Introduction
An examination of the
relationship between
service quality,
customer satisfaction,
and store loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and
Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
The authors
Eugene Sivadas is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management,
Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.
Jamie Baker-Prewitt is a Consultant with Burke
Customer Satisfaction Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Keywords
Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Service quality,
Retailing, Stores
Abstract
Using a national random telephone survey of 542
shoppers, examines the relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty within the
retail department store context. Tests two complementary
models that examine this interrelationship. Empirically
examines the relative attitude construct put forth by Dick
and Basu. The results indicate that service quality
influences relative attitude and satisfaction with
department stores. Satisfaction influences relative
attitude, repurchase, and recommendation but has no
direct effect on store loyalty. Fostering favorable relative
attitude and getting customers to recommend the product
or service holds key to fostering store loyalty. Results also
indicate support for Oliver's four-stage cognitive-
affective-conative-action model of loyalty.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . pp. 73±82
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0959-0552
73
In an increasingly competitive environment,
companies must be customer oriented
(Kotler, 1997). After all, the underpinning of
the marketing concept is that identification
and satisfaction of customer needs leads to
improved customer retention (Day, 1994). It
is thus not surprising that companies spend
substantial resources to measure and manage
customer satisfaction. This is especially true
of the department store sector, which finds its
customer base being eaten up by both
specialty and discount stores (International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 1996).
Inside Research, a marketing research
industry newsletter, estimates that the
combined US and European customer
satisfaction measurement expenditure was at
more than US$372 million in 1997 and
expenditures are growing at the rate of 20
percent or so every year. US expenditures
alone were estimated at $253.5 million (Inside
Research, 1998). These estimates exclude
customer satisfaction measurement carried on
in-house or those conducted by smaller firms.
Several marketing research firms now
specialize in customer satisfaction
measurement (Marketing News, 1998). In
addition, many companies like Cigna P&C
and KFC tie employee compensation to
customer satisfaction. At KFC about 35
percent of a manager's annual bonus is tied to
the customer satisfaction scores they achieve
(McNerney, 1996). Several companies invest
very heavily in customer loyalty programs.
For example, the Sheraton frequent traveler
program costs between $30 million and $50
million annually. In the retail sector, Sears,
Roebuck and Company attributes its
turnaround to a model focusing on employee
and customer satisfaction (Rucci et al., 1998).
However, given the increased emphasis on
customer satisfaction, the question that begs
our attention is whether improvements in
customer satisfaction lead to improvements in
the economic performance of firms
(Anderson et al., 1994). Heavy expenditures
and importance attached to customer
satisfaction measurement suggest that the link
between customer satisfaction and economic
well-being of companies is presumed by
The authors thank Bob Dwyer, Randy Brandt and
Karen Machleit for their helpful comments.
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
companies that place emphasis on customer
satisfaction. However, most of the evidence
provided to support this relationship is
largely anecdotal in nature. For example,
many companies (e.g. Whirlpool) that score
well on customer satisfaction have done
poorly financially (Grant, 1998). Passikoff
(1997) cites a Juran Institute study which
indicates that less than a third of top
managers of US' largest corporations
believe that their customer satisfaction efforts
had provided any economic value to their
firms.
The increasing emphasis placed on
customer satisfaction could in part be
attributed to overall decline in levels
of customer loyalty. This decline has
been attributed to a wide number of
factors including greater choice and
information available to customers, the
``commoditization'' of several products, and
increased foreign competition (Anderson and
Fornell, 1994; Schriver, 1997). For example,
a recent issue of Marketing News cites a
Frankel brand marketing study which
reports that one in ten customers switch
retailers after just one bad customer service
experience.
The objective of this paper is to test two
complementary models of the
interrelationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction, and store loyalty within
a department store context. Electronic and
more traditional forms of direct shopping,
discount, and specialty stores have eaten into
the customer base, and threaten the existence,
of department stores (Moin, 1997). Moin
suggests that consumers have criticized
department stores as places where shopping is
not easy, service is inadequate, and prices are
not competitive. Thus, the department store
context is an excellent context to test our
model.
Our goal is to test many of the posited
interrelationships by using a national random
sample of consumers. We first examine the
relationship between customer satisfaction,
service quality, and store loyalty. Next we
present and discuss our model and
hypotheses and present our methodology and
results. We next present Oliver's (1997)
model of customer loyalty and test whether
this model applies to store loyalty. We
conclude with a discussion of the implications
of our study and provide directions for future
research.
74
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
Service quality, satisfaction and store
loyalty
The relationship between customer
satisfaction and service quality has received a
good deal of attention in the literature (cf.
Bolton and Drew, 1994). However, the vast
majority of articles attempting to examine this
interrelationship have been of a non-empirical
nature (Iacobucci et al., 1995).
Anderson and Fornell (1994) indicate that
the literature is not very clear about the
distinction between quality and satisfaction.
Rust and Oliver (1994) suggest that customer
satisfaction or dissatisfaction ± a ``cognitive or
affective reaction'' ± emerges as a response to a
single or prolonged set of service encounters.
Satisfaction is a ``post consumption''
experience which compares perceived quality
with expected quality, whereas service quality
refers to a global evaluation of a firm's service
delivery system (Anderson and Fornell, 1994;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). Using experimental
design and qualitative techniques, in one of the
few empirical studies of this relationship,
Iacobucci et al. (1995) conclude that the key
difference between service quality and
customer satisfaction is that quality relates to
managerial delivery of the service while
satisfaction reflects customers' experiences
with that service. They argue that quality
improvements that are not based on customer
needs will not lead to improved customer
satisfaction.
Similar to Dick and Basu (1994), Anderson
and Fornell (1994), Iacobucci et al. (1995),
and Rust and Oliver (1994, p. 6, ``quality is
one dimension on which satisfaction is
based'') we view service quality as an
antecedent to satisfaction. Bolton and Drew
(1994, p. 176) point out ``customer
satisfaction . . . depends on preexisting or
contemporaneous attitudes about service
quality.'' Bitner et al. (1994) and Anderson et
al. (1994) also point to this link by suggesting
that improved service quality will result in a
satisfied customer and suggest that to a large
extent this relationship is intuitive.
Therefore,
H1: Service quality has a positive effect on
satisfaction.
Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggest that a
customers' relationship with a company is
strengthened when that customer makes a
favorable assessment about the company's
service quality and weakened when a
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
customer makes negative assessments about
the company's service quality. They argue
that favorable assessment of service quality
will lead to favorable behavioral intentions
like ``praise for the company'' and expressions
of preference for the company over other
companies. Danaher and Rust (1994) and
Dabholkar et al. (1996) suggest that service
quality is associated with likelihood of
recommending a product or service.
We posit that:
H2: Service quality has a positive effect on
likelihood of recommending.
There is increasing recognition that the
ultimate objective of customer satisfaction
measurement should be customer loyalty.
Fornell (1992) argues that high customer
satisfaction will result in increased loyalty for
the firm and that customers will be less prone
to overtures from competition. However, the
ability of customer satisfaction scores to
predict such loyalty has not been adequately
demonstrated (Higgins, 1997). Anderson et
al. (1994) express the fear that if firms are not
able to demonstrate a link between customer
satisfaction and economic performance, then
firms may abandon the focus on customer
satisfaction measurement. Witness, for
example, managers' frustration with the
inability of quality improvements to improve
organizational performance (Grant, 1998).
There is some evidence to support the
contention that customer satisfaction
translates into higher than normal market
share growth. Grant (1998) reports that the
American Customer Satisfaction Index
studies find a positive correlation between
customer satisfaction and stock market
returns. Fornell et al. (1996) also offer some
evidence of the linkage between customer
satisfaction and loyalty. Anderson and Fornell
(1994) point out that customer loyalty is
determined to a large extent by customer
satisfaction.
Therefore we posit that:
H3: Satisfaction has a positive effect on
store loyalty.
Dick and Basu (1994), in a conceptual paper
on loyalty, point out that while the loyalty
concept applies to a variety of contexts from
consumer packaged goods to industrial to
retail store, most researchers have focused on
issues related to the measurement of loyalty.
Dick and Basu (1994) introduce the notion of
relative attitude as a means to provide better
75
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
theoretical grounding to the loyalty construct.
Relative attitude refers to ``a favorable attitude
that is high compared to potential
alternatives'' (Dick and Basu, 1994, p. 100).
They suggest that loyalty is evidenced both by
a more favorable attitude towards a brand (as
compared to other alternatives) and repeat
patronage. Dick and Basu suggest that low
relative attitude with low repeat purchase
connotes absence of loyalty, while low relative
attitude with high repeat purchase indicates
spurious loyalty. Satisfaction is thus viewed as
an antecedent of relative attitude because
without satisfaction consumers will not hold a
favorable attitude towards a brand as
compared to other alternatives available (Dick
and Basu, 1994).
Bloemer and Kasper (1995, p. 312) echo
similar sentiments by suggesting that one
should ``explicitly take into account the
degree of a consumer's commitment to a
brand when (s)he rebuys a brand. Thus
repeat purchasing behavior alone does not
imply a consumer is loyal to a brand. True
loyalty implies commitment towards a brand
and not just repurchase due to inertia''
(Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Consumers
who repurchase a brand due to inertia may be
easily induced to switch brands when offered
a price-cut, coupon, or ``enhanced point of
purchase visibility.'' Thus, a favorable relative
attitude and not just repurchase is a
prerequisite for loyalty. Dick and Basu (1994)
also view perceived service quality as a
cognitive antecedent of relative attitude
because service quality will influence the
accessibility, centrality, and clarity of
attitudes.
Therefore,
H4: Satisfaction has a positive effect on
(favorable) relative attitude.
H5: Service quality has a positive effect on
(favorable) relative attitude.
We posit that satisfaction leads to increased
likelihood of recommending, repurchasing,
and loyalty. Satisfaction is positively
associated with repurchase intentions,
likelihood of recommending a product or
service, loyalty, and profitability (cf.
Anderson and Fornell, 1994; Anton, 1996;
Bitner, 1990). For example, Rust and
Williams (1994) found that greater customer
satisfaction resulted in a greater intent to
repurchase. LaBarbera and Mazursky (1983)
found that satisfaction influences repurchase
intentions. Dissatisfaction has been seen as a
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
primary reason for customer defection or
discontinuation of purchase. For example,
Anton (1996, p. 47) suggests that ``customers
switch suppliers because they are not satisfied
with the company's perceived value, relative
to the competition.''
H6: Satisfaction has a positive effect on
repurchase intentions.
H7: Satisfaction has a positive effect on
likelihood of recommending.
We posit that a favorable relative attitude will
result in consumers' recommending a product
or service, repurchase intentions, and loyalty
(cf. Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1997). A
favorable attitude towards a brand relative to
other alternatives available in the marketplace
will result in a consumer's intentions to
repurchase that brand (attitude-behavior
consistency).
Bloemer and Kasper (1995) argue that
mere repurchase may be indicative of inertia
and not loyalty. True loyalty requires
commitment to the brand. Holding a
favorable relative attitude towards a brand is
indicative of manifest (as opposed to latent)
satisfaction and a commitment towards the
brand. This commitment will translate into a
desire to rebuy the brand (ignoring other
alternatives available), recommending the
brand to others, and loyalty.
H8: Relative attitude has a positive effect
on repurchase intentions.
H9: Relative attitude has a positive effect
on likelihood of recommending.
H10: Relative attitude has a positive effect
on store loyalty.
Bloemer and Kasper (1995) distinguish
between true and spurious brand loyalty.
They suggest (p. 313) that ``loyalty not only
concerns the behavior of rebuying but also
takes into account that actual behavior's
antecedents.'' They go on to define true
loyalty as ``the biased (non-random)
behavioral response (purchase) expressed
over time with respect to one or more
alternative brands (stores) out of a set of such
brands (stores) which is a function of
psychological processes resulting in brand
(store) commitment''.
Spurious loyalty on the other hand is
repurchase due to inertia. Thus while
repurchasing itself is not loyalty it influences
loyalty as an antecedent.
H11: Likelihood of repurchasing has a
positive effect on store loyalty.
76
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
Method
Study participants
Participants in the study came from a
National Probability sample of 542 heads of
household who had shopped at a department
store within the past three months, and who
were able to provide the name of the
department store where they last shopped.
Approximately 60 percent of participants
were female, the average age of participants
was about 42 years, and the median
household income of study participants was
about $38,000.
Data collection
Data were collected using a computer assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI) system.
Interviews were conducted during evenings
and weekends by experienced professional
interviewers. Participants were told that the
purpose of the interview was to obtain their
opinions about department stores. Interviews
lasted approximately 13 minutes.
Measurement
Respondents were asked about their
department store shopping experience. We
asked respondents to focus on the last
department store they had visited within the
past three months. This enabled us to obtain
a variety of perspectives rather than what we
would have obtained had we just asked
respondents to focus on their favorite
department store. We asked respondents
questions about:
. shopping frequency;
. overall satisfaction with the department
store (four-point Likert type scale);
. likelihood to visit the store again (five-
point Likert type scale);
. likelihood to recommend the store to
others (five-point Likert type scales);
. relative attitude (two-item, five-point
Likert type scale);
. service quality measure (modified version
of Parasuraman et al.'s 22-item, seven-
point Likert type scale)[1];
. loyalty (measured as frequency of visiting
local department store/frequency of
visiting department stores in general);
. related shopping behaviors;
. demographics.
Please see Appendix for some of the key
measures used in the study. Study
participants received no incentives for
 Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
completing the interview, and the telephone
interviewers identified no specific department
store as the sponsor of the study.
Results: Model 1
Model estimation
Structural equation modeling using Lisrel
VIII was used to test the hypothesized model
presented in Figure 1. The results of this
hypothesized model are presented in Figure 2.
Results indicate an excellent fit of the model.
The Chi-square was nonsignificant (X2 =
3.13, 2 d.f., p = 0.21). All other indicators
also point to a good fit. The goodness of fit
index was 1.0, adjusted goodness of fit Index
was 0.98, root mean square residual was
0.013, and RMSEA = 0.032. The critical N =
1,594.68 also suggested a good fit. Thus
overall the data indicate an excellent fit for
our hypothesized model.
The path coefficients are presented in
Figure 2. The results indicate that service
quality directly affects both relative attitude
Figure 1 Hypothesized Model 1
Figure 2 Model 1 path coefficients (n = 542)
77
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
and satisfaction and that satisfaction affects
relative attitude. Both relative attitude and
satisfaction influence the likelihood of
recommending but only satisfaction plays a
part in influencing repurchase. No significant
impact of relative attitude on repurchase was
observed. Both relative attitude and
satisfaction have no direct impact on loyalty.
It thus appears that both relative attitude and
satisfaction influence one's likelihood of
recommending a product, which in turn
fosters both repurchase and loyalty.
Test of hypotheses
As hypothesized, service quality influences
satisfaction (H1), likelihood of recommending
the store to others (H2) and relative attitude
(H5). Hypothesis H4, that satisfaction
influences relative attitude, was also
supported. Satisfaction was found to influence
both likelihood of repurchasing from the
particular department store (H6) and
likelihood of recommending that department
store (H7). There was support for hypothesis
H9, that relative attitude will result in
recommending a department store. However,
hypothesis H8, that relative attitude will
influence the likelihood of repurchasing from a
department store was not supported. Neither
satisfaction (H3) nor relative attitude (H10)
were found to have a significant direct impact
on store loyalty. There was support for H11
that repurchase intentions significantly affect
store loyalty.
Model 2: Oliver's four-stage loyalty
model
Oliver (1997) suggests that the literature on
loyalty lacks a unitary approach. Drawing on
the work of Jacoby and others, Oliver suggests
that customer loyalty (p. 392, ``a deeply held
commitment to rebuy or repatronize a
preferred product or service consistently in
the future, despite situational influences and
marketing efforts having the potential to cause
switching behavior'') progresses in four
phases, with each phase representing a greater
degree of loyalty. We examine whether
Oliver's model of loyalty is applicable to the
store loyalty context. We use the same
variables used to test Model 1, but use them
within the context of Oliver's approach that
loyalty is a matter of degree and lies on a
continuum. This assumption of a continuum
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
between various degrees of loyalty based on
the degree of commitment of the consumer
also finds support with Bloemer and Kasper
(1995).
Oliver characterizes the first phase as
cognitive loyalty. In this phase, consumers may
continue to patronize one store (over others)
based on some compelling reason, e.g. one
store has lower prices or better service than
other stores. However, loyalty may not be
very strong during this phase in that as soon
as another store offers more attractive prices
or better service the consumer may be very
likely to defect. Loyalty at this stage is purely
driven by functional characteristics and
consumers' commitment towards a store may
not be very strong. Consumers may switch
during this stage when faced with
noncompetitive performance. Like Oliver, we
view consumers' evaluation of service quality
as a good indicator of their cognitive loyalty.
The next stage of loyalty in Oliver's model
is affective loyalty. Similar to Anand et al.
(1988), Oliver posits that a series of cognitive
processes precede affective decisions. This is a
stronger form of loyalty in that in addition to
cognition, loyalty at this stage is driven by
prior attitudes towards that store and at a later
stage by satisfaction. This stage of loyalty is
stronger in that ``counterargumentation''
alone will not dislodge the loyalty of a
consumer since it is based on affect also. At
this stage the consumer's loyalty is a function
of both attitude and satisfaction. We,
therefore, use consumer evaluation of relative
attitude and satisfaction to measure affective
loyalty.
The third stage of loyalty in Oliver's model
is conative loyalty. At this phase the consumer
holds a ``commitment to buy.'' This stage is
exemplified by repurchase intentions and via
actions like recommending the store to others.
The final stage of loyalty is action loyalty in
that ``action is the necessary result of the
confluence of the preceding three stages.''
Our measure of loyalty (the share of visits to
department stores accruing to the store in
question) is a measure of action loyalty.
Figure 3 presents the model that is being
tested here.
Results: Model 2
LISREL VIII was used to test this model. The
overall model fit was acceptable. Though the
78
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
Figure 3 Olive's four-stage loyalty model
Chi-square was significant (X2 = 1,259.5, 322
d.f, p = 0.0) all other indicators point to an
acceptable model fit. The goodness of fit
index was 0.84, adjusted goodness of fit index
was 0.81, root mean square residual was 0.04
and RMSEA was 0.07. The critical N was
165.92. Thus the fit was acceptable for a first
test of the model, though not excellent. We
find strong support for the model (Figure 3)
in that: cognitive loyalty is a significant
predictor of affective loyalty; affective loyalty
is a strong predictor of conative loyalty and
conative loyalty significantly affects action
loyalty.
Discussion
In this paper, we examined the relationship
between service quality, satisfaction, and
loyalty in a retail store setting. We find that
service quality influences satisfaction with
retail stores. We empirically examine the
relative attitude construct introduced by Dick
and Basu (1994). Our results indicate that
relative attitude is influenced both by
satisfaction and service quality, and in turn it
influences likelihood of recommendation.
Thus the key to customer retention and
customer creation appears to be the fostering
of a favorable relative attitude among
department store shoppers; and a favorable
relative attitude can be created by satisfying
the customers and improved service quality.
We find support for the contention put
forth by researchers that service quality is an
important influencer of customer satisfaction
(cf. Rust and Oliver, 1994). As discussed
earlier, service quality also influences the
relative attitude shoppers hold about a
department store. More interestingly, we find
that service quality influences the likelihood
of recommending a department store to
friends.
Thus, service quality, satisfaction, and
relative attitude all influence the likelihood of
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
recommending a department store; and
consumers who are more likely to recommend
a department store also tend to be more loyal
to that store. Recommendation of a store is
also greatly associated with the likelihood of
repurchasing from that store. Thus, getting
customers to recommend the store to others
appears to be key. Future research efforts
could take a closer look at the
recommendation construct. We reason that
when consumers recommend a store to others
it strengthens their own relative attitude
toward that store. This is so as when
consumers recommend a store they effectively
are suggesting that someone patronize a
particular store over other stores. Principles of
cognitive consistency might operate so that
they themselves would be more inclined to
repurchase from a department store they have
recommended to others (cf. Beatty and
Kahle, 1988; Solomon, 1996).
Contrary to our hypothesis, we do not find
that a favorable relative attitude will result in
repeat patronage of a department store. Dick
and Basu (1994) do acknowledge that a
favorable relative attitude may not necessarily
result in repeat purchases. They suggest
(p. 101), ``that [for] purposes of predictive
validity, it is hence advantageous to compare
brands (stores) that are viewed by consumers
to be relevant in a given consumption
context.'' They suggest that relative attitude
would be a better predictor of repeat
patronage than attitude towards the brand
(store) viewed in isolation. In our study we
examined relative attitudes within a
consumption context (department stores) but
do not find it to be a predictor of repeat
patronage. However, relative attitude
influences likelihood of recommending a store
which, in turn, influences loyalty.
Loyalty has been conceptualized in a variety
of different ways ranging from probability of
repeat purchase to proportion of purchase
(Dick and Basu, 1994). We measure loyalty in
terms of proportion of visits (share of total
department store visits accruing to a
particular department store). Department
store patronage mirrors an ``always a share''
purchasing situation where customers seek
variety and may purchase from different
stores, though the share of business given to
each store may vary (cf. Dwyer, 1989). While
the literature points to a relative attitude and
loyalty relationship, our failure to find a
significant relationship between relative
79
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
attitude and loyalty as measured here is
intriguing and merits further study. It is
possible that several other variables (e.g.
price) may moderate the relative attitude-
loyalty link.
Satisfaction also influences the likelihood of
recommending a department store as well as
repurchase but has no direct impact on
loyalty. Thus satisfaction in itself will not
translate into loyalty (cf. Jones and Sasser,
1995). However, satisfaction will foster
loyalty to the extent that it is a prerequisite for
maintaining a favorable relative attitude and
for recommending and repurchasing from the
store.
Once customers recommend a department
store it fosters both repatronage and loyalty
towards that store. Thus the key to generating
loyalty is to get customers to recommend a
store to others. Also, customers are likely to
recommend a department store when they are
satisfied with that store and when they have a
favorable relative attitude towards that store.
Future research efforts could tackle questions
related to additional factors that would induce
a favorable relative attitude and factors that
would encourage consumers to recommend a
product or service to others. Such factors
might include comparative advertising and
other forms of marketing communication,
and loyalty programs that encourage
customers to sign up friends or at least
promote the product or service in question
through favorable word of mouth.
We provided an initial test of Oliver's
(1997) model. Results indicate that store
loyalty lies on a continuum and suggest that
action loyalty is preceded by milder forms of
loyalty.
Managerial implications
Managers have traditionally focused on
customer satisfaction and service quality.
Department stores represent a unique
managerial challenge in that consumers
patronize multiple stores at the same time.
This study suggests a need to go beyond the
measurement of satisfaction and service
quality and indicates that neither has a direct
effect on loyalty. The key to customer
creation and retention appears to be the
fostering of a favorable relative attitude
among department store shoppers. Thus it is
not merely enough to satisfy a customer, the
customer's attitude towards a specific store
should be more favorable as compared to
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
competing stores; and a favorable relative
attitude can be created by satisfying the
customers and improved service quality.
Service quality, satisfaction, and fostering a
favorable relative attitude have a positive
effect on consumers' likelihood of
recommending the store to others.
Recommending the store to others results in
increased repurchase intentions, which fosters
store loyalty. Thus managers should design
programs that increase consumer likelihood
of recommending the store to others.
Incentive programs (free coupons or special
discounts or bring a friend to the store
program) or advertising that encourages
consumers to recommend the store to their
friends is key.
Limitations
Some of the key measures we used in the
study were single item measures. While we
believe that these global measures do an
adequate job of capturing consumers' feelings
and intentions and are quite reliable in this
stream of research (cf. Anton, 1996), we do
acknowledge the superiority of multiple item
measures (cf. Peter, 1981).
Note
1 We focused on perceived service quality rather than
on gap analysis as prior research (e.g. Parasuraman
et al., 1991) has indicated that it does a better job
of explaining variation in service quality. While
reservations have been expressed about the
appropriateness of Servqual measure for retail
applications (e.g. Gagliano and Hathcote, 1994) we
decided to retain the same measure since it is the
most widely used measure of service quality.
However, the scale wordings were modified to
make it appropriate for the department store
context.
References
Anand, P., Holbrook, M. and Stephens, D. (1988), ``The
formation of affective judgements: the cognitive-
affective model versus the independence
hypothesis'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
December, pp. 386-91.
Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (1994), ``A customer
satisfaction research prospectus'', in Rust, R.T. and
Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice, pp. 241-68.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994),
``Customer satisfaction, market share and
80
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
profitability'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 53-66.
Anton, J. (1996), Customer Relationship Management:
Making Hard Decisions With Soft Numbers,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), ``Alternative
hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship: the
impact of brand commitment and habit'', Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16,
Summer, pp. 1-10.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), ``Evaluating service encounters: the
effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April,
pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), ``Critical
service encounters: the employees viewpoint'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 95-106.
Bloemer J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), ``The complex
relationship between consumer satisfaction and
brand loyalty'', Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 16, p. 311-29.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1994), ``Linking customer
satisfaction to service operations and outcomes'', in
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality:
New Directions in Theory and Practice, pp. 173-200.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I. and Rentz, J.O. (1996), ``A
measure of service quality for retail stores: scale
development and validation'', Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 3-16.
Danaher, P.J. and Rust, R.T. (1994), ``Indirect marketing
benefits from service quality'', Working paper,
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN.
Day, G.S (1994), ``The capabilities of market-driven
organizations'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 37-52.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), ``Customer loyalty: toward
an integrated conceptual framework'', Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 99-113.
Dwyer, F.R. (1989), ``Customer lifetime valuation to
support marketing decision making'', Journal of
Direct Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 8-15.
Fornell, C. (1992), ``A national customer satisfaction
barometer: the Swedish experience'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 1-18.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and
Bryant, B.E. (1996), ``The American customer
satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 7-18.
Gagliano, K.B. and Hathcote, J. (1994), ``Customer
expectations and perceptions of service quality in
retail apparel specialty stores'', Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 60-9.
Grant, L. (1998), ``Your customers are telling the truth'',
Fortune, 16 February, pp. 164-6.
Higgins, K.T. (1997), ``Coming of age'', Marketing News,
Vol. 31 No. 22, p. 1.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995),
``Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the consumer'', Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 277-303.
Inside Research (1998), Vol. 107, February.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management (1996), ``The future of
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt
department-store retailing'', July, Vol. 26 No. 7,
p. 30 (2).
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. (1995), ``Why satisfied
customers defect'', Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 88-99.
Kotler, P.R. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis,
Planning, Implementation, and Control, 9th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983), ``A longitudinal
assessment of consumer satisfaction,
dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of cognitive
process'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20,
November, pp. 393-404.
Marketing Briefs (1998), ``Bad service means bad
news for retailers'', Marketing News, Vol. 32
No. 22, p. 2.
Marketing News, ``1998 directory of customer satisfaction
measurement firms'', Marketing News, Vol. 31
No. 22, pp. 21-45.
McNerney, D.J. (1996), ``Compensation: the link to
customer satisfaction'', HR Focus, Vol. 9,
September, p. 1.
Moin, D. (1997), ``The department store saga'', WWD, 4
June, Vol. 173 No. 107, p. S4 (5).
Oliver, R. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective of
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988),
``Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality'', Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991),
``Refining and reassessment of the SERVQUAL
scale'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, Winter,
pp. 420-50.
Passikoff, R. (1997), ``The limits of customer satisfaction'',
Brandweek, Vol. 38 No. 9, p. 17.
Peter, J.P. (1981), ``Construct validity: a review of
basic issues and marketing practices'', Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, May,
pp. 133-45.
Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), ``The
employee-customer profit chain at Sears'', Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), ``Service quality: insights
and managerial implications from the frontier'',
in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service
Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
pp. 241-68.
Rust, R.T. and Williams, D.C. (1994), ``How length of
patronage affects the impact of customer
satisfaction on repurchase intention'', Journal of
Customer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 7, pp. 107-13.
Schriver, S.(1997), ``Customer loyalty: going, going...'',
American Demographics, Vol. 19 No. 9,
pp. 20-3.
Solomon, M.R. (1996), Consumer Behavior: Buying,
Having, Being, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),
``The behavioral consequences of service
quality'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,
pp. 31-46.
81
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82
Appendix: measures used in the study
Satisfaction
. What is your overall level of satisfaction
with (insert department store)?
(very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied).
Recommend
. If you had the opportunity, how likely
would you be to recommend (insert
department store) to a friend or relative?
(definitely would recommend, probably
would, might or might not, probably
would not, definitely would not).
Repurchase
. How likely would you be to shop at
(insert department store) again?
(definitely would, probably would, might
or might not, probably would not,
definitely would not).
Relative advantage (two-item measure±
obtain summated score and divide by
two)
. How much of an advantage does (insert
dept. store) have over other dept. stores?
(a very large advantage, large advantage,
moderate advantage, small advantage, no
advantage).
. Compared to other department stores,
would you say that the quality of service
you receive from (insert dept. store) is?
(much better, somewhat better, about the
same, somewhat worse, much worse)
Loyalty (two-item divide Q1/Q2)
. How often do you shop at (insert dept.
store)?
. How often do you purchase merchandise
at department stores?
Service quality
How much do you agree that (insert
department store):
. Has an interior that is visually appealing?
. Has sales personnel who appear neat?
. Has merchandise displays that are
visually appealing?
. Has sales personnel who complete things
as promised?
. Has sales personnel who show a sincere
interest in solving customer problems?
. Has sales personnel who provide their
services at the time they promised to do so?
Examination of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Eugene Sivadas and Jamie L. Baker-Prewitt Volume 28 . Number 2 . 2000 . 73±82

. Has sales personnel who perform the . Has sales personnel who are consistently
service right the first time? courteous with customers?
. Has sales personnel who provide error- . Has sales personnel who have the
free sales receipts? knowledge to answer customer questions?
. Has sales personnel who are able to tell . Has sales personnel who give customers
customers exactly when they will be helped?
individual attention?
. Has sales personnel who provide prompt . Has operating hours that are convenient
service?
to all customers?
. Has sales personnel who are willing to
. Has sales personnel who give customers
help customers at all times?
. Has sales personnel who are never too personal attention?
busy to respond to customer requests?
. Has sales personnel who have the
. Has sales personnel whose behavior customers' best interests at heart?
instills confidence in customers? . Has sales personnel who understand the
. Makes customers feel secure in their specific needs of their customers?
transactions with the store? . Has up-to-date equipment?

82