regarded that there will be

need of developing even a display strategy within a storevailable for satisfying diversity, and of delivering informationhrough advertising new menu and event. It is judged thathere will be a need of seeking continuous and relational effortor customers in establishing and driving a marketing strategynd customer satisfaction management by forming individualnd close relationship with customers through this. This studyxamined organic causation between customer satisfaction, loy-lty, and switching intent and verified the moderating effectsf customers’ variety-seeking orientation and level of involve-ent on such causation in family restaurants, thereby presenting

useful result for managers, based on which family restau-ants can effectively seek for measures to discourage customers’witching intent. It is judged that this study result may besed as a practical, basic material in companies’ deriving effi-ient and strategic marketing methods by presenting a directionor customer satisfaction management in consideration of fam-ly restaurants’ characteristics providing both tangible goods andntangible services at the same time. In practice, this study is con-idered to contribute to customer satisfaction management andnhancement of effectiveness of marketing strategies by food-ervice companies which make continuous efforts to maintainustomers.

.3. Limitations and future research

Despite its several contributions, this research also has a fewimitations that future research may address. First, the sample con-ists of customers at family restaurants, as a part of the foodservicendustry. The generalizability of the results may be limited to cus-omers in those particular categories. Also, the use of convenienceampling can introduce unknown systematic and variable errors.n addition, there was no research at all that was performed tar-eting foodservice companies in the questionnaire items, whichere used in customers’ variety-seeking orientation and purchaseecision involvement. Thus, this study used by extracting it from

research that was carried out targeting general companies. It isikely unreasonable to analyze by expanding these results into the

hole of the foodservice industry. Studies on other industries areecessary to compare them with restaurants, thereby ascertain-

ng differences in accordance with each industry’s traits. This studyerified only the moderating effects of customer variety-seekingrientation and level of involvement in purchase decision mak-

H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journa


ng as general propensities in a consumption situation, but futuretudies will provide meaningful results by examining other diverseharacteristics of individual customers that can affect their loyaltynd switching intent.

PRESS

Appendix A.

Customer satisfaction (Fornell et al., 1996; Spreng et al., 1996; Yuksel andYuksel, 2003)CS1 This restaurant exceeded my expectationsCS2 I am pleased to visit this restaurantCS3 I really enjoyed myself at the restaurantCS4 Overall, I am satisfied with my experience at this

restaurant.

Customer loyalty (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Putrevu and Lord, 1994;Kressmann et al., 2006)CL1 I will keep an ongoing relationship with the brandCL2 I will spread positive word-of-mouth about the brandCL3 The brand of this restaurant would be my first choice over

another restaurantCL4 I will recommend the brand to my friends and others

Switching intent (Hirschman, 1970; Dekimpe et al., 1997; Anton et al.,2007)SI1 I have decided to switch to another restaurant that offers

better servicesSI2 I have decided to switch to another restaurant that offers a

variety of products and servicesSI3 I have considered changing another restaurant

Customer variety-seeking orientation (Kahn et al., 1986; Trijp et al., 1996)VSO1 I like trying new things to doing familiar thingsVSO2 I want to try the new productsVSO3 I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to

get some variety in my purchases.VSO4 When I go to a restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes I

am familiar with ®VSO5 I would rather stick with a brand I usually buy than try

something I am not very sure of ®VSO6 I am very cautious in trying new or different products ®

Customer purchase decision involvement (Traylor and Joseph, 1984;Mittal and Lee, 1988; O’Cass, 2000)PDI1 I like being involved in making visits of restaurantPDI2 Purchases decisions for restaurant are very important to

mePDI3 I attach great importance to visiting family restaurantPDI4 I place great value in making the right decision when it

comes to family restaurant selectionPDI5 Making purchase decisions for family restaurant selection

is significant to mePDI6 I think a lot about my choices when it comes to family

restaurant selection

References

Anderson, E.W., Sullivan, M.W., 1993. The antecedents and consequences of cus-tomer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science 12 (2), 125–143.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),411–423.

Anton, C., Camarero, C., Carrero, M., 2007. The mediating effect of satisfaction onconsumers’ switching intention. Psychology and Marketing 24 (6), 511–538.

Bansal, H.S., Taylor, S.F., 1999. The service provider switching model (SPSM): amodel of consumer switching behavior in the service industry. Journal of ServiceResearch 14 (November), 200–218.

Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.

Bearden, W.O, Teel, J.E., 1983. Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction andcomplaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (2), 21–28.

Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysisof covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88 (3), 588–606.

Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effect of physical surroundingsand employee responses. Journal of Marketing 54 (Apr), 69–82.

Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K.D., 1998. On the relationship between store image, store sat-isfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32 (5/6), 499–513.

Bolton, R.N., Kannan, P.K., Bramlet, M.D., 2000. Implications of loyalty program mem-bership and service experiences for customer retention and value. Journal ofAcademy Marketing Science 28 (1), 95–108.

Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N., 1999. A dynamic model of customer’s usage of services:



usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of MarketingResearch 36 (May), 171–186.

Chiou, J.S., Shen, C.C., 2006. The effects of satisfaction, opportunism, and asset speci-ficity on consumers’ loyalty intention toward Internet portal sites. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management 17 (1), 7–22.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ING ModelH

C

D

D

D

D

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

J

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

l of Ho


H.S.

ronin Jr., J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination andextension. Journal of Marketing 56 (July), 55–58.

ekimpe, M.G., Jan-Benedict, E.M., Steenkamp, M.M., Piet, V.A., 1997. Decline andvariability in brand loyalty. International Journal of Research in Marketing 14(5), 405–420.

ick, A.S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual frame-work. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2), 99–113.

urukan, T., Bozacı, I., Dogan, T.T., 2011. Mobile number portability in Turkey: anempirical analysis of consumer switching behavior. European Journal of SocialSciences 20 (4), 572–585.

wyer, F., Robert, P., Schurr, H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller relationships.Journal of Marketing 51 (April), 11–27.

inn, A., 2005. Reassessing the foundations of customer delight. Journal of ServiceResearch 8 (2), 103–116.

ishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introductionto Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

ornell, C., Anderson, E.W., Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction market shareand profitability: finding from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 53–66.

ornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J., Bryant, B.E., 1996. The Americancustomer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and finding. Journal of Marketing60 (4), 7–18.

ornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

razier, P.A., Tix, A.P., Barron, K.E., 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effectsin counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51 (1),115–134.

ullerton, G., Taylor, S.F., 2002. Mediating, interactive, and non-linear effects inservice quality and satisfaction with services research. Canadian Journal ofAdministrative Sciences 19 (2), 124–136.

anesh, J., Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2000. Understanding the customer base ofservice providers: an examination of differences between switchers and stayers.Journal of Marketing 64 (Jul), 65–87.

riddin, J., 1995. Customer Loyalty: How to Earn It. How to Keep It. Jossey-BassPublishers, San Francisco, CA.

ustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., Roos, I., 2005. The effects of customer satisfaction, rela-tionship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journalof Marketing 69 (4), 210–218.

air, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate DataAnalysis with Readings, 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

alstead, D., Page, T.J., 1992. The effects of satisfaction and complaining behavior onconsumer repurchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfac-tion, and Complaining Behavior 5 (1), 1–11.

an, H., Kim, W., Hyun, S.S., 2011. Switching intention model development:role of service performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers inthe hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (3),619–629.

arman, H.H., 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,IL.

irschman, A.O., 1970. Exit, Vice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Orga-nizations and States. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

olbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption:consumer santasiex feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2),132–140.

omburg, C., Giering, A., 2001. Personal characteristics as moderators of the rela-tionship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis.Psychology and Marketing 18 (1), 43–66.

omburg, C., Koschate, N., Hoyer, W.D., 2005. Do satisfied customers really paymore? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingnessto pay. Journal of Marketing 69 (April), 84–96.

oward, J.A., Sheth, J.N., 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. John Wiley & Sons,New York, NY.

oyer, W.D., Ridgway, N.M., 1984. Variety seeking as an explanation for exploratorypurchase behavior: a theoretical model. In: Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Con-sumer Research 11. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 114–119.

ones, T.O., Sasser, W.E., 1995. Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard BusinessReview 73 (6), 88–100.

ahn, B.E., 1995. Consumer variety-seeking among goods and service. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services 2 (3), 139–148.

ahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., Morrison, D.G., 1986. Measuring variety-seeking and rein-forcement behavior using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research 23 (2),89–100.

ahneman, D., Snell, J., 1992. Predicting a changing taste. Journal of BehavioralDecision Making 5 (3), 187–200.

asper, H., 1988. On problem perception dissatisfaction and brand loyalty. Journalof Economic Psychology 9 (September), 387–397.

eaveney, S.M., 1995. Customer switching behavior in the service industry: anexploratory study. Journal of Marketing 59 (2), 71–82.

im, H., 2009. The moderating role of variety seeking in the effect of service satis-faction on repurchase intention. Journal of Marketing Management Research 14(2), 123–139.

Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journa


okkinaki, F., 1999. Predicting product purchase and usage: the role perceives con-trol, past behavior and product involvement. Advances in Consumer Research26, 576–583.

otler, P., Gertner, D., 2002. Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place market-ing and brand management perspective. Brand Management 9 (4/5), 249–261.

PRESS

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., Lee, D.J., 2006. Direct andindirect effects of self-Image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of BusinessResearch 59, 955–964.

Lattin, J.M., McAlister, L., 1985. Using a variety-seeking model to identify substi-tute and complementary relationships among competing products. Journal ofMarketing Research 22 (August), 330–339.

Lee, J., 2003. Examining the antecedents of loyalty in a forest setting: relationshipsamong service quality, satisfaction, activity involvement, place attachment, anddestination loyalty. Unpublished Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State Univer-sity.

Lee, R., Murphy, J., 2006. From loyalty to switching: exploring the determi-nants in the transition. In: ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour,pp. 196–203.

Lin, H.H., Wang, Y.S., 2006. An examination of the determinants of customer loyaltyin mobile commerce contexts. Information & Management 43 (3), 271–282.

Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R., 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, NewYork, NY.

Menon, S., Kahn, B.E., 1995. The impact of context on variety seeking in productchoices. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (December), 285–295.

Mitra, A., 1995. Advertising and the stability of consideration sets over multiplepurchase occasions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (1), 81–94.

Mitra, A., Lyunch, J.G., 1995. Toward a reconciliation of market power and infor-mation theories of advertising effects on price elasticity. Journal of ConsumerResearch 21 (4), 644–659.

Mittal, B., Lassar, W.M., 1998. Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfac-tion versus loyalty. The Journal of Service Marketing 12 (3), 177–194.

Mittal, B., Lee, M., 1988. Separating brand-choice involvement from product involve-ment via consumer involvement profiles. Advances in Consumer Research 15(1), 43–49.

Novak, T.P, Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y.F., 2000. Measuring the customer experience inonline environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science 19 (1),22–42.

Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.O’Cass, A., 2000. An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, adver-

tising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing. Journal of EconomicPsychology 21 (5), 545–576.

Oliver, R.L, 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retailsettings. Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 25–48.

Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer.Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63 (Special issue),33–44.

Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 1996. Consumer Behavioral Marketing Strategy, 4th ed. Irwin,Homewood, IL.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

Putrevu, S., Lord, K.R., 1994. Comparative and noncomparative advertising: attitu-dinal effects undercognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal ofAdvertising 23 (2), 77–90.

Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D.G. (Eds.), 2005. Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives,Goals, and Desires. Routledge, London.

Reichheld, F.F., 1993. Loyalty-based management. Harvard Business Review 71 (2),64–73.

Reichheld, F.F., Sasser, W.E., 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to service. HarvardBusiness Review 68 (5), 105–111.

Reichheld, F.F., Schefter, P., 2000. E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. HarvardBusiness Review 78 (4), 105–113.

Reynolds, K.E., Beatty, S.E., 1999. Customer benefits and company consequencesof customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing 75 (1),11–32.

Simonson, I., 1990. The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety seekingbehavior. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (May), 150–162.

Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of consumer perceptionsand store loyalty intention for a supermarket retailer. Journal of Marketing 74(2), 223–245.

Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., Olshavsky, R.W., 1996. A reexamination of the deter-minants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60 (July), 15–32.

Steenkamp, E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1992. Then role of optimum stimulation level inexploratory consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (December),434–448.

Suh, J.C., Yi, Y., 2006. When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyaltyrelation: the moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Psy-chology 16 (2), 145–155.

Sui, J.J., Baloglu, S., 2003. The role of emotional commitment in relationship mar-keting: an empirical investigation of loyalty models for casinos. Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Research 27 (4), 470–489.

Suk, K.H., Lee, J.H., 2010. Predicted versus experienced satisfaction when consumersseek variety. Journal of Consumer Studies 21 (1), 181–199.

Traylor, M., Joseph, B., 1984. Measuring consumer involvement in products. Psy-chology and Marketing 1 (2), 65–77.

spitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 9


Trijp, H.C., Wayne, V.H., Inman, J.J., 1996. Why switch product category-level expla-nations for true variety-seeking behaviour. Journal of Marketing Research 33(August), 281–292.

Tuu, H.H., Olsen, S.O., 2010. Ambivalence and involvement in the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship. Australian Marketing Journal 18 (3), 151–158.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

ING ModelH

1

V

Y

l of Ho


0 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journa


alle, P., Silva, J., Mendes, J., Guerio, M., 2006. Tourist satisfaction and destinationloyalty intentions. International Journal of Business Sciences and Applied Man-agement 1 (1), 25–44.

oon, H.S., Bae, S.W., 2010. The relationship between customer satisfaction andcustomer loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management Research 15 (2), 71–92.

PRESSspitality Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx


Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., 2003. Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurantservices: a segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (1), 52–68.

Zaichkowsky, J., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of ConsumerResearch 12 (3), 341–352.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.006

g model article in press - isihome · g model article in press hm-1160; no.of pages10 international...

Documents