Entrepreneur.

com

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.html

Are your satisfied customers loyal?
by Skogland, Iselin^Siguaw, Judy A. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly • August, 2004 • Customer Loyalty and Satisfaction The value of repeat business has long been established as being considerable, partly because of the cost of acquiring new customers and partly because loyal customers are thought to have less price resistance. Consequently, service companies worldwide spend billions every year on customer-loyalty programs and other preferred guest programs aimed at getting their guests to come back. This study, which compared guests' switching behavior at two comparable big-city hotels, indicates that hospitality companies may want to reconsider that investment. Contrary to conventional thinking, the results indicate that satisfaction has only a limited relationship with either involvement or loyalty. In other words, satisfaction is not the chief means to encourage guests to return to a hotel. Worse, the study found that business travelers, who constitute a chief target of most loyalty programs, were inclined to switch from one hotel to another, even when they had been satisfied with their most recent stays. On the other hand, the results indicate that a strong relationship exists between involvement and loyalty. Thus, hoteliers may find it worth their while to redirect the money spent on loyalty programs to applications that involve the guest emotionally with the hotel. Chief among the emotionally engaging attributes, the study found, is the hotel's employees. ********** The firmly held doctrine that guest satisfaction means repeat business is called into question by the results of this study of 364 guests of two similar big-city hotels. Analysis showed only a weak connection between satisfaction and loyalty (which is a precursor to repeat purchases). Examining such factors as purpose of travel and demographics, the study revealed another finding that may give hoteliers pause--especially considering the industry's huge expenditures on frequent-guest programs. Business travelers were among the least loyal of the guests responding to this survey. The chief factors that engaged guests' loyalty were hotel design and amenities. Moreover, the factor that caused guests to be most involved in the purchase decision (and therefore more interested in the hotel) was its employees. The implication is that hoteliers might consider redirecting some of their frequent-guest expenditures toward strengthening human resources and toward improving the guests' experience through design and amenities. Keywords: customer loyalty; customer satisfaction; customer involvement Customer-defection rates are high for businesses today. U.S. corporations routinely lose half their customers over a span of five years resulting in 25 to 50 percent reduction in corporate performance. (1) At the same time, researchers have noted the importance of customer retention, citing evidence to indicate that over time, a returning customer becomes decreasingly costly to serve because of learning effects and reduced service costs, while that customer simultaneously purchases more, pays higher prices, and willingly offers word-of-mouth recommendations to others. (2) To capture the benefits of having loyal customers, many companies--particularly hospitality firms--have invested millions of dollars in customer-retention programs. For instance, Marriott spent $54 million in 1996 on its Honored Guest program, while Hyatt invested $25 million in its loyalty program that same year. (3) Nevertheless, customer-loyalty programs are now being heavily scrutinized to determine whether they are doing what they were intended to do: namely, increase customer loyalty and build profits. Research on customer loyalty has primarily focused on customer satisfaction and involvement. (4) However, findings on the linkage between repeat-purchase behavior and satisfaction have been equivocal. A number of studies have reported significant links, while others have noted that satisfaction explains little in regards to repeat purchases. (5) Furthermore, the antecedent effects of involvement on loyalty have received relatively limited attention. Studies that have examined the involvement--loyalty relationship have offered the following, sometimes conflicting, findings: * involvement has an indirect effect on loyalty as mediated by the investment of time and investment in the relationship; (6) * the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is moderated by high involvement levels; (7) * involvement is a determinant of loyalty; (8) and * the involvement--loyalty linkage is not that strong and depends solely on the level of involvement. (9) Consequently, our knowledge of customer loyalty and its determinants is replete with ambiguities. In view of that situation, the main objectives of this study are threefold: (1) to examine the degree to which satisfaction influences loyalty, (2) to investigate how satisfaction may influence involvement, and (3) to understand how involvement may directly affect loyalty. In this article, we first provide a brief review of our constructs of interest. Next, the research methodology used for this study is presented, followed by a discussion of our findings. Finally, the article concludes with managerial implications. Theoretical Foundations and Research Focus For decades, academics and professionals have preached that loyalty is a key to a successful business. Loyal customers have been found to purchase more and facilitate additional business from new customers by generating positive word of mouth. (10) Indeed, Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds state, "Loyal customers are logically at the heart of a company's most valuable customer group." (11)

1 van 12

7-3-2008 2:14

levels of ego involvement for the product or product class should decline when the customer experiences an unsatisfactory service relationship. the customer is motivated to leave the relationship. guests who are satisfied with a service when compared with available alternatives should report greater loyalty to that service than dissatisfied guests. (35) In this study.e. we look at purchase involvement as it relates to price comparison and risk reduction. low levels of satisfaction may result in high levels of purchase involvement (so that one may ensure that a purchasing error does not reoccur). as the consumer focuses on better alternatives. Theoretical Foundations for Customer Loyalty Loyalty has been defined as "a deeply held commitment to re-buy or repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future. Satisfactory experiences may heighten the customer's ego involvement. atypical. in terms of tangibility.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579. when ego involvement is high. Furthermore. (16) Confirmation-disconfirmation theory. price. some dimensions of satisfaction may be more important antecedents of repeat-purchase behavior and loyalty than others are. This theory proposes that consumers use comparison levels for the relationship under consideration and also use comparison levels for alternative relationships to determine satisfaction with and propensity to remain in a relationship.Entrepreneur. as related to this research. (14) Theoretical Foundations for Customer Satisfaction For the purposes of this study. and other. values. The reverse is also true when guests are dissatisfied.html Satisfaction with a product or service offered has been identified as a key determinant for loyalty and. expectations. more-overt loyalty behavior.. a firm's profitability. As discussed previously. responsiveness. Purchase involvement is defined as "the level of concern for or interest in the purchase process that is triggered by the need to consider a particular purchase. advances service encounters as predominantly interpersonal interactions. and location. hence. (17) According to the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm. Customer satisfaction is defined as a post-purchase evaluative judgment concerning a specific buying decision. the standard by which someone determines his or her satisfaction with a service and. (28) Specifically. or status. such as price insensitivity.. effort. Two types of involvement--purchase involvement and ego involvement--have been found to play an antecedent role in switching behavior. and status.. which then leads to satisfaction. which then leads to dissatisfaction. The manner in which a service experience is assessed is based largely on the next-best alternative relationship. (2) positive disconfirmation occurs when the performance is better than the standard. values. loyalty should also be high because repeat visits would typically have to occur for the guest to be recognized and treated in a special fashion. Prior research has shown that satisfied customers exhibit reduced price sensitivity and increase the customer base through positive word of mouth. and high levels of purchase involvement may result in low levels of loyalty. and emotionally charged. (33) Consequently. we examine not only the effects of overall satisfaction but also the effects on involvement and loyalty of both satisfaction with the people factor and satisfaction with hotel ambience. Although an investigation of overall satisfaction with services provides relevant insight regarding loyalty." (15) The following two well-known theoretical bases serve as the underpinnings for examining customer satisfaction in this article: the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm and comparison-level theory. and perceptions of the product's performance. purchase involvement consists of the time. assurance. (23) Indeed. in this study. (12) Also. noting the intangibility of services. satisfaction should increase ego involvement. Comparison-level theory. service quality). (13) The degree to which the customer is involved in the purchase decision should also have a strong effect on the propensity to switch service providers. satisfaction is defined as "an overall evaluation of performance based on all prior experiences with a firm. since ego involvement incorporates the need for recognition. as with other social relationships. (22) Dimensions of customer satisfaction. especially in an industry where switching behavior and customer loyalty are paramount.entrepreneur. Service failures are exceedingly memorable and readily recalled (29) because they are "highly salient . (19) The comparison level is "the standard against which a member evaluates the 'attractiveness' of the relationship. these negative experiences modify future expectations and both broaden and deepen the criteria used in the search for better alternatives (31) as a mechanism for reducing the risk of making a poor purchase decision in the future." (30) As a result. involvement. (40) Thus.com http://www. these additional cognitions heighten the level of purchase involvement. the bond between the hotel representative and the guest will be more heavily weighed if the guest makes a satisfaction judgment than if the guest makes no such judgment. comprises both purchase and ego involvement. and empathy. whether that person should switch or remain in that relationship is founded on comparison-level theory. in this study. and costs invested in making a purchase. Theory suggests that the "people factor" (i. Theoretical Foundations for Involvement Involvement. (18) The theory postulates that three outcomes of this evaluation are possible: (1) confirmation occurs when the actual performance matches the standard. (37) Following this line of thought. (32) In turn." (20) These consumer standards reflect what the brand should achieve not just what it will achieve. (34) Ego involvement occurs when relatively enduring importance is placed on a product or product class as it relates to the consumer's self-image. thereby causing repetitive same-brand-set purchasing. As soon as the current level of outcomes drops below the perceived comparison level for alternatives. (39) Comparison-level theory and the patronage literature provide the theoretical underpinnings for the loyalty construct. reliability. product quality. (36) That is. which noted that high involvement resulted in brand commitment when the consumer was satisfied with product performance. the customer will mentally reduce the degree to which the unsatisfactory service influences his or her self-image. This conjecture is consistent with prior studies. Thus. including any internal and external research that may precede the transaction. leading to a neutral feeling. (25) The argument for the importance of the people factor is further supported by the services-marketing literature. customers assess their levels of satisfaction by comparing their actual experiences with their previous experiences." (38) Customer loyalty consists of both an attitudinal commitment to the relationship. ego involvement is examined in terms of self-image and the need for recognition. such as positive word of mouth and repeat patronage. perhaps more important. distinctive. Common dimensions of satisfaction with a service include service quality. but on the other hand. Research Method For this examination of satisfaction." (27) Thus. and loyalty. (21) Previous research has found a positive relationship between prior experiences and current levels of expectations. (24) may be the most salient in determining overall satisfaction and repeated purchasing in service industries. which. and (3) negative disconfirmation occurs when the performance is worse than the standard. even greater knowledge can be obtained by distilling satisfaction into its various dimensions. research intuitively indicates that customer satisfaction increases the likelihood of repeat business. (26) Consequently. despite situational influences' and marketing efforts' having the potential to cause switching behaviour. we contacted two hotels located in a major midwestern city in the United States. Both 2 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .

and 134 questionnaires were returned to the authors because of unknown addresses or names. age. coupons or discounts) are more likely to demonstrate lower levels of loyalty and repeat-purchase intentions than customers who are intrinsically motivated (e. The involvement items were intended to capture the effort. Second. such as education and age. we included five demographic variables--namely. frequency of stays.e. Participants in the study were guests who had stayed at one of the properties some time during the previous twelve months. some consumers may still have a strong predisposition to switch service suppliers or brands. full-service restaurant. (2) overall satisfaction with the hotel. That is. influence customer loyalty and satisfaction. and timeliness and adapted the items previously used by Ganesh. (42) In addition. Fourteen other surveys were returned incomplete. with 25. The self-administered surveys were accompanied by cover letters on university letterhead explaining the study.g. including price insensitivity (attitudinal loyalty).com http://www. Exhibit 1 provides a cross-tabulation presenting the relationship between overall satisfaction and repeat-purchase behavior. For the most part. several studies have indicated that even when enhanced levels of customer satisfaction exist. although marketers have long advanced the presence of guest satisfaction as instrumental in ensuring repeat business. Room rates range from $149 to $259 for the historic hotel and $109 to $275 for the other property. The two hotels are also managed by the same company. The items used in this scale were primarily extracted from those developed by Rust and Zahorik and by Ganesh. convenience. Arnold. (48) However. and one of the hotels is listed as a historic hotel. (47) Higher perceived switching costs have been found to result in greater customer loyalty and repeat-purchase retentions. These programs have been designed with the goal of fulfilling guests' needs and desires on the premise that customer satisfaction will ensure guest loyalty. (49) In this study. 38 percent of respondents who reported high levels of satisfaction noted that they routinely switched to competing properties. in this study. (3) satisfaction with the individual service and tangible characteristics of the hotel. (4) purchase and ego involvement associated with the decision to stay at the hotel. Adapting these items to the lodging business. with 57. and travelers identifying the purpose of their trips as both business and leisure made up 19. one item. (50) 3 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 . as being the most salient in determining repeat purchases. Given prior research that demographic factors. The historic hotel (hotel A) is positioned as a boutique hotel. satisfied guests were posited to be loyal to the hotel because the guests' comparison levels should have been positively disposed toward the hotel. To capture the multidimensionality of brand loyalty. and effort. such as time. gender. Usable responses were received from 364 guests. these guests' names were randomly selected from the hotels' databases by the hotels' managers. one hotel is not openly flagged with the chain name and is likely perceived by the average consumer as being an independent hotel.9 percent). resulting in an effective response rate of 24. the questionnaire contained multiple items. or word-of-mouth loyalty.000 per year.9 percent. financial. However. Occupations were diverse. leisure travelers totaled 46 percent. neither overall satisfaction nor satisfaction with the people factor was a determinant of repeat-purchase behavior. switching costs. The ages of study participants ranged from twenty-one to eighty-six.. (43) Both the involvement and the loyalty items were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale. A regression using contrast effects tested the relationships between satisfaction. the literature indicates that customers who switch because of extrinsic motivators (e. money. education.9 percent reporting earnings in excess of $100. Arnold. length of relationship. desire for familiarity. A two-page survey was designed to collect information concerning (1) the use of the hotel (e. disclosing liability. the people factor.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579. Copies of the questionnaire were mailed to 1.) Several theories may explain the weak linkage between overall satisfaction and loyalty. with the most populated job titles consisting of executive (14. purpose of travel (business or leisure). Measures of Constructs Thirteen items were used to measure respondents' satisfaction with the various aspects of the services and facilities of the hotel at which they stayed. service quality). (41) This analysis revealed no significant difference between early and late respondents on any of the constructs of interest in this study. asking whether participants routinely stay at the same hotel. guest satisfaction does not appear to have the substantive and sweeping effect on guest loyalty that has previously been assumed. Thus. See the sidebar on pages 226-227 for the complete listing of all scale items.html hotels are three-star properties located in the city's core business district and are similar in terms of their target markets and business mix..entrepreneur. First.2 percent). and loyalty.5 percent indicating they were fifty-five or older. (44) The Contrary Customer In examining our results. and loyalty. and perceived risk dimensions noted in the literature. was included as a measure of actual repeat-purchase behavior.4 percent). while the other hotel (hotel B) is a standard. reliability. the respondents had high incomes.000 former guests of hotel A and 700 former guests of hotel B. involvement. Our data also indicated that guests perceived the two hotels to be competitive. as well as among satisfaction. how satisfied are you with the hotel?" Responses were based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. As shown. and Reynolds. we used seven related items to understand the customer-loyalty construct. we sought a global measure of satisfaction by asking the respondents to rate the following question: "Overall. these items had been previously compiled by Ganesh.g. dissatisfied. an analysis of early and late responses was undertaken. repeat-patronage intentions. the other property does not have its own restaurant but is adjoined by a national coffeehouse and a well-known.. Both hotels are affiliated with major but different hotel chains. Nor did this study support the people factor (i. we added questions on ambience. To measure involvement. it is well to remember that hotel companies are investing millions of dollars each year on their loyalty programs--despite questions about the effectiveness of these costly programs.. (46) (See Exhibit 2 for the results of the regression analysis. franchised property.1 percent. and Reynolds (as denoted in the sidebar). or relational switching costs that serve as incentives to remain loyal to a particular hotel. hotel guests incur few switching costs. and the propensity to spread positive word of mouth. As a simple means of illustration. responsiveness. wanting to try a new brand). and offering an incentive to encourage response. and well educated (52.g. assurance. and income--as covariates in the regression analysis. married (66. and empathy. Business travelers constituted 34. Third. and competitors used and why).1 percent of the respondents. factors considered in making a reservation. play a role in customer loyalty. In addition. lodging customers do not generally encounter procedural. type of traveler. attitudinal loyalty. (45) Surprisingly. (5) level of loyalty toward the hotel.3 percent) and marketing (11. Data Analysis An analysis of the data revealed that the majority of respondents were male (58. however. Arnold. The incentive consisted of a prize offered by each hotel with the winners to be determined by a drawing. in terms of tangibility. for example. Thus. self-image. fewer than half of even the most satisfied guests routinely chose to stay again at the hotel they had just patronized.Entrepreneur. Both properties are housed in relatively old buildings that have been converted into hotels. and (6) demographic factors. The historic hotel has a restaurant and bar within the hotel. To assess nonresponse bias. making them relatively comparable in terms of management. and Reynolds. ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. and one is the likely target for the other in terms of switching hotels.8 percent had completed an undergraduate degree).

will create more memorable guest experiences. 57-65. Gaby Odekerken-Schroder. and Frederick Reichheld and Thomas Teal. Thus. This finding emphasizes the value of human resources in the lodging industry and substantiates prior studies that have argued for the importance of the people factor in services. on average. Joseph J. the hotel representative's words and actions can play a role in enhancing the guest's self-image and status involvement. Finally.) As put forth in: Ganesh. 19-23. 59 (April 1995). Reynolds. Taylor. 33-50. "Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers: An Examination of the Differences Between Switchers and Stayers. 1 (1998). Human resources focus. Priscilla A.com http://www. employees' positive actions also appear to encourage price comparisons. vol. Therefore. 71-82. Instead. no. If a large core of guests is routinely going to switch to competitive properties. "Understanding the Customer Base". 4 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 . 4. all four of the involvement dimensions--price comparison. "A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer's Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction. while only two of four involvement dimensions--need for recognition and self-image--influenced word-of-mouth loyalty. 45-65. vol." (5. Arnold. (53) Furthermore. 58-65. especially when the current level of outcomes exceeds the perceived comparison level for alternatives. Arnold. 58 (March-April 1996). This finding may mean that men should be targeted with loyalty programs more strongly than women. vol. vol. Purpose of travel influenced price-comparison involvement and marginally influenced attitudinal loyalty. (4.) Kristof De Wulf. 20 (November 1983). this study indicates that ego and purchase involvement may diminish guests' propensities to switch service providers. Education positively influenced self-image involvement and word-of-mouth loyalty. consequently. and Dawn Iacobucci.Entrepreneur. Satisfaction with the people factor was positively related to price-comparison involvement. education. and Reynolds. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with hotel ambience were unrelated to any dimensions of involvement. need for recognition. hotel design and amenities have been shown to be primary drivers of loyalty. although little work has been conducted on the effects of demographics on involvement and satisfaction. pp. Viewed sequentially. for example: Ruth N. Endnotes (1. additional post hoc analyses revealed that men were more interested than were women in reducing risk by purchasing a known hotel. members of the hotel staff heighten guest involvement. Managerial implications The chief implication of this study is that hoteliers should not assume that satisfying their guests will ensure repeat purchases. might not the funds that are being expended on loyalty programs for this group be better applied in other ways? For example. the widespread assumption that business travelers are the best guests to attract is challenged by this study's finding that business travelers were the least satisfied. and Rajan Sambandam and Kenneth R. income. (6. Susan Keaveney. "A Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process. are going to be extremely difficult to please and the least likely to return. it might behoove those in the lodging industry to reconsider their extensive efforts to attract those guests who. self-image involvement." Marketing Science. that is. and need for recognition involvement. These results could be said to provide support for the research from which we inferred that higher levels of purchase involvement will result in lower levels of loyalty. need-for-recognition involvement. "The Hidden Advantages of Customer Retention. pp. vol. Louise O'Brien and Charles Jones. This finding is contradictory to the literature. pp. however. loyalty will also be high. 65 (October 2001). 23 (Winter 1995)." Journal of Marketing. self-image. 17. (52) We believe that this unexpected result may be explained by the low-risk and minimal switching costs attached to the hotel stay. we suggest a reconsideration of loyalty programs. pp. pp. 1996). regardless of the best efforts put forth by the hotel. and Reynolds. "Do Rewards Really Create Loyalty?" Harvard Business Review. Bolton. Well-trained staff members who exude the appropriate attitude toward service are invaluable in keeping guests involved in the purchase decision so that they are actively pursuing information that will showcase the hotel's benefits over those of alternative properties. may develop a more positive confirmation regarding the hotel. Instead. vol. age. in this study. and risk reduction--were positively related to attitudinal loyalty. factors that would facilitate low involvement. the initial findings of the study suggest that hoteliers should not overlook demographic factors. pp. The Loyalty Effect (Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Only self-image involvement was related to repeat purchase. no. "Understanding the Customer Base." Journal of Marketing.) Stephanie Seacord. Arnold. managers should analyze their own guests to gain an understanding of how these guests differ by gender. including less price sensitivity and an intention to be loyal." Journal of Marketing Research. and Frederick Reichheld and David W. some demographic factors affected involvement and loyalty. (51) Uninvolved. "Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study" Journal of Marketing. "Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-country and Cross-industry Exploration. This finding supports a prior study that underscored the importance of hotel design and amenities as drivers of guest satisfaction. "Switching Behavior in Automobile Markets: A Consideration Sets Model. which suggests that when ego involvement is high. this result contradicts the posited inverse relationship between purchase involvement and loyalty. For example. Income positively affected price-comparison involvement. 73 (May-June 1995). and Kristy E. at best. At the same time. (3. As previously suggested." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. and least involved of the guest segments. this study shows that the connection between satisfaction and loyalty is tenuous. 55-68. Mark J.html Satisfaction with hotel ambience did positively affect word-of-mouth loyalty. neither of which is strongly present in such a transient purchase as a hotel room. pp. which then produces greater attitudinal loyalty. this result underscores the role that human resources plays in increasing the guest's ego involvement. pp. pp. pp. 1 (Winter 1990). and Steven A. LaBarbera and David Mazursky. Cronin Jr. Hoteliers might better serve their own financial interests by diverting many of the millions currently spent on loyalty programs to developing more innovative and comfortable hotel rooms and public spaces that in turn.) See.) Jaishankar Ganesh. 393-404. Age influenced self-image. from which we inferred that low levels of satisfaction will result in high levels of purchase involvement. vol. "Who's Been Sleeping in Our Beds?" American Demographics. vol. while gender affected risk-reduction involvement. 56 (July 1992). indicating that price is still a primary determinant of hotel selection. Furthermore. vol. Involvement is typically heightened by emotional and financial risk." Journal of Marketing.entrepreneur. (2. Guests who are involved in the purchase decision may more readily identify the benefits their current service providers have to offer over the alternatives and. and type of travel on the dimensions of involvement and loyalty. That is. (54) However. vol. These findings did support our proposition. Unexpectedly.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.) Ganesh." Journal of Retail Banking. 7583. 65-87. and attitudinal loyalty. 64 (July 2000). least loyal. "Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Lodging managers should continue to focus on their employees. Kenny. Lord.

vol. 12 (December 1985). pp. 15 (June 1988). (8. "The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory and Implications. 13-21." (19. pp. 49 (Fall 1985). pp. Oliver. (11. "The Availability Heuristic and Perceived Risk. vol. Pamela Homer. pp. Oliver. (32. vol. Kahle. pp. (24. 15 (May 1999). Berry. Oliver. Cadotte. 56 (July 1992). Customer Retention. "Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research. 18. 53-66: and Claes Fornell. and Ian MacMillan. (27. "Do Rewards Really Create Loyalty?". "Measurement of Tourist Satisfaction With Restaurant Services: A Segment-Based Approach. 16 (March 1988). Baker. 76 (Summer 2000). and A. "A Framework for the Formation and Structure of Consumer Expectations: Review and Propositions.) Oliver. "A Cognitive Model. (25." 5 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 . (Boston: Richard D. 9.) Ganesh. and Steven A. and Leonard L. vol. Winer. 24 (August 1987). 163-78. pp. vol. Kelley." Journal of Marketing Research. no. 20." Journal of Marketing. Richard L.) Eugene W. pp. 58 (January 1994). "A Longitudinal Assessment". "Relationship Marketing. "Measuring the Involvement Construct. and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky. Cadotte.) Ganesh. "Customer Satisfaction. Woodruff. and Jose M. Oliver and Russell S. Berry.) Christian Homburg and Annette Giering. 1 (1990)." Journal of Retailing. Berry. (20. vol. 43-66. and Roger L. 363-89. 70. and John W.) Patti Warrington and Soyeon Shim." in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. 56 (January 1992). 17 (September 2000).) Valerie S. "Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. (16. Arnold. Anderson. Beatty. and Reichheld and Teal. Jenkins. Richard L. and Gregory Upah (Chicago: American Marketing Association. (15. "An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment. no. Berry. 111-24. 69 (Summer 1993). Atila Yuksel and Fisun Yuksel. 1 (2001). Rust and Anthony J. Zeithaml. (21. A. vol. 311-29. 83-95. pp. 64 (Spring 1988). "Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in Services. 305-14. and Palto Ranjan Datta. vol. Arnold. Valarie A. "Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty--An Empirical Analysis. "The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. David L. Berry." Journal of Business Research. Zeithaml. pp. Leonard L. ed. 469-99. vol. "A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience." (31. and Reynolds." Journal of Retailing. 21 (Winter 1993). 1959).) Valarie A. John A. pp." Journal of Retailing. M. and Lynn R. (18. (17. vol." Journal of Economic Psychology. Zahorik. 1983). Ernest R. Robert B. Czepiel." Journal of Consumer Research." Journal of Marketing Research.) Bolton. vol. Bloemer and Hans D. 20 (August 1983). Leonard L. Lynn Shostack. pp.) Michael A.Entrepreneur. Parasuraman. pp. "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. 52-68.) Sharon E. Arnold. pp. (30. Valarie A.) Richard L." Journal of Marketing. vol. Thibaut and Harold H. vol. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.) Ronald T. and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. vol. pp. and Leonard L.) Terrence Oliva.) Ernest R." Journal of Marketing. 41-50. vol. Claes Fornell. Parasuraman. "Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms. vol." Journal of American Academy of Business. "An Assessment of the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers' Purchase Intentions. pp.) Josee Bloemer and Ko de Ruyter. 1 (2002).) Thibaut and Kelley. 193-215. vol. Market Share.) Ibid." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. vol. and Reynolds. Parasuraman. vol. 149-67.entrepreneur. and Sharon E. "A Dynamic Model": LaBarbera and Mazursky. (29. "Understanding the Customer Base. "Customer Satisfaction. pp. "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.com http://www. P. Woodruff. 17 (November 1980). 3 (September 2003). 341-52. vol. "A Catastrophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies." Psychology & Marketing. and Market Share. pp.) According to: Banwari Mittal and Myung-soo Lee." Psychology and Marketing Journal. 10 (November 1989). Kaspar." Journal of Marketing. pp. 260.) Mittal and Lee. (23. and Roger Jenkins." (12. vol. Mothersbaugh. 315-30. and Robert B. 138-44.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579. 58 (July 1994). no.1 3-23. 761-82. pp. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. (9." (28. The Loyalty Effect. "Understanding the Customer Base. 1-12. pp. "A Causal Model. Folkes." Journal of Marketing. Taylor and Thomas L. pp. and Reynolds. 6-21. 8 (December 1987).) According to: A. "Customer Loyalty in High and Low Involvement Service Settings: The Moderating Impact of Positive Emotions." Journal of Economic Psychology. and Reynolds. Valarie A. pp. pp. p. Zeithaml. Arnold." Journal of Economic Psychology. and Leonard L. vol. "Understanding the Customer Base". and A.) Richard L." Journal of Retailing. vol. and Donald Lehman. 16 (July 1995). "Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research." Journal of Vacation Marketing. "The Determinants of Brand Loyalty. (10. Berry." Journal of Marketing Research. (13. (26." Journal of Consumer Research.html (7. (22.) O'Brien and Jones." Journal of Business Research. "SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Parasuraman. Jones. (14. 460-69. The Social Psychology. The Social Psychology of Groups (New York: John Wiley.) Leonard L. vol. pp. "The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service. "A Causal Model of Consumer Involvement.) Ganesh. Zeithaml.) Ganesh. 296-304. vol. Beatty. "Understanding the Customer Base. no. 1997). 2 (1994). 12-37." Journal of Marketing Management.

"A Framework for the Formation. vol. (52. Richins. Cantril. 13 (September 1986). pp. 33-44. The Social Psychology.718 involvement Satisfaction with people Repeat purchase 0." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 22." Exhibit 1: Relationship between Overall Satisfaction and Repeat-purchase Behavior ROUTSTAY Overall No Yes Total Very dissatisfied 3 2 5 Dissatisfied 12 1 13 Neutral 16 5 21 Satisfied 128 78 206 Very satisfied 65 52 117 Total 224 138 362 Exhibit 2: Regression Results Mean Source Variable Dependent Variable Square Overall satisfaction Repeat purchase 0. Richins and Peter H. "Understanding the Customer Base. 12. Oliver.) Parasuraman. Arnold. "A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions. "Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Arnold. "Customer Loyalty". pp. (40. Priscilla LaBarbera. and Berry. and Berry.) Homburg and Giering. vol. "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality". Arnold. "An Empirical Investigation". no. Siguaw. and Oliver and Winer." (35. Enz. (37. and Warrington and Shim. "An Empirical Investigation.) According to: Parasuraman.) Richard L. Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. Zeithaml. Bloch. 99-113. Holbrook.html (33. Lodging Industry (New York: American Express and American Hotel Foundation. "A Causal Model".) Musafer Sherif and H.) Rust and Zahorik. vol.132 Attitudinal loyalty 0. and Venu Thyagarajan.202 Self-image involvement 0. 69-81. "Understanding the Customer Base. and Berry.) Bloemer and de Ruyter.151 Price-comparison involvement 0. "Switching Barriers. pp.708 Risk-reduction involvement 0.) Thibaut and Kelley. pp.282 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0. Ganesh. "What Drives Customer Loyalty: An Analysis from the Telecommunications Industry.) Ganesh. pp." (53. 281-85. Ganesh." Psychology and Marketing. 17-30. Overton. (50.) Alan S. vol. pp. no." Journal of Consumer Research. pp. 11. American Lodging Excellence: The Key To Best Practices in the U.S. Mittal and Lee. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. 4 (Spring 1987). 34-44." (49. Zeithaml. 1999). David Mazursky. 15 (April 2001)." Journal of Marketing.) Bloemer and de Ruyter.) Jones. Zeithaml.193 Attitudinal loyalty 0. Zeithaml. "The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. and Reynolds. Mothersbaugh. "A Longitudinal Assessment". Renaghan. "Best Practices in Hotel Architecture. "Customer Loyalty".) Abod Ali Khatibi. "After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement." (43. 1 (2002). (36. Mittal and Lee. 3 (1998). pp. vol. Bloch and Marsha L. vol." Journal of Marketing Research.) Judy A.143 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0." (54. Siguaw and Cathy A. Zeithaml. and Berry.) J. and Judy A. "Whence Consumer Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing. no. pp. The Psychology of Ego-Involvement (New York: John Wiley. and Reynolds." (47.entrepreneur. 44-49. pp. no." (45.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579." (48. Ismail Hishamuddin. 4 (October 1999). and Reynolds. "A Theoretical Model. 63 (Special Issue 1999). Dick and Kunal Basu.) Bloch and Richins. and Beatty. and Oliver and Winer. and Marsha L. "A Theoretical Model"." Journal of Marketing. "A Framework for the Formation.) Bloch and Richins. (41. no. and Berry. Enz. 2 (1994). Lassar. 396-402." (46. "Understanding the Customer Base. "A Theoretical Model".) Ganesh. Parasuraman.229 Need-for-recognition 0. Leo M.303 Risk-reduction involvement 1. and Parasuraman. "When Customers Switch Brands. and Banwari Mittal and W. 14. 3 (1977).Entrepreneur. "SERVQUAL". Arnold. vol. 81-94. "Why Do Customers Switch?" Journal of Service Marketing.com http://www. 47 (Summer 1983). (34.) LaBarbera and Mazursky. 40.) Peter H. vol. See also: Laurette Dube. "Reassessment of Expectations." Journal of Targeting. "SERVQUAL". "Understanding the Customer Base" (44.) Bloch and Richins. M. Scott Armstrong and Terry S. "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality". (42. and Reynolds. "Reassessment of Expectations. 1947). Zeithaml. 177-94." (38. and Al Aiello. "A Causal Model". vol. and Berry. "Personal Characteristics as Moderators.170 6 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 . Parasuraman. "Customer Satisfaction". Cathy A. (51. (39.) Arjun Chaudhuri and Morris B. and Parasuraman. Warrington and Shim." Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. vol.

992 Need-for-recognition 0.154 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.238 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.074 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.408 Need-for-recognition Repeat purchase 0.648 Price-comparison involvement 0.541 involvement Gender Repeat purchase 0.001 Attitudinal loyalty 0.754 involvement Attitudinal loyalty 3.564 Risk-reduction involvement 0.607 Price-comparison Repeat purchase 0.115 involvement Satisfaction with ambience Repeat purchase 0.751 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.221 involvement Attitudinal loyalty 1.322 Attitudinal loyalty 0.188 Attitudinal loyalty 1.110 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.649 Need-for-recognition 0.150 Self-image involvement 0.704 involvement Risk-reduction involvement Repeat purchase 0.750 involvement Age Repeat purchase 0.939 Need-for-recognition 1.entrepreneur.485 Need-for-recognition 10.384 Self-image involvement 0.755 Price involvement 0.119 Self-image involvement 0.009 Attitudinal loyalty 0.462 Price involvement 6.781 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.006 Price-comparison involvement 0.262 Attitudinal loyalty 4.986 Risk-reduction involvement 0.591 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.617 Purpose of travel Repeat purchase 0.380 Risk-reduction involvement 5.643 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.087 7 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .756 Self-image involvement 2.005 involvement Income Repeat purchase 0.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.html Price-comparison involvement 1.621 Risk-reduction involvement 0.166 Attitudinal loyalty 1.006 Need-for-recognition 0.744 Self-image involvement 0.333 Attitudinal loyalty 1.com http://www.658 Self-image involvement Repeat purchase 0.Entrepreneur.

806 involvement Education Repeat purchase 0.927 Price-comparison Repeat purchase 0.608 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.121 Risk-reduction involvement 0.461 Need-for-recognition 1.956 Risk-reduction involvement 0.507 Price-comparison involvement 3.009 Self-image involvement Repeat purchase 1.com http://www.620 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.157 involvement Risk-reduction involvement Repeat purchase 0.002 Price-comparison involvement 0.565 Risk-reduction involvement 1.624 Need-for-recognition Repeat purchase 3.274 Word-of-mouth loyalty 2.832 involvement Satisfaction with ambience Repeat purchase 1.463 Attitudinal loyalty 2.316 Self-image involvement 0.163 Self-image involvement 1.239 Attitudinal loyalty 1.entrepreneur.120 Risk-reduction involvement 0.743 Attitudinal loyalty 0.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.162 Self-image involvement 1.903 Risk-reduction involvement 1.236 Need-for-recognition 0.032 Self-image involvement 2.638 Price-comparison involvement 1.018 Need-for-recognition 0.008 Attitudinal loyalty 0.934 Word-of-mouth loyalty 2.149 Price-comparison involvement 0.508 Attitudinal loyalty 0.180 involvement Satisfaction with people Repeat purchase 0.html Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.889 Need-for-recognition 1.309 Word-of-mouth loyalty 2.005 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.152 Price-comparison involvement 2.476 Self-image involvement 0.051 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.051 involvement F Source Variable Dependent Variable value Overall satisfaction Repeat purchase 0.305 Need-for-recognition 1.708 Attitudinal loyalty 2.Entrepreneur.902 involvement Attitudinal loyalty 3.466 8 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .

593 Purpose of travel Repeat purchase 0.456 Price involvement 9.220 Word-of-mouth loyalty 2.001 Need-for-recognition 16.com http://www.669 Price involvement 0.050 Self-image involvement 4.513 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.692 Risk-reduction involvement 1.html involvement Attitudinal loyalty 6.036 Need-for-recognition 1.690 Risk-reduction involvement 0.997 Need-for-recognition 0.008 Attitudinal loyalty 10.entrepreneur.187 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.930 9 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .Entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.324 involvement Education Repeat purchase 0.036 Attitudinal loyalty 0.003 Attitudinal loyalty 0.484 Price-comparison involvement 5.232 involvement Age Repeat purchase 1.139 Risk-reduction involvement 5.563 Self-image involvement 1.099 Risk-reduction involvement 0.356 Risk-reduction involvement 0.011 Need-for-recognition 1.528 Attitudinal loyalty 0.015 Word-of-mouth loyalty 6.180 Self-image involvement 5.030 Attitudinal loyalty 2.006 Price-comparison involvement 1.722 Attitudinal loyalty 3.234 Self-image involvement 0.084 involvement Source Variable Dependent Variable Significance Overall satisfaction Repeat purchase 0.500 Need-for-recognition 0.002 Price-comparison involvement 0.440 involvement Income Repeat purchase 0.863 Risk-reduction involvement 0.819 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.889 involvement Gender Repeat purchase 0.433 Self-image involvement 0.778 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.016 Word-of-mouth loyalty 1.

287 Risk-reduction involvement 0.265 Attitudinal loyalty 0.317 Self-image involvement 0.Entrepreneur.052 involvement Satisfaction with ambience Repeat purchase 0.001 Risk-reduction involvement 0.002 10 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .010 Purpose of travel Repeat purchase 0.822 Need-for-recognition Repeat purchase 0.396 Attitudinal loyalty 0.000 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.159 Need-for-recognition 0.317 Attitudinal loyalty 0.269 involvement Age Repeat purchase 0.319 involvement Satisfaction with people Repeat purchase 0.347 involvement Gender Repeat purchase 0.044 Need-for-recognition 0.018 Self-image involvement 0.321 involvement Risk-reduction involvement Repeat purchase 0.018 Price involvement 0.000 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.002 Self-image involvement 0.585 involvement Attitudinal loyalty 0.820 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579.452 Self-image involvement Repeat purchase 0.324 Price-comparison involvement 0.794 Price-comparison involvement 0.916 Need-for-recognition 0.475 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.814 Self-image involvement 0.054 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.041 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.225 Need-for-recognition 0.243 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.850 Attitudinal loyalty 0.710 Need-for-recognition 0.534 Risk-reduction involvement 0.html Price-comparison involvement 0.com http://www.896 Attitudinal loyalty 0.629 Self-image involvement 0.501 Price involvement 0.195 Risk-reduction involvement 0.494 Price-comparison Repeat purchase 0.024 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.entrepreneur.138 Attitudinal loyalty 0.884 Attitudinal loyalty 0.001 involvement Attitudinal loyalty 0.

do you routinely stay at the [name of hotel]? Loyalty 11 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 .174 Risk-reduction involvement 0. How well the staff/managers know me X4. dry cleaning) X9. How easily accessible the hotel is from airports and major highways X11.entrepreneur.863 Attitudinal loyalty 0.195 Risk-reduction involvement 0. Overall.666 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.Entrepreneur.956 Attitudinal loyalty 0.000 involvement Income Repeat purchase 0. how satisfied are you with the hotel? Satisfaction This section pertains to how satisfied/dissatisfied you are with the various aspects of the hotel. room service.225 Price-comparison involvement 0. The convenience and service of the reservation system (a) X6.279 Self-image involvement 0.772 involvement Note: Significance relationships are shown in boldface. The location of the hotel to other businesses or attractions X10.035 Need-for-recognition 0. How well the hotel listens to my needs X5.com http://www. The price of other services (e. When staying in [name of city]. The ambience in the hotel (interior design/decor) (a) X12.964 Price-comparison involvement 0.027 Need-for-recognition 0..html Word-of-mouth loyalty 0.g. The amenities offered in other parts of the hotel X14.252 involvement Education Repeat purchase 0.com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579. The quality of service offered by the hotel Repeat Purchase X15. The friendliness of the hotel employees X3. The amenities offered in the guest room X13. RELATED ARTICLE: Scale items.013 Risk-reduction involvement 0. Overall Satisfaction X1. X2. The timeliness of the hotel staff in dealing with me as a guest in busy times (a) X7.021 Self-image involvement 0.823 Self-image involvement 0.158 Word-of-mouth loyalty 0. The room rate X8.937 Price-comparison involvement 0.850 Need-for-recognition 0.

In the near future. The relationship that I share with the [hotel name] is something that deserves my maximum effort to maintain. (b) X34. It is important for me to choose a hotel that "feels" right. (R) Involvement Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements presented below. (b) X27. I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in my purchases. X18. The brand image of the hotel played a major role in my decision to become a guest at the hotel. NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article. All rights reserved. (R) X19. I compared the prices and rates of several hotels in this area before I selected this hotel. (b) X20. (b) Note: (R) = item reverse scored. X36. I would rather stick with a brand that I know than try something that I am not very sure of. If the hotel were to raise the price of my stay. COPYRIGHT 2004 Cornell University Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. I would highly recommend the hotel to my friends and family. Siguaw. Copyright © Entrepreneur. is J. Thomas Clark Professor of Entrepreneurship and Personal Enterprise (jas92@cornell. (b) (R) X28. where Judy A. X38. (b) X17. The relationship that I share with the [hotel name] is something that is very important to me.) Item originally appeared on Ganesh. The hotel I stay at says a lot about who I am. I intend to use this hotel more often.entrepreneur. The frequent-guest program influences my choice in hotels. A bad choice in selecting a hotel could bring you grief. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company. (b.html Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements presented below. I do not foresee myself switching to a different hotel. I am very cautious in trying new/different products. Choosing a hotel is an important decision for me. Privacy Policy 12 van 12 7-3-2008 2:14 . I called various other hotels in the area before I decided to stay at this hotel. I consider myself to be a loyal guest of the hotel. X22. (b) X26. Copyright 2004. X30. After deciding on the [hotel name].com/tradejournals/article/print/120350579. I constantly compare the prices and rates offered by various hotels in the area. Gale Group.Entrepreneur. I have compared this hotel with other hotels in the area. Arnold. and Reynolds questionnaire but was not used in their study.) Item added to scale. (a) X33. (b) (R) X35. I would still continue to be a guest of the hotel. As long as I travel to this area. X31. (a. X29. X32. If a competing hotel were to offer a better rate or discount on their services I would switch. I am likely to make negative comments about the hotel to my friends and family.com http://www. X21. I have weighed the pros and cons of my choice. (b) X24. X23. DBA. (b) X25. All rights reserved.edu). X37. X16.com. After deciding on the [hotel name]. Iselin Skogland is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration. Inc. All hotels are alike in the type and quality of services they offer. X39. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.