Journal of Services Marketing

Retrospective: why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty

Banwari Mittal,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Banwari Mittal, (2016) "Retrospective: why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty", Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 30 Issue: 6, pp.569-575, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0277
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0277
Downloaded on: 26 July 2018, At: 17:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2260 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1998),"Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)

177-194 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049810219502">https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049810219502</a>

(2013),"Beyond loyalty: customer satisfaction, loyalty, and fortitude", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 334-344 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330807">https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330807</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:614218 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Retrospective: why do customers switch? The
dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
Haile/US Bank College of Business, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to revisit the 1998 paper (“Why do customers switch [. . .]”) published in this journal with the goal of documenting
research progress since then and identifying gaps still present in the knowledge base on the relevant key issues.
Design/methodology/approach – The method is literature review, theoretical scrutiny and critical reflections on the findings of the research
studies over the past two decades that deal with customer satisfaction, loyalty and switching behaviors, with particular emphasis on service
businesses.
Findings – The core issue of why satisfaction may not explain loyalty has been examined by positing other co-predictors and moderators of loyalty
such as relationship quality, price value, trust, image, etc. These predictors have been found significant, implying that satisfaction is not the only
driver of customer loyalty. Additionally, other drivers of switching and staying behavior have been established such as attraction of the alternatives
and switching costs, respectively. This paper points out, however, that the gains of the new research literature are attenuated due to assumption
of linearity in the loyalty effects of satisfaction and due to a lack of separate analyses of customer segments who defy the satisfaction–loyalty logic.
Research limitations/implications – The relevant literature is so vast that any account of it within the scope of this paper had to be by design
delimited. The paper not only sampled the literature selectively but also summarized the principal findings of the selected papers over-simplistically.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)

Interested readers must get a firsthand read of the reviewed literature.

Practical implications – The spotlight on the nonlinearity implies that practitioners should analyze customer data separately for customer
segments that experience low, moderate and high satisfaction, and also separately for segments that show the expected positive satisfaction–loyalty
relationship versus those who would defect despite being satisfied.
Originality/value – Against the backdrop where most academic as well as industry research had presumed a positive loyalty effect of satisfaction,
the 1998 paper drew attention to segments of consumers who exhibited the contrarian loyalty behavior. The present paper shines a light on that
topic with even sharper focus, highlighting six unaddressed issues that must frame future research.
Keywords Satisfaction, Service quality, Loyalty, Net promoter score, Switching
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
This is a 20-year retrospective on a research study that was
published in this journal in 1998. I summarize the central
theme and main findings of that paper, review research
progress over the past two decades on that theme, identify
gaps in the knowledge on the topic area and set some
directions for future research.
Motivation for the original paper
The study for our 1998 paper (Mittal and Lassar, 1998) was
carried out during 1996-1997. The 1990s decade was a prime
time for services marketing research. The landmark scale of
service quality (SERVQUAL) was published in 1988
(Parasuraman et al., 1988), with refinements continuing
through mid-1990s (Parasuraman et al., 1994), which served
as a catalyst for many applications to diverse industries, e.g.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
finance, health care, education, etc. (Taylor and Baker, 1994;
Ruyter et al., 1997). A number of impressive papers and a
seminal book by Berry and associates were published during
this decade (Berry and Parasuraman, 1994). On the
practitioner side, measurement of satisfaction was becoming
an industry in itself. In parallel, an influential paper published
in Harvard Business Review had brought attention to applying
quality principles to achieve zero defections in services
(Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). In tandem, the economics of
customer loyalty and retention had also become a high-value
topic (Rust and Zahorik, 1993). With all these developments
around us, we were fascinated by services research.
We had observed, in particular, that measurement of
satisfaction as a research stream (Oliver, 1996) and customer
loyalty and retention (Reichheld, 1996) had been pursued
independent of each other. Often it was assumed that
satisfaction implied loyalty. In research studies where both
satisfaction and loyalty were measured, loyalty was viewed and
analyzed as an outcome of satisfaction. In data analyses in
these studies, a statistically significant correlation was taken to
imply that satisfaction was a precursor of loyalty, or more to
the point, that satisfaction produced loyalty, inevitably! This

Journal of Services Marketing

30/6 (2016) 569 –575 Received 24 July 2016
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Revised 24 July 2016
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0277] Accepted 24 July 2016

569
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
made us curious, naturally, as to whether, among some
consumers, contrarian behavior existed, i.e. whether some
customers switched service providers despite being satisfied,
or, alternatively, they stayed loyal despite being dissatisfied.
This then was the motivation for our study.
It is a privilege to be invited by the editors of this journal to
write a 20-year retrospective. My coauthor, Walfried Lassar,
was a valuable partner in envisioning and executing the
original paper. Unfortunately, he was unable to participate as
co-author due to the demands of his position as the Associate
Dean at Florida International University. This paper here has
proceeded with his goodwill, but, alas, I alone shoulder blame
for any shortcomings.
Disconnect between satisfaction and loyalty:
the 1998 paper
For our 1998 paper, we had conducted a consumer survey in
which we assessed both satisfaction and willingness to switch.
In addition, we had measured, of course, the five dimensions
of SERVQUAL and, separately, an alternative measure of
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
technical and functional qualities. We also wanted to
understand the dynamics of the switching behavior for service
industries that were high contact and low contact services, so
we chose health care and car repair as our industries.
Our main findings were:
1 Dissatisfied customers will almost certainly switch their
service companies (in our data, 100 per cent). On the
other hand, satisfaction deterred customer defections but
not entirely. In our data, the top-two box raters (on a
five-point scale) on the satisfaction measure were willing
to switch services to the extent of 38 per cent for health
care and 58 per cent for car care. Even those who scored
the highest (i.e. top box) on satisfaction expressed a
willingness to switch – as many as one-in-five customers of
health care and as many as one-in-three customers of car
repair services.
2 For a high contact service (in our study, health care), in
explaining satisfaction, functional quality of services
played a more significant role than did technical quality;
for a low contact service (in our study, car repair),
technical quality of services played a more significant role
than did functional quality. Technical quality pertains to
“what” is delivered, i.e. whether the principal tangible
problem was solved (e.g. car was repaired well or the
patient got well), whereas functional quality refers to
“how” the service is delivered, i.e. the care and manners of
the service delivery personnel.
3 The relative roles of functional and technical quality were
reversed in securing customer loyalty beyond satisfaction.
Once customer satisfaction was achieved (with high
functional quality in high contact and with high technical
quality for low contact services), among the satisfied
customers, the willingness to switch was depressed by high
technical quality for high contact services and by high
functional quality for low contact services.
Research progress since then
Since the publication of our study, a plethora of studies have
been published that, in one way or another, seek to illuminate
570
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. However, as
I elaborate below, the core issue of why there is, for a
significant proportion of consumers, a disconnect between
satisfaction and loyalty still remains far from settled. Past
research has covered the following issues:
1 A large body of studies continues to assume a relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty, with satisfaction
modeled as a predictor of loyalty. Although, these studies
do not assume that the correlation between satisfaction
and loyalty is near 1.0 or that satisfaction and loyalty are
one and the same, few studies formally test for
discriminant validity between the two constructs.
Moreover, in industry research, firms typically measure
satisfaction and assume that loyalty will inevitably follow.
Against this backdrop, Bennett and Rundle-Thiele (2004)
demonstrate [in a business-to-business (B2B) directory ad
space buying context] that satisfaction and loyalty
(measured as attitude toward next repeat purchase) are
correlated (r ⫽ 0.72) but are also discriminated
(correlation ⬍ 1.0). Many studies do not report this
correlation, but in studies that do report it, this correlation
seldom exceeds 0.7, signifying that the two concepts are
unlikely to be mutually redundant. Among studies that
use multi-item measures, some (but not all) perform a
formal test of discriminant validity of their measures and
find support for it (Lai et al., 2011). If a discrimination test
were performed on the data in any study, it is highly likely
that the two constructs would prove to be distinct.
2 Many studies simply assume a close and determinant
impact of satisfaction on loyalty, take comfort in the
obtained significant empirical correlation and proceed to
shine light on other goals of the study. A typical case is
where attributes of service (e.g. performance, service
quality and service value) are modeled as antecedent to
satisfaction, and, in turn, satisfaction is modeled as
predictor of loyalty. These studies confirm their principal
hypothesis that satisfaction is a mediator of service
attributes in producing loyalty (Baumann et al., 2012;
Bowen and Chen, 2001; Brunner et al., 2008; Caruana,
2002; Čater and Čater, 2009; Taylor and Baker, 1994;
Tsoukatos and Rand, 2006; Yüncü, 2015). But
investigating the satisfaction–loyalty disconnect has not
been their goal.
3 More relevant are studies where other variables
(comprising service factors, customer factors and
relationship factors) are added to the model as
co-predictors of loyalty. In these studies, it has been found
that, to varying degrees, such factors as service quality,
relationship quality, relationship value, service values,
store image, involvement, trust, commitment, etc., also
contribute to loyalty. This implies that customers may
switch despite being satisfied because these other drivers
of loyalty are lacking (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998; Cheng
et al., 2008; El-Manstrly et al., 2011; Pollack, 2015).
4 While some studies use these other factors merely as
co-predictors, others use them also as moderators. This
makes good sense, as it is sensible to hypothesize, for
example, that the satisfaction to loyalty link might be
stronger (weaker) for high (low) involvement customers or
for customers perceiving high (low) switching costs
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
(Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Jones et al., 2007; Lai
et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2001).
5 As opposed to research studies focused on loyalty, a
stream of research has focused on switching (Capraro
et al., 2003; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004; Vyas and
Raitani, 2014; Walsh et al., 2006; Wirtz et al., 2014).
Although switching is merely the flip side of loyalty,
making switching as the focal variable helps explore
variables that motivate switching as well those that
motivate staying. Indeed, antecedent variables proposed
and tested in the studies of switching have been, by and
large, different from those explored as co-predictors of
loyalty. And in the studies of switching, both sets of
variables have been examined – those that motivate
switching (namely, attraction of the alternatives or value
in switching, variety seeking, etc.) and those for staying
(e.g. relationship value, switching costs and inertia).
Depending on which and how many such antecedents are
included and whether satisfaction also is included,
different variables emerge as significant co-predictors of
switching versus staying. Of course, their predictive
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
coefficients, relative to each other, also depend on how
they are measured (the measures of these constructs are as
diverse as are the studies!).
6 A few studies have tested for contrast between diverse type
of services, within both the loyalty and switching
frameworks. For example, in Pollack (2009), discrete
services offering experiential benefit (spa) versus
continuous services offering functional benefit (e.g.
wireless) were contrasted, and it was found that for the
functional services, switching cost was a motivation for
staying, whereas for the experiential services, consumer’s
variety-seeking motive contributed to switching. Likewise,
Dagger and David (2012) study is noteworthy for its
coverage of a wide range of industries representing three
conceptual categories: Customized (travel agents, family
doctors and hairdressers), semi-customized (photo
printing, general banking and pest control) and standard
(cinemas, airlines and fast food outlets). Their finding was
that loyalty was stronger for customized services.
(However, it was not explored whether satisfaction to
loyalty link was also stronger.)
7 Since the publication of our study, an interesting concept
was added to the literature on satisfaction and loyalty,
namely, Net Promoter Score (NPS). NPS is the answer to
the question, “How likely is it that you would recommend
[Company X]?” On a 10-point scale, those answering 9 or
10 are labeled “promoters” and those answering less than
7 are termed “detractors”. NPS is calculated as a
percentage of promoters minus detractors. Frederick
Reichheld, the concept’s architect, argues that NPS is the
one number that predicts financial performance of the
firm. Grisaffe (2007) has raised several conceptual
unknowns about the concept (e.g. how does a firm effect
and influence the NPS itself), and Reichheld himself has
reported that satisfaction and loyalty measured as a
repurchase might play a more influential role in some
industries (Reichheld, 2003). Many measures of loyalty in
academic studies have included “likely to recommend”
measure, of course. Given the weight of Reichheld’s
571
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
arduous research to ground the predictive power of NPS,
it behooves all satisfaction–loyalty researchers to:
● ensure that in their measure of loyalty, both
repatronage intention and likely-to-recommend are
included; and
● further tease out the satisfaction–loyalty linkage in terms
of any disconnect that might exist (but was hitherto
unexplored) between satisfaction and repurchase intent
on the one hand and NPS on the other.
When the additional variables introduced in the satisfaction–
loyalty relationship emerge as significant factors either as
co-predictors or as moderators or both, and in most studies
they do – not all of them in any single study, but collectively
across the spectrum of studies, it is natural for readers to
surmise that the enigma of satisfaction–loyalty disconnect has
been solved. Such comfort is, however, premature because the
complex dynamics of interrelationship between these other
explanatory variables on the one hand and satisfaction on the
other has itself not been teased out theoretically or tested
empirically. I elaborate below, enumerating still unanswered
questions or unaddressed issues relating to the satisfaction–
loyalty disconnect.
What is the incremental contribution of other factors?
A number of studies have included other variables as
co-predictors and moderators in explaining loyalty. These
include service quality, price value, relationship value, trust,
commitment, etc. (Agustin and Singh, 2005; Garbarino and
Johnson, 1999; Liang and Wang, 2004). Adding these
co-predictors almost inevitably ends up accounting for
substantially higher levels of loyalty. For example, in Cronin et al.
(2000), service quality, service value and satisfaction jointly
explained almost all of the variance (92 per cent) in customer
loyalty. However, typically, few studies that incorporate other
co-predictors report the base level contribution of satisfaction
alone; consequently, we do not know how much the additional
(non-overlapping) contribution of these other co-predictors was.
Linearity is assumed
Whether the dependent variable is loyalty or switching, most
studies assume a linearity of influence. This ignores two
alternative realities: One, the relationship maybe nonlinear, and
second that the relationship may not be homogenous across
customers. On first count, as Ganesh et al. (2000) have argued so
eloquently, satisfaction’s impact on loyalty may not always be
linear. Satisfaction may drive loyalty proportionately when it
moves up from extremely low levels or moves from dissatisfaction
into the satisfaction range; but once a threshold level of
satisfaction is delivered, consumers may become less sensitive to
further improvement in experienced satisfaction levels and
consequently might exhibit no further deepening of loyalty; and
when satisfaction crosses and moves even higher than this middle
zone of indifference, further rise in satisfaction could kick in a
renewed commitment to the service provider. Just such a result
was found, for example, in a study by Anderson and Mittal
(2000). Therefore, researchers need to examine all of their
models (that entail various co-predictors and moderators)
separately in distinct zones of satisfaction (e.g. low, middle level
and high).
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
Second, while for many consumers, satisfaction may be a
solo or high-influence driver of loyalty, for other consumers,
other factors may be more powerful. There might be a distinct
segment of consumers who stay despite dissatisfaction, and
likewise, there may be a segment that is prone to switching
despite satisfaction. Only a handful of studies have examined
these “off pattern” segments. A recent exception is Lonial and
Raju (2015)’s analysis of the customer base of a healthcare
service provider. These researchers examined high satisfaction
versus low satisfaction groups, and, separately, low and high
loyalty groups and found that although one of the service
attributes played a role in both satisfaction and loyalty, other
service attributes that drove satisfaction were different from
those that drove loyalty. That is why in their research,
satisfaction mediated the effect of service quality on loyalty but
only partially; service quality also had a direct effect on loyalty.
Confounding variables as co-predictors
Some of the variables included as co-predictors and moderators
are confounded either with satisfaction or with loyalty. For
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
example, when commitment is included as a co-predictor (Zhang
and Richard, 2012), it is likely to be confounded with loyalty
itself. In these studies, loyalty is measured as future intention, but
both future intention and commitment are merely two facets of
the same construct, namely, loyalty. (Indeed, some measures of
loyalty will tap only commitment, and others will include both
future intentions and felt commitment to the relationship). When
commitment is thus used as a co-predictor, it is logical that, in a
multiple regression procedure, the lion’s share of credit will be
allocated to commitment, leaving a smaller share to satisfaction.
Other predictors are confounded with satisfaction, such as when
satisfaction is construed and measured as “overall satisfaction”,
and attribute satisfaction (satisfaction with service attributes) is
included as co-predictor but treated as if it is not satisfaction.
Equally misleading (for the same reason and in the same
manner) are the findings of some studies where measures of
other co-predictors have been (inadvertently) confounded with
aspects of satisfaction, loyalty or switching (e.g. “Unless I became
very dissatisfied with this auto insurance company, switching to a
new one is very inconvenient for me” as used in Huang and Yu,
1999).
Unsettled causal primacy
Other co-predictors are included that are not, it can be safely
assumed, confounded with either satisfaction or loyalty.
Examples are service quality, trust, relationship value, price
value, etc. Now, because all such variables are conceptually
correlated with satisfaction (and empirical studies validate this
to be the case), using them as co-predictors would inevitably
depress the explained variance attributed to satisfaction. What
is needed, therefore, is a theory as to which variable has
primacy – for example, it can be argued that satisfaction is the
most immediate antecedent to loyalty, whereas service quality,
price value, etc., are indirect determinants, working through
satisfaction as mediators. This is an argument for first
estimating, as already argued, the explained variance with only
satisfaction as the most proximate predictor and then in a
second model adding direct links from these other variables to
loyalty. Such hierarchical regression procedures have been
used in some studies for separating direct versus interactive
572
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
effects, but here too, all co-predictors were lumped together in
a single step, whereas what is needed is to maintain a
sub-hierarchical primacy of satisfaction.
Here, our intent is not to deny the due contribution of these
other predictors. In fact, our expectation is that even when
satisfaction is modeled with a hierarchical primacy, the
direct-predictive role of such variables as service quality, trust
and relationship value is likely to emerge. But it is important to
separate this contribution, without confounding it with the
more proximate contribution of satisfaction.
At the theoretical level, it is important to interpret both indirect
and direct contributions with sharp theoretical acumen. Indirect
and mediated contribution will support the theory that
satisfaction is a global appraisal, coded (by the consumer) as a
feeling, and being both global and a feeling, it should be most
influential and most proximal driver of customer loyalty. In
contrast, direct effects of the co-predictors would imply that
while some of their influence is captured in and mediated by
satisfaction, some attributes of service do impact customer
loyalty directly. That is, not all of the experienced service
attributes are transformed in the consumer mind as a feeling (of
satisfaction), but, rather, the experience of service attributes is
“recalled” directly at the time of future patronage behavior. Both
these paths are theoretically justifiable, but we need to assess
them as such, i.e. as distinct paths to loyalty.
Inadequate attention to context
Although satisfaction-loyalty (or switching) studies have
collectively spanned an impressive list of industries (e.g.
auto-repair, education, finance and banking, gyms, health
care, hotels, spas, wireless, B2b, etc. (Lee et al., 2001; Lonial
and Raju, 2015; Yüncü, 2015), the contrast between industry
types as a contingency factor is seriously underexplored
(Dagger and David, 2012, and Pollack, 2009 being
comforting exceptions). Specifically, the contextual contrast
covered in our study, namely, high versus low contact is not
examined in any of the studies, and likewise, the differential
roles of technical versus functional qualities have not been
addressed. These are not the only distinctions crying out for
verification, of course. Other distinctions such as discrete
versus continuous (e.g. landscaping vs insurance), experiential
(e.g. cruise travel, museum, etc.) vs negative problem solver
(e.g. pest control or car repair), online vs offline, product-plus
vs wholly intangible (flower delivery vs massage parlor), etc.
deserve attention. Comparative studies in these contrasting
studies are needed with specific hypotheses for specific
co-predictors and moderators.
Impoverished measurement of satisfaction
The strength of satisfaction–loyalty link will depend on how
well and how richly satisfaction is measured. In some studies,
satisfaction is measured as satisfaction with a recent
transaction. This type of satisfaction is then modeled as an
antecedent to commitment, which in turn is modeled as
antecedent to future intent. This hypothesized path is
theoretically sound, of course; but it should not be taken to
imply that this speaks to the role of satisfaction as a more
enduring feeling, or rather as a feeling that captures, as it is
supposed to, the customer’s long-term experience with the
service firm.
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
In examining diverse studies where satisfaction is measured
as an enduring feeling, the diverse and differing measures of
satisfaction need to be taken note of. Some studies measure
satisfaction as fulfilment of expectations, in which case, it is
more apt to deem it as a “cognitive view” of satisfaction. Many
studies measure it as an “overall satisfaction” typically by
items drawn from Oliver (1996), which by and large is also
“cognitive” in nature.
In contrast, some studies have explicitly measured affective
satisfaction (e.g. delighted, pleasantly surprised, angry, upset).
Measuring satisfaction more comprehensively (incorporating
both cognitive and affective) will likely improve the strength of
satisfaction–loyalty link. This was the case in Caro and Garcia
(2007) and Hartono and Raharjo (2015). It stands to reason
that in future research, it would be advisable to measure
satisfaction more richly.
Call for future research
First, our call is for distilling the true role of satisfaction in
customer loyalty. Toward this goal, satisfaction needs to be
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
measured more richly (delight beyond satisfaction) and
more comprehensively (encompassing both cognitive and
affective facets). Note that when satisfaction is measured so
richly, the link between satisfaction and loyalty is bound to
show up stronger – contrary to the premise of our 1998 paper.
Ours is thus a value-neutral call, valuing equally the findings
that may support the main thesis of our 1998 paper (which
had spotlighted the disconnect between satisfaction and
loyalty) as well as the findings that may show a weakened
presence of the disconnect. Toward that same goal, rather
than add co-predictors and assuming their causal primacy
equal to satisfaction, the mediating and more proximate role
of satisfaction over other predictors needs to be recognized (or
counter-argued, if one so theorizes).
Second, recognizing the possibility of non-linearity, analyses
of proposed models (whatever be the hypothesized
relationships) should be tested separately for the low, middle
and high ranges of satisfaction.
Third, the disconnect between satisfaction and loyalty
should be examined more explicitly by analyzing “off pattern”
segments – dissatisfied and yet staying versus satisfied and yet
defecting. This, a principal thrust of our 1998 research,
remains seriously under-researched. (Although in our data,
100 per cent of those dissatisfied were switchers, the existence
of “dissatisfied and yet staying” cannot be ruled out, and it
was in fact observed in, for example, Lonial and Raju, 2015).
Fourth and last, the differential role played by diverse
service attributes (in particular, technical vs functional
quality) and other co-predictors and the contingency of that
role on service category typology also remain in need of
research.
Managerial implications
For managers, the lessons of our original study continue to be
relevant. The arguments proposed in the present retrospective
offer further managerial guidance to first enrich and then milk
their satisfaction survey data for even more insights. In terms
of enrichment, service firms might consider augmenting their
satisfaction and loyalty surveys with richer measures of
573
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
satisfaction and also the inclusion of additional variables such
as perceived switching costs, price value, relationship value,
inertia, etc. In terms of analyses, survey data should be
analyzed not merely for the aggregate sample as a whole but
also for subgroups that are broken down by range of
satisfaction scores, and, separately, by a disjunction between
the satisfaction and loyalty ratings. This re-analysis can be put
to advantage even for data that these firms already have.
Conclusion
Over the past 20 years, an impressive body of research on
satisfaction, loyalty and switching in services has happened. It
is tempting to usurp credit for it to the presumed generative
power of our 1998 paper. The credit belongs, however,
elsewhere, the achieved status of our 1998 paper as “one of the
ten most cited” notwithstanding. The truth is that the loyalty
and switching topics have an intense belly fire of their own to
inspire a treasure chest of research studies. This research
stream must continue unabated, albeit with a renewed
redirection of focus on the gaps identified above. These gaps
evoke a crying need for illuminating two interrelated issues:
one, nonlinearity – how satisfaction’s loyalty payoff varies
across different zones of satisfaction – and two, satisfaction–
loyalty disconnect – why exactly do some satisfied customers
still harbor an intent to switch. In measure immense and
consequential, answers to these questions will enrich theory as
well as enlighten practitioners.
References
Agustin, C. and Singh, J. (2005), “Curvilinear effects of
consumer loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Anderson, E.W. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Strengthening the
satisfaction–profit chain”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2003), “E-satisfaction
and e-loyalty: a contingency framework”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Baumann, C., Elliott, G. and Burton, S. (2012), “Modeling
customer satisfaction and loyalty: survey data versus data
mining”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 148-157.
Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2004), “Customer
satisfaction should not be the only goal”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 514-523.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “Improving service
quality in America: lessons learned”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 32-52.
Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K.D. (1998), “On the relationship
between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 499-513.
Bowen, J.T. and Chen, S. (2001), “The relationship between
customer loyalty and customer satisfaction”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 213-217.
Brunner, T.A., Markus Stöcklin, M. and Opwis, K. (2008),
“Satisfaction, image and loyalty: new versus experienced
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
customers”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1095-1105.
Capraro, A.J., Broniarczyk, S. and Srivastava, R.K. (2003),
“Factors influencing the likelihood of customer defection:
the role of consumer knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 164-175.
Caro, L.M. and Garcia, J.A.M. (2007), “Cognitive-affective
model of consumer satisfaction: an exploratory study within
the framework of a sporting event”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 108-114.
Caruana, A. (2002), “Service loyalty: the effects of service
quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8.
Čater, B. and Čater, T. (2009), “Relationship-value-based
antecedents of customer satisfaction and loyalty in
manufacturing”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 585-597.
Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, L.C.F. and Yeung, A.C.L. (2008), “The
driving forces of customer loyalty: a study of internet service
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
providers in Hong Kong”, International Journal of E-Business
Research Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 26-42.
Cronin, J., Brady, M. and Hult, T. (2000), “Assessing the
effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on
consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dagger, T.S. and David, M.E. (2012), “Uncovering the real
effect of switching costs on the satisfaction-loyalty
association: the critical role of involvement and relationship
benefits”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 3/4,
pp. 447-468.
El-manstrly, D., Paton, R., Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L.
(2011), “An empirical investigation of the relative effect of
trust and switching costs on service loyalty in the UK retail
banking industry”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 101-110.
Ganesh, J., Arnold, M., Kristy, E. and Reynolds, K.E. (2000),
“Understanding the customer base of service providers: an
examination of the differences between switchers and
stayers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 65-87.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles
of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Grisaffe, D.B. (2007), “Questions about he ultimate question:
conceptual considerations in evaluating Reichheld’s Net
Promoter Score (NPS)”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction & Complaining, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 36-53.
Hartono, M. and Rahario, H. (2015), “Exploring the
mediating role of affective and cognitive satisfaction on the
effect of service quality on loyalty”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 971-985.
Huang, M.H. and Yu, S. (1999), “Are consumers inherently
or situationally brand loyal? – a set intercorrelation account
for conscious brand loyalty and nonconscious inertia”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 523-544.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and
Beatty, S.E. (2007), “The positive and negative effects of
574
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
switching costs on relational outcomes”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 335-355.
Lai, L., Liu, C. and Lin, J. (2011), “The moderating effects
of switching costs and inertia on the customer
satisfaction-retention link: auto liability insurance service in
Taiwan”, Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and
Acturial Computation, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-78.
Lee, J., Lee, J. and Feick, L. (2001), “The impact of switching
costs on the customer satisfaction-loyalty link: mobile
phone service in France”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Liang, C.J. and Wang, W. (2004), “Attributes, benefits,
customer satisfaction and behavioral loyalty, an integrative
research of financial services industry in Taiwan”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Lonial, S. and Raju, P.S. (2015), “Impact of service attributes
on customer satisfaction and loyalty in a healthcare
context”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 149-166.
Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), “Why do customers
switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty”, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-192.
Oliver, R.L. (1996), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective On
the Consumer, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994),
“Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in
service quality measurement: implications for future
research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Pollack, B.L. (2009), “Linking the hierarchical service quality
model to customer satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-50.
Pollack, B.L. (2015), “Are moderators of the customer
satisfaction–repurchase intention relationship contingent on
the service category? An exploratory investigation”, Services
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 335-351.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force
behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
Reichheld, F.F. (2003), “The one number to grow”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12, pp. 1-11.
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr. (1990), “Zero defections:
quality comes to services”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68
No. 5, pp. 105-111.
Rust, R. and Zahorik, A. (1993), “Customer satisfaction,
customer retention and market share”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 193-215.
Ruyter, K.D., Bloemer, J. and Peeters, P. (1997), “Merging
service quality and service satisfaction: an empirical test of
an integrative model”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-406.
Skogland, I. and Siguaw, J.A. (2004), “Are your satisfied customers
loyal?”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 221-234.
 Dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty
Banwari Mittal
Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994), “An assessment of the
relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase
intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 163-178.
Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G.K. (2006), “Path analysis of
perceived service quality, satisfaction and loyalty in Greek
insurance”, Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 501-519.
Vyas, V. and Raitani, S. (2014), “Drivers of customers’
switching behaviour in Indian banking industry”, The
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 321-342.
Walsh, G., Dinnie, K. and Wiedmann, K. (2006), “How do
corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact
customer defection? A study of private energy customers in
Germany”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 412-420.
Walsh, G., Evanschitzky, H. and Wunderlich, M. (2008),
“Identification and analysis of moderator variables:
investigating the customer satisfaction-loyalty link”,
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10,
pp. 977-1004.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
575
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 · Number 6 · 2016 · 569 –575
Wirtz, J., Xiao, P., Chiang, J. and Malhotra, N. (2014),
“Contrasting switching intent and switching behavior in
contractual service settings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 90
No. 4, pp. 463-480.
Yüncü, D. (2015), “Relationships between perceptions of
virtual destination environment, satisfaction and loyalty”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 160-173.
Zhang, A. and Richard, J.E. (2012), “Corporate image,
loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel industry,”
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, May,
pp. 568-593.
Further reading
Wu, L. (2011), “Satisfaction, inertia, and customer loyalty in
the varying levels of the zone of tolerance and alternative
attractiveness”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 310-322.
Corresponding author
Banwari Mittal can be contacted at: Mittal@nku.edu
 This article has been cited by:

1. MarinoGaetano, Gaetano Marino, ZotteriGiulio, Giulio Zotteri, MontagnaFrancesca, Francesca Montagna. 2018. Consumer
sensitivity to delivery lead time: a furniture retail case. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 48:6,
610-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. UmasuthanHamsanandini, Hamsanandini Umasuthan, ParkOun-Joung, Oun-Joung Park, RyuJong-Hyun, Jong-Hyun Ryu.
2017. Influence of empathy on hotel guests’ emotional service experience. Journal of Services Marketing 31:6, 618-635. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 17:06 26 July 2018 (PT)