loyality in jmtm

7/27/2019 Loyality in JMTM

1/26

76 Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2011

Copyright 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

An empirical model of customer loyalty in theJordanian Mobile Telecommunications Market

Mamoun N. Akroush*

Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Graduate School of Business Administration,The German-Jordanian University-Jordan,P.O. Box 921951, Amman 11192, JordanE-mail: [email protected]*Corresponding author

Samer M. Al-MohammadFaculty of Business Administration,Department of Marketing,Mutah University,P.O. Box 7, Karak 61710, JordanE-mail: [email protected]

Majdy I. Zuriekat

Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Graduate School of Business Administration,The German-Jordanian University-Jordan,

P.O. Box 921951, Amman 11192, JordanE-mail: [email protected]

Bayan N. Abu-Lail

AL Hilal Drug Store,Regulatory Affairs Manager,P.O. Box 203, Amman 111947, JordanE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to empirically examine a modelof customer loyalty antecedents in the context of Jordanian MobileTelecommunications Market (JMTM). A structured questionnaire was

distributed to a sample of 1000 mobile subscribers in JMTM from which756 were valid for the analysis. Structural path analysis empirical findingsunderlined that customer loyalty in JMTM is a multi-dependent conceptaffected, respectively, by customer satisfaction, trust, perceived switching costsand perceived service quality. In addition to being the first study of its kind inJordan, the papers contribution stems from fulfilling the research gap inexamining the simultaneous effect of perceived service quality, customersatisfaction, trust and perceived switching costs on customer loyalty.

Keywords: service quality; customer satisfaction; customer trust; perceivedswitching costs; mobile telecommunications.


2/26

An empirical model of customer loyalty 77

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Akroush, M.N.,

Al-Mohammad, S.M., Zuriekat, M.I. and Abu-Lail, B.N. (2011) An empiricalmodel of customer loyalty in the Jordanian Mobile TelecommunicationsMarket,Int. J.Mobile Communications, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.76101.

Biographical notes: Mamoun N. Akroush is an Associate Professor ofMarketing and Vice Dean at Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, the German-Jordanian University. He earned his PhD from theUniversity of Huddersfield, UK. His areas of interest are marketing strategyand planning, marketing knowledge management, and services marketing. Hisresearch papers have been published and are in press in various internationaland national journals including: International Journal of Emerging Markets,International Journal of Mobile Communications, International Journal ofServices and Operations Management, International Journal of InternetMarketing and Advertising, International Journal of Commerce andManagement, Global Business and Economics Review, and International

Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management. He is an expert inmarketing strategies and customer service. He is involved in many consultingand training projects with international organisations.

Samer M. Al-Mohammad is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at MutahUniversity, Faculty of Business Administration. He received his PhD from theUniversity of Huddersfield, England. His research interests include marketinginformation systems, marketing knowledge management and entrepreneurship.He has published a number of research papers in the field of marketingin international and national refereed business journals. He has experiencein teaching, lecturing and supervising students on both graduate andundergraduate levels.

Majdy I. Zuriekat is an Assistant Professor of Management Accounting atTalal Abu-Ghazaleh College of Business, the German-Jordanian University.

He received his PhD from the University of Huddersfield, England.His research interests include management and cost accounting, performancemeasurement system, and management control system. He has publishedseveral research papers in the field of management and cost accounting ininternational and national refereed business journals.

Bayan N. Abu-Lail is a Pharmacist and Regulatory Affairs Director at Al HilalDrug Store in Jordan. She received her MSc in Marketing from the ArabAcademy for Banking and Financial Sciences. Her research appeared innational and regional refereed business journals. Her research interests includeservice quality, customer relationship management and services marketing.

1 Introduction

The Jordanian Mobile Telecommunications Market (JMTM) is reaching saturation pointwith existing subscribers base, hence, limiting the net additions to 100,000 in 2009(Wireless Federation, 2009). Commentators have described Jordans telecommunicationssector as one having enjoyed the benefits of full liberalisation, with increasedcompetition, lower prices and a wider range of services on offer to consumers (Kardooshand Steityeh, 2009). However, soaring price competition between mobile operators haschanged the JMTM from an emerging market, during the mid-1990s, to an almost


3/26

78 M.N. Akroush et al.

saturated market, with customer penetration rate of 90.6% in 2008 (Business Monitor

International, 2009). According to Pfanner (2008), eventually emerging markets will lookmore like their developed counterparts, where competition is intense and networkoperators lament a lack of customer loyalty. This seems to be the case of JMTM where69% of mobile subscribers have indicated their willingness to change their current mobileoperators (Mobile Syndicated Study, 2008). Alarmingly, Jordanian mobile subscribershave grown to consider all mobile operators to be the same (Kardoosh and Steityeh,2009), with price as the only base for differentiation between them (Mobile SyndicatedStudy, 2008). Such market conditions require Jordanian mobile operators to shift theirfocus from increasing subscribers base to actually building a strong base of loyalcustomers (Alvarez et al., 2008; Kardoosh and Steityeh, 2009; Shweikeh, 2009). Themain focus of Jordanian mobile operators at present should be on creating, andsustaining, customer loyalty (Alvarez et al., 2008; Shweikeh, 2009; Kardoosh and

Steityeh, 2009) as a major source of competitive advantage (Aydin and Ozer, 2005),profitability (Helgesen, 2006) and long-term success (Kuusik, 2003).Ample research has addressed the concept of customer loyalty in a multitude of

contexts and in relation to different forms of businesses (e.g., McMullan and Gilmore,2008; Meyer-Waarden, 2008; Colwell et al., 2009; Yavas and Babakus, 2009), includingthe mobile telecommunications service sector (e.g., Aydin et al., 2005; Aydin and Ozer,2005, 2006; Lim et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2008; Kuusik and Varblane, 2009).A considerable view of such research underlines the multi-dependent nature of customerloyalty. A number of concepts were underlined as antecedents to customer loyalty,namely service quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust and switching costs. Hence,the purpose of this paper is to introduce, and empirically test, a model to determine the

potential antecedents of customer loyalty and the relationships among these antecedentsin the JMTM. The build-up of the papers model, and its proposed associations, was

based on previous empirical research, particularly the work of Aydin et al. (2005) andAydin and Ozer (2005) who underlined that, in the particular context of mobile operators,customer loyalty is created through improving service quality and increasing customersatisfaction and customer trust, while at the same time establishing certain switchingcosts for changing to another operator.

The importance of this paper stems from the fact that, despite the widelyacknowledged importance of such concept, customer loyalty remains an under-researchedarea in most Jordanian industries, particularly the mobile telecommunications industry.Scattered available research focuses mainly on exploring and measuring the concept ofservice quality in different Jordanian organisations and industries through developingspecial measures of service quality or through applying the widely known and appliedmeasure of SERVQUAL (e.g., Al-Shurah, 2004; Abo Shaikha, 2005; Akroush, 2008).

Expectedly, such endeavours have yielded mixed results as to what dimensions shouldconstitute service quality. More importantly, such research has over-cited the fact thatservice quality represents a means to an end and that, amongst other factors, servicequality should be considered by organisations as a major antecedent to all criticalcustomer loyalty.

1.1 Research problem and questions

Our main research problem is to provide a thorough understanding of the antecedents ofcustomer loyalty in the JMTM from customers perspectives. On the basis of relevant


4/26


literature review of perceived service quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust,

switching costs and customer loyalty, our research is designed to answer the followingquestions:

Is there a relationship between perceived service quality and customer loyalty?

Is there a relationship between perceived service quality and (a) customersatisfaction, (b) customer trust in the mobile operator and (c) perceived switchingcosts?

Is there a relationship between customer satisfaction, customer trust in the mobileoperator, perceived switching cost and customer loyalty?

Is there a relationship between customer satisfaction and customer trust in the mobileoperator?

Is there a relationship between customer trust in the mobile operator and perceivedswitching cost?

Does perceived service quality have an indirect effect on customer loyalty via(a) customer satisfaction, (b) customer trust in the mobile operator and (c) perceivedswitching cost?

Does customer satisfaction have an indirect effect on perceived switching cost viacustomer trust in the mobile operator?

2 Literature review and proposed model

Although there are so many different definitions about customer loyalty, there seemsto be two basic approaches: stochastic and deterministic loyalty (Odin et al., 2001).The stochastic approach views customer loyalty as a behaviour manifested in customersshares of purchase, purchasing frequency, etc. On the other hand, the deterministicapproach addresses customer loyalty as an attitude manifested through customers

preferences, buying intentions, supplier patronisation and recommendation willingness,etc. (Aydin and Ozer, 2005; Xu et al., 2006). While both approaches have theiradvocates, as manifested in the available literature, it should be underlined that definingcustomer loyalty as merely a behaviour, exhibited by customers, overcomes the fact thatcustomers behaviours are not always a reflection of their attitudes. Accordingly, this

paper adopts Olivers (1997) deterministic definition of customer loyalty who describes itas a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronise a preferred product consistently

in the future situational influences.Ample research have underlined the importance of customer loyalty to the futurestability and growth of any organisation (e.g., Parvez, 2005; McMullan and Gilmore,2008; Lim and Kumar, 2008). The importance of the concept has inspired a specificstream of research devoted to understanding the nature of customer loyalty and theantecedents that might affect it in the mobile telecommunications industry (e.g., Aydinet al., 2005; Aydin and Ozer, 2005; Lim et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2008). Exhaustivereview of such research underlines the multi-dependent nature of customer loyalty.In other words, customer loyalty in mobile telecommunications markets can be affected

by several factors, or antecedents, including service quality (Aydin and Ozer, 2005;


5/26


Lim et al., 2006), customer satisfaction (Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Aydin et al., 2005;

Aydin and Ozer, 2006; Lim et al., 2006; Kuusik and Varblane, 2009), customers trust inmobile operator (Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Aydin et al., 2005; Aydin and Ozer,2006; Kuusik and Varblane, 2009) and switching costs imposed by mobile operator(Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Aydin and Ozer, 2006; Li and McQueen, 2008). In thecontext of JMTM, there is a lack of research underlining the combined effect of suchantecedents over Jordanian customers loyalty. According to Aydin and Ozer (2005),there is a general lack of research studying the effects of all those antecedentssimultaneously and jointly over customer loyalty.

2.1 Proposed model

Building on review of previous empirical research, particularly the work of Aydin et al.

(2005), the paper introduces a model underlining the proposed effects exhibited by fourmulti-dependent factors, antecedents, over customer loyalty in JMTM (Figure 1).

Figure 1 The proposed research model

2.1.1 Proposed model constructs

Perceived service quality:Although there has been intensive research on service quality,there is no agreement among marketing scholars in relation to the service qualityconceptualisation, operationalisation and measurement (e.g., Newman, 2001; Kangand James, 2004; Akroush, 2008). Accordingly, the conceptualisation and

measurement of service quality is dependent on service type, setting, time, need and otherfactors (Seth et al., 2005). In the context of JMTM, a mobile telecommunicationservice actually encompasses a multitude of sub-services, such as coverage area, text andmultimedia messaging services, GPRS and WAP services, communication and customerservices. Hence, perceived service quality, in this context, is defined as customers

judgement about the overall excellence or superiority of a service (Zeithaml, 1988). Theadopted definition acknowledges the fact that the perceived quality of a mobiletelecommunication service actually refers to customers assessment of the overall qualityof all its sub-services.


6/26


Customer satisfaction: Previous research has defined a variety of forms of customer

satisfaction (Oliver, 1997). Multiple interpretations of satisfaction emanate fromdifferences such as: the type of response (cognitive or affective); the time of evaluation(immediate to an encounter or cumulative); the object of evaluation (e.g., a transaction,a firm, an attribute); the psychological process used to construe the response(e.g., disconfirmation of expectations, attribution, equity perceptions). In the context ofJMTM, customers base their purchases of mobile services on cognitive rather thanemotional grounds; the fact that 69% of Jordanian customers are willing to leave theirmobile operators to other ones with cheaper prices supports such argument. Furthermore,according to Aydin and Ozer (2005), services in the mobile market are prolonged. Hence,a customers general evaluation is not based only on satisfaction/dissatisfaction from

particular events of service transaction but on all the service encounters from being asubscriber to date (Aydin and Ozer, 2005). Hence, the paper argues that customer

satisfaction in JMTM should be approached based on both cognitive and cumulativeperspectives. Accordingly, in this context, customer satisfaction is conceptualised asan overall evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience witha good/service over time (Aydin and Ozer, 2006).Customer trust: Amongst various definitions, customer trust can be conceptualised asa feeling of security held by the customer that his or her consumption expectations will

be met (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001). Accordingly, to trust a brand,customers should not only perceive positive outcomes but also believe that these positiveoutcomes will continue in the future (Aydin and Ozer, 2005), hence, reducing futureuncertainty risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002). Service organisations are generallycharacterised by high variability in quality, and customers may also have a high level ofuncertainty about the quality of future services (Murray and Schlacter, 1990). Therefore,

while some authors underline the importance of service quality and customer satisfactionas major antecedents of customer loyalty in the JMTM (Shweikeh, 2009; Kardooshand Steityeh, 2009), customers trust should also be a major concern to Jordanian mobileoperators since it represents an indicator of customers future expectations and,consequently, customer loyalty intentions.Perceived switching costs: According to Porter (1998), switching costs are the costsinvolved in changing from one service provider to another. Switching costs confer someadvantages on firms, with a direct effect on customer loyalty level. For instance, theyreduce customers sensitivity to price and satisfaction level (Fornell, 1992), hence,customers who might be expected to select from a number of functionally identical

brands display brand loyalty (Klemperer, 1987). Mobile operators in the JMTM need tostudy the different types of switching costs that customers encounter, especially when

considering the high price sensitivity of Jordanian customers, who perceive mobileoperators to be identical (Kardoosh and Steityeh, 2009). While most marketing authorssuggest that money, time and effort are the major direct switching costs encountered

by customers (e.g., Hellier et al., 2003; Ibanez et al., 2006), other types of costs wereintroduced depending on researchers perceptions and researches context. In addition tomonetary, time and effort costs, this paper suggests that Jordanian mobile customersencounter some other switching costs:


7/26


uncertainty costs, associated with not being sure about new service operator

benefits-loss costs, associated with subscribing to a new mobile operator with lowerquality service than original operator

evaluation costs, associated with information search and comparison betweendifferent mobile operators

learning costs, associated with acquiring new skills to use a new operators services

social costs, associated with losing contact with people only familiar with old mobilenumber.

While the suggested switching costs are inline with those encountered by customers indifferent mobile telecommunications markets (e.g., Aydin and Ozer, 2005, 2006).The paper argues that, when combined together, they have far-reaching implications withregard to Jordanian customers loyalty towards their mobile operators.

2.1.2 Proposed model hypotheses development

Hypotheses related to service quality

Empirical research has underlined the direct effect of service quality over customerloyalty (e.g., Martiz, 2008; Al-Hawari et al., 2009; Wen-Bao, 2009). For instance,Venetis and Ghauri (2004) suggested that service quality enhances customers inclinationto buy again, to buy more, to buy other services, to become less price sensitive and to tellothers about their favourable experience. Furthermore, Jones et al. (2002) underlineda positive relationship between service quality and customers repurchase intentions,recommendation and resistance to better alternatives. Hence, in the context of JMTM,

it is hypothesised that:

H1: Service quality will have a positive and significant effect on customer loyalty.

In addition to being an antecedent of customer loyalty, several authors have consideredservice quality to be an antecedent of customer satisfaction (e.g., Lim et al., 2006; Chenand Aritejo, 2008; Pezeshki et al., 2009). Satisfaction results are obtained comparingexpected performance with perception of actual performance (Van Montfort et al., 2000).Hence, when a customer perceives the performance of a service to be equal to or higherthan his expectations, he or she will be satisfied. Accordingly, in the context of JMTM, itis hypothesised that:

H2: Service quality will have a positive and significant effect on customer

satisfaction.

While considerable research has underlined the direct effect of service quality over bothcustomer satisfaction and loyalty. Research into the effect of service quality overcustomer trust in service provider appears to be considerably limited. Noticeably, though,Aydin and Ozer (2005) found a positive relationship between service quality andcustomers trust in Turkish mobile operators. They suggested that a customer should

perceive service quality as positive to trust a certain mobile operator brand. Hence, in thecontext of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:


8/26


H3: Service quality will have a positive and significant effect on customer trust in

mobile operator.

As in the case of its effect over customer trust, research into the effect of service qualityover customers perceived switching costs is also limited. However, scarce empiricalresearch has indicated a positive relationship between service quality and customers

perceived switching costs (Aydin and Ozer, 2005; Liu, 2008). The underlying assumptionof such relationship is that quality services make customers more cautious of the benefitsthey could lose, or the costs they might endure, if they choose to replace that service withanother. Accordingly, and in the context of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H4: Service quality will have a positive and significant effect on customers perceived

switching costs.

Hypotheses related to customer satisfaction

Several empirical research has underlined a positive direct effect of customer satisfactionover customer loyalty (e.g., Lim et al., 2006; Espejel et al., 2008; Horppu et al., 2008;Lim and Kumar, 2008; Casalo et al., 2009). Customer satisfaction has traditionally beenregarded as a fundamental determinant of long-term customer behaviour (Oliver, 1980).Hence, if a customer is continuously satisfied with the service of a particular provider,he or she will become less price sensitive (Fornell et al., 1996). Furthermore, he or shewill develop intentions of repurchase such service, recommend the provider to othercustomers and resist other alternatives, all of which are aspects of deterministic loyalty.In the context of JMTM, it is proposed that satisfied customers become loyal, whiledissatisfied ones search for another mobile operator. Hence, it is hypothesised that:

H5: Customer satisfaction will have a positive and significant effect on customer

loyalty.

Consequences of customer satisfaction do not include customer loyalty only. Empiricalfindings have underlined a direct effect of customer satisfaction over customer trust(e.g., Hess and Story, 2005; Yeh and Li, 2009). While some research has documentedthat satisfaction is affected by trust (e.g., Ndubisi and Chan, 2005), this paper adoptsCoyles and Gokey (2002) suggestion that the feeling of trust arises after a prolonged

period of satisfactory consumption of the service. Therefore, in the context of JMTM,it is hypothesised that:

H6: Customer satisfaction will have a positive and significant effect on customer trust

in the mobile operator.

In addition to customer loyalty and customer trust, the paper proposes that customer

satisfaction further affects customers perceived switching costs. According to Palmer(1998), satisfied customers will hold favourable attitude towards the service providercompared with other alternatives; hence, switching costs to other alternatives will seemhigh. Therefore, in the context of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H7: Customer satisfaction will have a positive and significant effect on perceived

switching costs.


9/26


Hypotheses related to customer trust

Most authors underline a direct influence of customer trust on customer loyalty in thegeneral case of services customers (Ibanez et al., 2006). Customer trust is perceived toinfluence long-term customer relationships and commitment (Nexhmi, 1998; Parvez,2005). Hence, when a customer trusts a brand, that customer is also more likely to forma positive buying intention towards that brand (Lau and Lee, 1999). Accordingly,and consistent with previous empirical findings (e.g., Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002;Horppu et al., 2008; Chiu et al., 2009; Guenzi et al., 2009), it is hypothesised that, in thecontext of JMTM:

H8: Customer trust in the mobile operator will have a positive and significant effect

on customer loyalty.

In addition to customer loyalty, customer trust also affects customers perceived

switching costs. Customer trust reduces the uncertainty in an environment in whichcustomers feel vulnerable because they know they can rely on the trusted brand(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002). Trusting one brand relatively increases the uncertaintyof alternative brands, hence, increasing switching costs (Aydin and Ozer, 2005).Therefore, in the context of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H9: Customer trust in the mobile operator will have a positive and significant effect

on perceived switching cost.

Hypothesis related to perceived switching costs

Considerable research has underlined the effect of perceived switching costs overcustomer loyalty (e.g., Aydin and Ozer, 2005; Ibanez et al., 2006). Switching costsreduce price sensitivity towards a service provider (Klemperer, 1987), while, at the sametime, increasing the uncertainty of alternatives (Aydin and Ozer, 2005). Such outcomesshould have a positive effect over customers deterministic loyalty. Hence, in the contextof JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H10: Perceived switching cost will have a positive and significant effect on customer

loyalty.

Hypotheses of indirect effects

While all previous hypotheses suggest a direct association between the proposed modelconstructs. Two indirect associations need to be underlined, to give a clear understandingof the actual dynamics of associations between constructs.

First, and in addition to its direct effect over customer loyalty, service quality washypothesised to have a direct influence over other antecedents of customer loyalty.Therefore, it can be proposed that while service quality has a direct effect over customerloyalty, it can also affect customer loyalty indirectly through its influence over customerloyaltys other antecedents. Hence, in the context of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H11: Perceived service quality will have an indirect positive and significant effect on

customer loyalty via (a) customer satisfaction, (b) customer trust in mobile operator

and (c) perceived switching costs, respectively.


10/26


Second, customer satisfaction was hypothesised to have a direct effect over both

customer trust and perceived switching costs. Since that customer trust is hypothesised tohave a direct effect over switching costs in the context of JMTM, it is hypothesised that:

H12: Customer satisfaction will have an indirect positive and significant effect on

perceived switching cost via customer trust in mobile operator.

3 Research methodology

3.1 Constructs operationalisation and measurement

The constructs in our model were developed from available literature on perceivedservice quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust, perceived switching costs and

customer loyalty, which provided rich, valid and reliable measures. All of the researchconstructs were measured using a multiple-item measurement scale to capture therichness of each construct. All of our research measures used a five-point Likert-typeresponse scale, which runs from Strongly Agree, given the score of 1, to StronglyDisagree, given the score of 5. A list of items measuring the constructs was developedfrom several sources of available literature, as shown in Appendix 1.

Perceived service quality operationalisation included coverage of the mobile callingarea, value-added services, quality of individual attention, customer support services,the suppliers services of the operator, quality of employeescustomers interaction,operators services in campaigns. Hence, perceived service quality was measured byeight items. Customer Satisfaction operationalisation included satisfaction in relationto overall satisfaction with expectation, satisfaction with price, service quality,

pre-purchased expectations and coverage area. Hence, customer satisfaction wasmeasured by five items. Customer Trust operationalisation included service quality,ethics, reliability, trust in the operator and cumulative process. Hence, customer trust wasmeasured by five items.Perceived Switching Costs operationalisation included time,cost and efforts of the consumers involved to switch from one service provider toanother. Perceived monetary costs, uncertainty costs, evaluation costs, learning costs andsocial costs were considered in developing the construct for perceived switching cost.Hence, perceived switching costs was measured by seven items. Customer Loyaltyoperationalisation included repurchase intention; resistance to switching to competitors

product or service that is superior to the preferred vendors product or service;willingness to recommend the preferred vendors product or service to friends andassociates. Hence, customer loyalty was measured by five items.

3.2 Population and sample

Our research population was all mobile service subscribers who had valid subscriptionin one of three mobile operators operating in Jordan during 2008. According toBusiness Monitor International (2009), the mobile service market penetration is 90.6%in Jordan. The researchers made several attempts and contacts with Jordans three mobileoperators to have access to their customers databases from which our researchsample would have been drawn. The three operators were extremely reluctant to

provide their customers databases since they were highly classified and confidential due


11/26


to competitive reasons. To obtain a representative sample, a convenience sample

was chosen from three major cities in Jordan, which represent the heaviest subscribers(i.e., Amman, Irbid and Zarqa). Therefore, 1000 subscribers were chosen from these threecities. This sample was representative to achieve our research objectives for two reasons.First, according to Jordans Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (2008),these cities represent about 80% of Jordans mobile service subscribers. Second,our sample was designed to represent the market share of the mobile operatorsin Jordan, which are Zain (44.3%), Orange (28.9%) and Umniah (26.8%), respectively(Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, 2008). The respondents mobileoperators section in Appendix 2 indicates that the respondents fairly represent the threemobile subscribers. Finally, the unit of analysis in this study was the customer, which isconsistent with perceived service quality and customer loyalty literature.

3.3 Research instrument and data collection

Our research instrument was developed based on measures and operationalisations,which were all adapted from relevant literature of perceived service quality, customersatisfaction, customer trust, perceived switching costs and customer loyalty. On the basisof multiple item measures of each construct, five sections were included in ourquestionnaire to accomplish the research objectives. A small section was also included inour questionnaire to study our samples demographics. Our instrument was piloted using

personal interviews with customers and key managers in the mobile telecommunicationssector to reveal ability of customers (respondents) to understand it and to test itsappropriateness for the research purposes. This pilot study was insightful for testing ourinstrument, which led to minor alterations. Through a team of research assistants, theinstrument was personally delivered to all targeted respondents (customers) whereresearch objectives were explained to them. Several in-depth interviews were carried outwith managers on a leading mobile operator in Jordan to get insights related to theresearch instrument and sampling design strategy. The primary data collection processwas carried out using a highly structured questionnaire that was adapted from the currentliteratures to achieve the research objectives. The research items were measured on5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) exceptthe perceived service quality items, which were measured on 5-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (very high) to 5 (very low). In the main survey, we delivered 1000questionnaires to customers (subscribers) of the three mobile operators in Jordanfrom which 775 were returned; the response rate was 77.5%. The valid and useablequestionnaires for data analysis were 756, 97.5%, from the returned questionnaires.The response rate was relatively high due to the primary data collection approach,

personal delivery that we employed in our survey, which usually yields high responserate.

3.4 Sample demographics

Appendix 2 exhibits the research sample demographics. The appendix underlines thefollowing facts about the sample:


12/26


47.9% of sample respondents were subscribers to Zain, 30.8% of them were

subscribers to Orange, while 21.3% of them were subscribers to Umniah.Such statistics were relatively close to the three major mobile operators marketshares in Jordan, underlined in Section 3.2.

58.3% of sample respondents were males, while 77.5% of them were young withinthe age category of 1838 years. Both statistics were consistent with thecharacteristics of Jordanian society. This would help mobile operators to havesuccessful transactions with the Jordanian customers who are willing to buildlong-term relationships with them.

The income of 52.6% of sample respondents ranged from 201 to 499 JordanianDinars. This implies that the mobile service subscribers may be sensitive to anyfluctuations in the perceived service quality and customer satisfaction that may

affect their loyalty on the long term. Almost two-third of sample respondents were well educated, 66.7%, have obtained

either a university degree or graduate degree. Furthermore, the great majority ofrespondents, 88.9%, have an experience with their mobile operators that ranges fromone year, at least, to more than five years. This indicates that the customers haveadequate transactions and are well experienced with their mobile operators.This indicates that they are in the best position to judge perceived service quality,customer satisfaction, customer trust, perceived switching costs and customerloyalty.

3.5 Constructs validity and composite reliability

Face validity was achieved through the pilot work of our research instrument withmanagers on leading mobile service operators as well as three academics from reputable

business schools in Jordan who checked the relevance and appropriateness of ourinstrument to achieve our research objectives, providing evidence of face validity.Content validity was achieved by the procedures that are used to develop the researchinstrument, which are conducting a thorough examination on the previous work onresearch constructs, upon which the operational definition for each construct wasdeveloped by using multiple items as well as the pilot study before starting the fieldwork.

With regard to construct validity, as recommended by Hair et al. (1998), ExploratoryFactor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) were used to assess theconstruct validity of each construct in the research. Thus, EFA was performed to test theunidimensionality of each construct to test the degree to which the items were tapping

the same concept. It has been recommended that CFA, derived from Structural EquationModelling (SEM), is a more rigorous test of unidimensionality (Garver and Mentzer,1999, p.40). Thus, CFA was also utilised to confirm or refine the unidimensionality ofmeasurements that resulted from the EFA. To assess the EFA, four commonly usedassumptions were followed (Field, 2000; Hair et al., 1998): sampling adequacy(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure greater than 0.5); the minimum Eigenvalue for each factorto be one; considering the sample size, factor loading of 0.40 for each item wasconsidered as the threshold for retaining items to ensure greater confidence; varimax


13/26


rotation was used since it is a good general approach that simplifies the interpretations

of factors (Field, 2000, p.449). Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) showedwhich variables clump together. To assess the CFA, goodness of measurement model fitusing SEM was followed (Chau, 1997, p.318): Chi-square (P 0.05); goodness-of-fitindex (GFI 0.90); adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI 0.80); Normed Fit Index(NFI 0.90); non-normed fit index (NNFI 0.90); comparative fit index (CFI 0.90);standardised root mean-square residual (SRMR 0.08); root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA < 0.10). Factor loadings are the correlations of the variableswith the factor, the weighted combination of variables, which best explains the variance.Higher values (e.g., more than 0.40) making the variable representative of the factor(Hair et al., 1998, p.106).

Table 1 shows the results of EFA for the research constructs. An index of Kaisersmeasure of sampling adequacy (overall MSA) and Bartletts test of Sphericity (p 0.000)

for each construct suggested that factor analysis is appropriate for analysing ourdata. Further, based on the eigen-values greater than 1, one dimension is extractedfor each construct, which explains perceived service quality = 47.21%, customersatisfaction = 60.10%, customer trust = 59.90%, perceived switching costs = 50.60%and customer loyalty = 59.70% of the total variance, respectively. After examiningthe pattern matrix of the EFA, all items had loadings greater than 0.4 and communalitiesgreater than 0.5. As shown in Table 1, results of EFA indicate that there is empiricalevidence to support the unidimensionality of each construct as discussed in the literaturereview.

To confirm and validate the findings that emerged from EFA, each of the researchconstructs was evaluated by CFA using EQS 6.1 software. The measurement model ofthe CFA relates the observed variables to their latent variable. Table 1 shows themeasurements models of each construct and a summary of the model goodness-of-fit.

As shown in Table 1, measures of goodness-of-fit were met for all constructs. The resultsof CFA supported the findings that emerged from EFA and all items loadingswell exceeded the cut-off point value, i.e., 0.60. Items with insignificant factor loadings,high measurement errors and low factor loading when compared with the suggested0.60 threshold were dropped (Hair et al., 1998). Consequently, one item codedas (CT3) and another item coded as (SC3) were deleted during CFA, respectively.A potential interpretation of the deleted items during CFA is that customers might haveexperienced sort of cheating from some of their service providers (CT3). Furthermore,switching to other mobile service operators may not cost them a lot since the market isvery competitive and customers have many offers to choose from (SC3). Finally,convergent validity was also examined by using the Bentler-Bonett NFI (Bentler andBonett, 1990). All of the constructs have NFI values above 0.90. Furthermore, as shownin Table 1, indication of the measures convergent validity was provided by the fact thatall factor loadings were significant and that the scales exhibited high levels of internalconsistency (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In addition toevidence derived from the CFA, the resulting measures were also reliable. As Table 1shows, the composite reliabilities (perceived service quality = 0.84, customersatisfaction = 0.78, customer trust = 0.79, perceived switching costs = 0.72, customerloyalty = 0.80) provided evidence in support of measures reliability.


14/26


Table 1 Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses results for SQ, CS, CT, SC and CL

EFA Results CFA Results

Code Perceived service quality: SQ1SQ8

Factors

loadings

Eigen

value

Factors

loadings

Composite

reliability

SQ1 Given the quality of your operators coverage area, how would

you rate the coverage area for your operator?

0.72 0.71

SQ2 Given the quality of your operators customer services,

how would you rate the customer services for your operator?

0.70 0.69*

SQ3 Given the quality of your operators adding service (GPRS, WAP

etc.), how would you rate the adding service for your operator?

0.73

2.62

0.82*

0.84

SQ4 Given the quality of your operators vendor, how would you rate

the vendor for your operator?

0.73 0.75*

SQ5 Given the quality of your operators campaign, how would you

rate the campaign for your operator?

0.70 0.77*

SQ6 When you compare advertisements with services, how would you

rate the services for your operator?

0.66 0.69*

SQ7 Given the quality of your operators employees, how would you

rate the quality of individual attention you get

0.68 0.74*

SQ8 Given the quality of your operators employees interaction quality,

how would you rate the quality of interaction to understand your

needs

0.64 0.68*

Sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure greater than 0.5): 0.87

Model goodness

of fit indices:

desired level

2

P 0.05

GFI 0.90 AGFI 0.80 NFI 0.90 CFI 0.90 NNFI 0.90 SRMR 0.08 RMSEA < 0.10

Model indicesresults

10.15,P= 0.087

0.997 0.980 0.989 0.992 0.988 0.025 0.055

EFA results CFA results

Code Customer satisfaction: CS1CS5

Factors

loadings

Eigen

value

Factors

loadings

Composite

reliability

CS1 This mobile phone operator completely meets expectations from

any other operator

0.77 0.78

CS2 I am satisfied with this mobile phone operators service quality 0.83 0.75*

CS3 I am satisfied with this mobile phone operators prices 0.78 0.68*

CS4 This mobile phone operator meets my pre-purchase expectations 0.72 0.70*

CS5 I am satisfied with my mobile phone operators coverage area 0.76

2.90

0.75*

0.78


Model goodness

of fit indices:

desired level

2

P 0.05


Model indices

results

3.20,

P= 0.210

0.998 0.988 0.997 0.999 0.995 0.009 0.032

CT1 I trusted this mobile phone operator 0.72 0.83

CT2 I feel that I can rely on this mobile phone operator to serve well 0.80 0.72*

CT3 I believe that I can trust this mobile phone operator will not try

cheat me

0.79

2.99

Deleted

0.79


15/26


Table 1 Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses results for SQ, CS, CT, SC and CL

(continued)

EFA Results CFA Results

Code Perceived service quality: SQ1SQ8

Factors

loadings

Eigen

value

Factors

loadings

Composite

reliability

CT4 The mobile phone operator is reliable because it is mainly

concerned with the customers interests

0.82 0.72*

CT5 I trust the billing system in this mobile phone operator 0.83 0.84*


Model goodness

of fit indices:

desired level

2

P 0.05


Model indicesresults 5.14,P= 0.180 0.992 0.983 0.992 0.995 0.991 0.02 0.041

SC1 I am not sure that the billing of the new operator would be better

for me

0.70 0.70

SC2 To switch to a new operator; I should compare all operators,

e.g., coverage area, billingetc.

0.75 0.65*

SC3 Even if I have enough information, comparing the operators with

each other takes a lot of energy, time and efforts

0.61 Deleted

SC4 If I switched to a new operator; I could not use some services

(MMS, GPRS, WAP, etc.), until I learned to use them

0.71 0.76*

SC5 I would be concerned about the people who would dial my

previous number and could not reach me

0.73

2.14

0.72*

0.72


Model goodness

of fit indices:

desired level

2

P 0.05


Model indices

results

4.51,

P= 0.100

0.997 0.985 0.988 0.993 0.979 0.020 0.040

CL1 I will go on using this mobile phone operator line 0.74 0.70

CL2 If I bought a new mobile phone line, I would prefer this mobile

phone operator

0.70 0.72*

CL3 I will recommend this mobile phone operator to people 0.86 0.80*

CL4 I encourage friends who plan to buy mobile phone line to buy

from my mobile phone operator

0.85 0.82*

CL5 Even if the other operators billing is cheaper, I would go on using

my mobile phone operator line

0.69

2.89

0.71*

0.80


Model goodness

of fit indices:

desired level

2

P 0.05


Model indices

results

3.931,

P= 0.140

0.998 0.985 0.997 0.999 0.993 0.008 0.035

*Denotes significant factors loading.


16/26


4 Structural model, hypotheses testing and findings

Our research model, shown in Figure 1, was empirically tested using structural pathanalysis. As shown in Figure 2, the analysis began by creating a direct path from

perceived service quality to customer loyalty. Direct paths were also run from perceivedservice quality to customer satisfaction, customer trust and perceived switching costs.A path was run from customer satisfaction to customer trust, while another path was runfrom customer trust to perceived switching costs. Finally, direct paths were run from eachof customer satisfaction, customer trust and perceived switching costs to customerloyalty. Table 2 shows the structural path model goodness-of-fit measures and thestructural paths results. As shown in Table 2, the goodness-of-fit measures indicated thatthe model had an excellent fit to the data. All research hypotheses were supported excepthypotheses H10 and H12, which were not supported but maintained positive effects.

Table 2 Summary of structural path model results: SQ, CS, CT, SC and CL

H1H12Variables in the

paths model Beta* T-value* Hypotheses testing results

H1 SQ CL 0.11* 18.07* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H2 SQ CS 0.70* 28.39* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H3 SQ CT 0.26* 25.76* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H4 SQ SC 0.27* 11.68* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H5 CS CL 0.38* 13.29* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H6 CT CL 0.18* 3.95* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H7SC

CL0.14* 4.74* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H8 CS SQ 0.13* 3.40* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H9 CS CT 0.60* 20.32* Supported-direct, positive and significant effect

H10 CT SC 0.05 0.90 Not supported-direct, positive and non-significanteffect

H11a SQ CL via CS 0.56* 13.29* Supported-indirect, positive and significant effect

H11b SQ CL via CT 0.19* 3.95* Supported-indirect, positive and significant effect

H11c SQ CL via SC 0.17* 4.74* Supported-indirect, positive and significant effect

H12 CS SC via CT 0.04 0.91 Not supported-indirect, positive and non-significant effect

*Standardised beta coefficients. *Significant atP< 0.05

2 GFI AGFI NFI CFI NNFI SRMR RMSEAModel goodnessof fit indices

3.70,P= 0.160

0.998 0.983 0.999 0.999 0.995 0.007 0.034

Perceived service quality had a positive and significant influence on customerloyalty (Beta = 0.11, t= 18.07), customer satisfaction (Beta = 0.70, t= 28.39), customertrust (Beta = 0.26, t= 25.76) and perceived switching costs (Beta = 0.27, t= 11.68).Then, each of customer satisfaction (Beta = 0.38, t= 13.29), customer trust (Beta = 0.18,t= 3.95) and perceived switching costs (Beta = 0.14, t= 4.74) had a positive and


17/26


significant influence on customer loyalty. Customer satisfaction had a positive and

significant effect on perceived switching costs (Beta = 0.13, t= 3.40). Furthermore,customer satisfaction had a positive and significant effect on customer trust (Beta = 0.60,t= 20.32). However, customer trust had a positive, but non-significant, influence on

perceived switching costs (Beta = 0.05, t= 0.90). The structural path model findings alsoshowed that perceived service quality had a positive, indirect and significant effect oncustomer loyalty via each of customer satisfaction (Beta = 0.56, t= 13.29), customer trust(Beta = 0.19, t= 3.95) and perceived switching costs (Beta = 0.17, t= 4.74), respectively.Meanwhile, customer satisfaction had a positive, indirect and non-significant effect on

perceived switching costs via customer trust (Beta = 0.04, t= 0.91). Structural pathsfindings also indicated that perceived service quality had exerted the strongest influenceon customer satisfaction (Beta = 0.70, t= 28.39), while customer satisfaction exerted thestrongest influence on customer loyalty (Beta = 0.38, t= 13.29) and on customer trust

(Beta = 0.60, t= 20.32).Finally, Figure 2 shows R2 results for customer satisfaction, customer trust,perceived switching costs and customer loyalty. R2 indicates the extent of variationin one variable caused by the effect(s) of other variable(s). Most noticeable to this

paper was the fact that the R2 result of 0.462 indicated that 46.2% of variationin customer loyalty was caused by service quality, customer satisfaction, trust and

perceived switching costs. On the other hand,R2 result of 0.484 indicated that 48.4% ofvariation in customer satisfaction was caused by service quality. WhileR2 result of 0.656indicated that 65.5% of variation in customer trust was caused by both service quality andcustomer satisfaction, R2 result of 0.167 indicated that 16.7% of variation in perceivedswitching costs was caused by both variables too. Such results underline that,while the models variables affect each other to a certain extent, other factors, notaddressed by the model, seem to affect customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, customertrust and perceived switching costs.

Figure 2 The empirical research model


18/26


5 Discussion, conclusions and practical implications

Customer loyalty: Consistent with previous empirical findings, customer loyalty inJMTM is affected, both directly and significantly, by customer satisfaction, customertrust, perceived switching costs and perceived service quality, respectively. However,it should be underlined that the four antecedents only explained 46.2% of variation incustomer loyalty. Hence, customer loyalty in the JMTM is a multi-dependent constructaffected by several antecedents in addition to the four underlined by this study. Suchantecedents could include demographics (e.g., gender, age, income, level of education,etc.), operators image, and general economic, social and technological conditions in theJMTM. While focusing on the four antecedents of customer loyalty addressed by this

paper, Jordanian mobile operators need to utilise their marketing assets and capabilities,especially their customer information and knowledge, to better understand their

customers, and to underline any other factors that might affect customers loyalty.Perceived service quality: Despite exerting the lowest direct effect over customer loyalty,the importance of perceived service quality to loyalty in JMTM should not beunderestimated. Empirical results indicated that perceived service quality had a directconsiderable effect over customer satisfaction, customer trust and perceived switchingcosts, respectively. In fact, perceived service quality had a relatively high effect overcustomer satisfaction, which in turn had the highest effect over customer loyalty.Furthermore, perceived service quality had an indirect considerable effect over customerloyalty via its effect over customer satisfaction, perceived switching costs and customertrust, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that, within the context of JMTM,the effect of perceived service quality over customer loyalty should be addressed bothdirectly and indirectly, via its effect over other antecedents of customer loyalty. Jordanian

mobile operators should focus on continuous improvement of their services. Effectivemarket analysis and customer segmentation could enable mobile operators to provide

better, more innovative and competitive services tailored specifically to targetedsegments needs and wants.

Customer satisfaction: The fact that customer satisfaction had the highest effect overcustomer loyalty in JMTM underlines the leading opinion in literature about a significantinfluence of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty towards the service provider(Ibanez et al., 2006). In addition to its effect over loyalty, customer satisfaction hada significant direct effect over customer trust and perceived switching costs. Hence,continuous customer satisfaction with mobile operators services in JMTM increasescustomers trust in those operators and makes subscribing to other alternative mobileoperators a risky choice. However, it should be underlined that service quality is not the

only antecedent of customer satisfaction in JMTM. Other factors seem to affect Jordaniancustomers satisfaction. Mobile operators need to acknowledge such fact. Buildinglong-term relationships manifested through more personal interaction and strongercustomer relationship management programmes can enable mobile operators ofunderstanding what factors affect their customer expectation and behaviours, hence,affecting their satisfaction.

Customer trust: While consistent with previous empirical findings, the effect ofcustomer trust over loyalty was considered low when compared with that of customersatisfaction. Furthermore, and contrary to previous empirical findings (i.e., Chaudhuri


19/26


and Holbrook, 2002; Aydin and Ozer, 2005), customer trust failed to exert a significant

effect over perceived switching costs. Therefore, while customer trust still represents anantecedent of customer loyalty, it is insufficient in building customers perceivedswitching costs. The fact that customer satisfaction has failed to exert a significantindirect effect over perceived switching costs via customer trust, while at the same timeexerting a significant direct effect over both of them, supports the fact that customer trustdoes not contribute in forming Jordanian customers switching costs neither as anindependent nor as a mediator. While service quality and satisfaction do affect Jordaniancustomers trust in mobile operators to a certain extent, other factors seem to have a rolein shaping that trust. Stronger relationships based on personal interaction, through bettercustomer care programmes, could enable mobile operators of gaining customer trust, or atleast understating what affects it.

Perceived switching costs: While consistent with previous empirical findings, perceived

switching costs had a relatively low positive, direct and significant effect over customerloyalty. While such result suggests that perceived switching costs contribute to Jordaniancustomers loyalty. The relatively low effect suggests that current switching costs, or

barriers, imposed by mobile operators are not strong enough to increase the contributionof switching costs to Jordanian customers loyalty. While monetary switching costscould prevent customer from leaving, mobile operators should focus on other types ofswitching costs such as benefits-loss, uncertainty and social costs, since they have astronger effect over customers attitudes.

6 Contribution, limitations and future research

This paper has contributed to marketing literature in some ways. From a theoreticalperspective, the papers contribution stems from fulfilling research gaps in customerloyalty and service quality literature that recommended more empirical research in thisarea especially in developing countries business environments. From an empirical

perspective, the papers contribution comes from its empirical findings, which indicatethat customer loyalty is a multi-dependent concept affected by several antecedents,including those addressed by this paper. Another empirical contribution of this paper wasthat perceived service quality is still a strong antecedent of customer loyalty both directlyand indirectly. The papers major contribution comes from being the first study in Jordanto examine the simultaneous direct, and indirect, relationships between perceived servicequality, customer satisfaction, customer trust, perceived switching costs and customerloyalty.

The papers contribution should be addressed in relation to a number of limitations,from which future research opportunities can be outlined. First, and to achieve datacollection efficiency, the paper used a unidimensional construct to measure perceivedservice quality. While support to such procedure is available in previous research, thestudy acknowledges the fact that using a multidimensional measure could have providedmore insights in relation to the contribution of service quality dimensions to customersatisfaction, trust and loyalty. Therefore, a potential area of future research is to examinethe papers model using multiple dimensions of service quality (e.g., SERVQUAL orSERVPERF) and then examine their direct and indirect effect on the rest of the modelsvariables simultaneously in the mobile service sector and other service sectors. Second,


20/26


customer loyalty was the only outcome used to examine the effect of perceived service

quality, customer satisfaction, customer trust and perceived switching costs overJordanian customer. In addition to customer loyalty, future research should investigateother behavioural outcomes of perceived service quality, customer satisfaction andcustomer trust such as customer retention and word of mouth. Third, the generalisation ofthe papers model and findings to other service business industries should be consideredwith caution since it is conducted in a single service industry-mobile service market inJordan. A possible fruitful area of future research is to replicate the papers model onother service industries in Jordan and among other developing countries in the region toexamine its generalisation and applicability to other service industries. Finally, futureresearch can explore the influence of other antecedents over customer loyalty, customerssatisfaction, customer trust and perceived switching costs.

References

Abo Shaikha, N. (2005) Clients perceptions of the quality services in Jordan telecom company,Journal of King Saud Bin Abdulazeez University: Economics and Management, Vol. 19,No. 1, pp.4179.

Akroush, M. (2008) Exploring the mediation effect of service quality implementation on therelationship between service quality and performance in the banking industry in Jordan,Global Business and Economics Review: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.98122.

Al-Hawari, M., Ward, T. and Newby, L. (2009) The relationship between service quality andretention within the automated and traditional contexts of retail banking, Journal of ServicesManagement, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.455472.

AL-Shurah, M. (2004) The measurement of quality services of Amman five stars hotels servicesas perceived by hotels quests,Jordan Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.6276.

Alvarez, J., Mayo, J.M. and Malaki, M. (2008) Identifying Todays Key Industry Dynamics in theMiddle East and Africa, Delta Partners, Special Report, March, Dubai, UAE,

Aydin, S. and Ozer, G. (2005) The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the Turkishmobile telecommunications market, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 718,pp.910925.

Aydin, S. and Ozer, G. (2006) How switching costs affect subscriber loyalty in the Turkish mobilephone market: an exploratory study, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis forMarketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.141155.

Aydin, S., zer, G. and Arasil, O. (2005) Customer loyalty and the effect of switching costs asmoderator variable,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.89103.

Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1990) Comparative fit indices in structural models,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp.238246.

Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (1998) On the relationship between perceived services

quality, service loyalty and switching costs, International Journal of Industry Management,Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.436453.

Burham T.A., Ferls J.K. and Mahajan. V. (2003) Consumer switching costs: a typology,antecedents and consequences,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31, No. 2,pp.10926.

Business Monitor International (BMI) (2009) Jordan Telecommunications Report Q1 2009,Business Monitor International (8/1/2009), London. Cited in Kardoosh, M.A. and Steityeh, Z.(2009), Failure to Send,Jordan Business Magazine, August Issue.

Casalo, L.V., Flavian, C. and Guinaliu, M. (2009) The role of satisfaction and website usability indeveloping customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking services,International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.399417.


21/26


Chau, P. (1997) Reexamining a model for evaluating information centre success using a structural

equation modelling approach,Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.309333.Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002) Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand

outcomes: the role of brand trust and brand affect, Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1,pp.3358.

Chen, J.V. and Aritejo, B.A. (2008) Service quality and customer satisfaction measurement ofmobile value-added services: a conceptual review, International Journal of MobileCommunication, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.165176.

Chiu, C-M., Chang, C-C., Cheng, H-L. and Fang, Y-H. (2009) Determinants of customerrepurchase intention in online shopping, Online Information Review, Vol. 33, No. 4,pp.761784.

Choi, J., Seol, H., Lee, S. and Cho, H. (2008) Customer satisfaction factors of mobile commercein Korea,Internet Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.313335.

Colwell, S., Hogarth-Scott, S., Jiang, D. and Joshi, A. (2009) Effects of organizational and

serviceperson orientation on customer loyalty, Management Decision, Vol. 47, No. 10,pp.14891513.

Coyles, S. and Gokey, T.C. (2002) Customer retention is not enough, The Mckinsey Quarterly,2, http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.asp?ar=1176andL2=16, April.

Dabholkar, P.A. and Overby, J.W. (2005) Linking process and outcome to service quality andcustomer satisfaction evaluations: an investigation of real estate agent service, InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.1027.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001) Brand trust in the context of consumerloyalty,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 11, pp.12381258.

Espejel, J., Fandos, C. and Flavian, C. (2008) Consumer satisfaction: a key factor of consumerloyalty and buying intention of a PDO food product,British Food Journal, Vol. 110, No. 9,pp.865881.

Feick, L., Lee, J. and Lee, J. (2001) The impact of switching costs on the customersatisfaction-loyalty link: mobile phone service in France, Journal of Services Marketing,

Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.3548.Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows-Advanced Techniques for the

Beginner, Sage Publications, London.

Fornell, C. (1992) A national customer barometer, the Swedish experience,Journal of Marketing,Vol. 56, January, pp.621.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.3950.

Fornell, C., Johnson, M.C., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996) The Americanconsumer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,October, pp.718.

Garver, M. and Mentzer, J. (1999) Logistics research methods: employing structural equationmodelling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 1,pp.3347.

Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988) An updated paradigm for scale developmentincorporating unidimensionality and its assessment,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25,pp.186192.

Guenzi, P., Johnson, M.D. and Castaldo, S. (2009) A comprehensive model of customer trust intwo retail stores,Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.290316.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Helgesen, O. (2006) Are loyal customers profitable, customer satisfaction, customer (action)loyalty and customer profitability of the individual, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 22, pp.245266.


22/26


Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A. and Rickard, J.A. (2003) Customer repurchase intention:

a general structural equation model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 11,pp.17621800.

Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005) Trust-based commitment: multidimensional consumer-brandrelationships,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp.313322.

Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A. and Ellonen, H-K. (2008) Online satisfaction, trustand loyalty, and the impact of the offline parent brand, Journal of Product and BrandManagement, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.403413.

Ibanez, V.A., Hartman, P. and Calvo, P.Z. (2006) Antecedents of customer loyalty in residentialenergy markets; service quality, satisfaction, trust and switching costs, Service IndustriesJournal, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.633650.

Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S.E. (2002) Why customers stay: measuring theunderlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategicoutcomes,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp.441450.

Kang, G. and James, J. (2004) Service quality dimensions: an examination of Gronrooss servicequality model,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.266277.

Kardoosh, M.A. and Steityeh, Z. (2009) Cover story: failure to send,Jordan Business Magazine,August, pp.2835.

Klemperer, P. (1987) The competitiveness of markets with switching costs, Rand Journal ofEconomics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.138150.

Kuusik, A. (2003) Affecting Customer Loyalty: Do Different Factors have Various Influences inDifferent Loyalty Levels, Tartu University Press, Order No. 366.

Kuusik, A. and Varblane, U. (2009) How to avoid customers leaving: the case of the Estoniantelecommunication industry,Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.6679.

Lau, G.K. and Lee, S.H. (1999) Consumer trust in a brand and link to brand loyalty, Journal ofMarket-Focused Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.341370.

Li, W. and McQueen, R.J. (2008) Barriers to mobile commerce adoption: an analysis frameworkfor a country-level perspective, International Journal of Mobile Communication, Vol. 6,No. 2, pp.231257.

Lim, H. and Kumar, A. (2008) Gender and loyalty in the context of mobile services, InternationalJournal of Mobile Communication, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.714728.

Lim, H., Widdows, R. and Park, J. (2006) M-loyalty: winning strategies for mobile carriers,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.208218.

Liu, C. (2008) The impact of service quality and switching cost on customer loyalty in informationasymmetric services, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, Vol. 5,No. 3, pp.237251.

Martiz, A. (2008) Entrepreneurial services marketing initiatives facilitating small businessgrowth,Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.493504.

McMullan, R. and Gilmore, A. (2008) Customer loyalty: an empirical study, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 42, Nos. 910, pp.10841094.

Meyer-Waarden, L. (2008) The influence of loyalty programme membership on customerpurchase behaviour,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, Nos. 12, pp.87114.

Mobile Syndicated Study (2008) Major Mobile Syndicated Study Results Reveal CustomerAttitudes Towards Mobile Operators in Jordan, UAE, Egypt and KSA, Mobile SyndicatedStudy Reports, http://www.ameinfo.com/145021.html, 28th January.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp.2038.

Murray, K.B. and Schlacter, J.L. (1990) The impact of services versus goods on consumersassessment of perceived risk and variability, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 18, Winter, pp.5165.


23/26


Narayandas, N. (1996) The Link Between Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: An

Empirical Investigation, Working Paper, No. 97-017, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.Ndubisi, N.O. and Chan, K.W. (2005) Factorial and discriminant analyses of the underpinnings of

relationship marketing and customer satisfaction, International Journal of Bank Marketing,Vol. 23, No. 7, pp.542557.

Newman, K. (2001) Interrogating SERVQUAL: a critical assessment of service qualitymanagement in a high street bank, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 3,pp.126139.

Nexhmi, R. (1998) Can the relational banking model explain the role of trust in bank-businessclient relationships?,Proceedings of ANZMAC Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp.17.

NQRC (1995)American Customer Satisfaction Index Methodology Report, University of MichiganBusiness School, Ann Arbor, MI.

Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Florence, P.V. (2001) Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty,an empirical investigation,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53, pp.7584.

Oliver, R. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfactiondecisions,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.460469.

Oliver, R. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Palmer, A. (1998)Principles of Services Marketing, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Parvez, M. (2005) A Relational Study on Service Quality, Switching Cost, Trust, CustomerSatisfaction and Customer Loyalty in the Context of Grameenphone , Internship Report,Submitted to Independent University, Bangladesh.

Pezeshki, V., Mousavi, A. and Grant, S. (2009) Importance-performance analysis of serviceattributes and its impact on decision making in the mobile telecommunication industry,Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.8292.

Pfanner, E. (2008) A company lets callers roam free, International Herald Tribune, April 17,2008, The New York Times Media Group, London.

Porter, M.E. (1998) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Ranaweera, C. and Prabhu, J. (2003) The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers oncustomer retention in a continuous purchasing setting, International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.374395.

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vart, P. (2005) Service quality models: a review, InternationalJournal of Quality and Reliability, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp.913949.

Shweikeh, M. (2009) Cited in Jordan Mobile Market Nears Saturation, Focus Shifts from PriceWar to Customer Retention, Wireless Federation, http://www.wirlessfederation.com/news/14857-jordan, 25th March.

Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) (2008) Annual Report, Amman,Jordan.

Van Montfort, K., Masurel, E. and Van Rijn, I. (2000) Service satisfaction: an empirical analysisof consumer satisfaction in financial services, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3,pp.8094.

Venetis, K.A. and Ghauri, P.N. (2004) Service quality and customer retention: building long-termrelationships,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, Nos. 1112, pp.15771598.

Wen-Bao, L. (2009) A study of relations among service quality differences, post-purchasebehavior intentions with personality traits, and service recovery strategy as interveningvariables, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 19, No. No. 2,pp.137157.

Wireless Federation (2009)Jordan Mobile Market Nears Saturation, Focus Shifts from Price Warto Customer Retention, http://www.wirlessfederation.com/news/14857-jordan, 25th March.


24/26


Xu, C.C.H., Goedegebuure, R. and van der Heijden, B. (2006) Customer perception, customer

satisfaction and customer loyalty within Chinese securities business: towards a mediationmodel for predicting customer behavior, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 4,pp.7904.

Yavas, U. and Babakus, E. (2009) Retail store loyalty: a comparison of two customer segments,International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp.477492.

Yeh, Y.S. and Li, Y-M. (2009) Building trust in m-commerce: contributions from quality andsatisfaction, Online Information Review, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.10661086.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model andsynthesis of evidence,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.222.

Appendix 1: Research constructs and measurement items

Perceived service quality: SQ1SQ8

SQ1 Given the quality of your operators coverage area, how would you rate thecoverage area for your operator?

SQ2 Given the quality of your operators customer services, how would you ratethe customer services for your operator?

SQ3 Given the quality of your operators adding service (GPRS, WAP etc.),how would you rate the adding service for your operator?

SQ4 Given the quality of your operators vendor, how would you rate the vendorfor your operator?

Bloemer et al.(1998), Aydinand Ozer(2005),Dabholkar andOverby (2005)

SQ5 Given the quality of your operators campaign, how would you rate thecampaign for your operator?

SQ6 When you compare advertisements with services, how would you ratethe services for your operator?

SQ7 Given the quality of your operators employees, how would you rate thequality of individual attention you get

SQ8 Given the quality of your operators employees interaction quality, how wouldyou rate the quality of interaction to understand your needs

Customer satisfaction: CS1CS5

CS1 This mobile phone operator completely meets expectations from any otheroperator

CS2 I am satisfied with this mobile phone operators service quality

CS3 I am satisfied with this mobile phone operators prices

CS4 This mobile phone operator meets my pre-purchase expectations

CS5 I am satisfied with my mobile phone operators coverage area

NQRC (1995),Feick et al.(2001), Aydinand Ozer(2005)

Customer trust: CT1CT5

CT1 I trusted this mobile phone operator

CT2 I feel that I can rely on this mobile phone operator to serve well

CT3 I believe that I can trust this mobile phone operator will not try cheat me

CT4 The mobile phone operator is reliable because it is mainly concerned with thecustomers interests

Morgan andHunt (1994),Aydin andOzer (2005)

CT5 I trust the billing system in this mobile phone operator


25/26


Appendix 1: Research constructs and measurement items (continued)

Perceived switching costs: SC1SC5

SC1 I am not sure that the billing of the new operator would be better for me

SC2 To switch to a new operator; I should compare all operators,e.g., coverage area, billing etc.

SC3 Even if I have enough information, comparing the operators with each othertakes a lot of energy, time and efforts

SC4 If I switched to a new operator; I could not use some services(MMS, GPRS, WAP, etc.), until I learned to use them

SC5 I would be concerned about the people who would dial my previous numberand could not reach me

Jones et al.(2002),Burham et al.(2003), Aydinet al. (2005)and Liu (2008)

Customer loyalty: CL1CL5

CL1 I will go on using this mobile phone operator line

CL2 If I bought a new mobile phone line, I would prefer this mobile phoneoperator

CL3 I will recommend this mobile phone operator to people

CL4 I encourage friends who plan to buy mobile phone line to buy from my mobilephone operator

CL5 Even if the other operators billing is cheaper, I would go on using my mobilephone operator line

Narayandas(1996), Oliver(1997), Aydinand Ozer(2005)

Appendix 2: Research sample demographics

Frequency Percentages

Respondents gender

Male 441 58.3

Female 315 41.7

Respondents age

Less than 18 47 6.21828 412 54.52938 174 23.03948 77 10.2More than 49 46 6.1

Respondents income

Less than 200JDs* 199 26.4

201349 JDs 292 38.6

350499 JDs 106 14.0

500649 JDs 69 9.1

650799 JDs 39 5.1

More than 800 JDs 51 6.8


26/26


Appendix 2: Research sample demographics (continued)

Frequency Percentages

Educational level

High School 80 10.6

Diploma (College) Degree 123 16.3Bachelor Degree 347 45.9Master Degree 157 20.8PhD Degree 36 4.8Others 13 1.7

Respondents mobile operators

Zain 362 47.9

Orange 233 30.8

Umniah 161 21.3

Respondents years of transaction with the operator

Less than 1 Year 84 11.1

1Less than 3 Years 258 34.1

3Less than 5 Years 177 23.4

More than 5 Years 237 31.4

Total 756 100

*JDs is the currency of Jordan Jordanian Dinar.

loyality in jmtm

Documents