The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1759-0833.htm

Dynamics in
Relationship dynamics in customer
customer loyalty to online loyalty

banking services
Akram Garepasha, Samad Aali, Ali Reza Bafandeh Zendeh and
Soleyman Iranzadeh Received 6 September 2019
Department of Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran Revised 17 December 2019
22 March 2020
Accepted 27 March 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of service quality and relationship quality on
customer loyalty in different stages of the relationship life cycle in online banking services.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 651 Iranian online banking customers participated in the
research by completing questionnaires. The research hypotheses were tested using structural modeling
technique.
Findings – The results showed that the relationship quality on customer loyalty in online banking services
is affected by the relationship life cycle. The results also showed that online service quality, in the form of
Utilitarian quality and Hedonic quality, has a positive effect both directly and indirectly on customer loyalty
through online relationship quality.
Research limitations/implications – In this paper, the relationship dynamics was achieved through
adding the relationship life cycle variable to the model. However, the study was a cross-sectional research and
different results might be obtained if data was collected longitudinally.
Practical implications – In an online banking service, the role of relationship quality in the prediction of
customer loyalty is reduced as the relationship ages. Therefore, marketers need to consider other marketing
actions to continue their relationship with the customer in the long run.
Originality/value – This paper examines customer loyalty to online banking services from dynamic
perspective by introducing relationship life cycle as a moderating variable for the first time. Therefore, the
main contribution of this paper is to develop the relationship marketing literature in the field of relationship
dynamics and to challenge the effectiveness of relationship marketing in the long run.
Keywords Relationship life cycle, Online service quality, Online relationship quality, Online loyalty
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The emergence of internet commerce in the 1990s and its ever-increasing spread have been
accompanied with tremendous developments in business environments. This trend has
forced companies to survive in the highly competitive environment before they can make
entry into the electronic market and adapt themselves to the provided conditions (Elliot,
2007).
Also, despite the rapid growth of e-commerce and the need for businesses to enter the e-
market, many customers acknowledge that they are unsatisfied with their online shopping
experience. This requires further research to better understand the factors that affect
customers’ evaluation of their online shopping behavior and thus requires their loyalty (Luo
et al., 2012).
The banking industry is no exception and internet has revolutionized the industry Journal of Islamic Marketing
throughout the world (Hussien and Aziz, 2013). Internet banking has unique features © Emerald Publishing Limited
1759-0833
compared to traditional banking. For example, internet banking enables customers to carry DOI 10.1108/JIMA-09-2019-0183
JIMA out a wide range of banking activities at any time and at a low cost (Amin, 2016). Although
the internet provides many advantages for users, it is like a double-edged sword as it lacks
the human elements of financial institutions.
As in physical environments, social relationships are closer and longer and businesses
can guarantee customer loyalty by relying on how to provide services corresponding to their
customers’ characteristics and needs, as well as by promoting the quality of the relationship
between employees and customers. However, in the online environment, the role of human
elements in service delivery is greatly reduced or eliminated and getting customer loyalty is
challenged (Brun et al., 2014).
On the other hand, the internet has made it easier to choose better and more options, and
this means reducing the users’ loyalty to a particular financial institution and creating a
great competition and challenge among them (Zhang et al., 2016). Therefore, for financial
institutions such as banks, it is more important to manage and improve their relationships
with customers than to create long-term relationships with them.
Therefore, nowadays getting the loyalty of online customer has become a key element in
business strategy and identifying the factors affecting it is of paramount importance
(Toufaily and Pons, 2017). In online environments, there are various factors affecting
customer loyalty, the most important ones are service quality (Cristobal et al., 2007;
Marimon et al., 2010; Chang and Wang, 2011; Al-Hawari, 2014) and relationship quality
(Ribbink et al., 2004; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014).
Online service quality can be considered as the main source of e-commerce and it can be
defined as the overall assessment and judgment of customers about the superiority and
quality of services offered in the virtual market (Amin, 2016).
Although different experts present different dimensions for the quality of online services,
the two utilitarian and hedonistic dimensions cover all the aspects of the research (Alonso-
Almeida et al., 2014).
Initially, experts in conceptualizing the quality of online services mainly emphasized its
utilitarian dimension such as accountability, security, technological features and usability.
In recent years, however, some authors have argued that hedonic quality is another
dimension of online service quality that affects customer loyalty (Yang et al., 2010; Bernardo
et al., 2012; Llach et al., 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Arcand et al., 2017). Hedonic
dimensions are defined as those that focus on the entertainment aspects of using
information systems and encourage long-term use (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014).
Also, most researchers believe that relationship quality is a predictor variable of
customer loyalty (Fang et al., 2016; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014; Yu and Tung, 2013; Hinnawi,
2011; Naoui and Zaiem, 2010; Adjeia and Clark, 2010; Palmatier et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2006;
Ribbink et al., 2004).
Relationship quality is deemed as a general evaluation of the relationship power and its
responsiveness to needs and expectations of both pairs based on successful encounters and
events (Smith, 1998). Relationship quality has a multidimensional construct composed of
several factors that reflect the general nature of the relationship between companies and
customers. Despite the lack of a consensus on dimensions and elements of quality, there is a
general agreement that satisfaction, trust and commitment are key elements of the
relationship quality (Smith, 1998; Brun et al., 2014; Palmatier et al., 2006; Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2006). Also, according to Brun et al. (2014), commitment, trust and
satisfaction are constituent elements of the relationship quality in online context
In a research conducted in the electronic context, the positive impact of relationship
quality on loyalty has been confirmed (Liang et al., 2008; Chen and Ku, 2013). However,
investigating the relationship between service quality and relationship quality also indicates
the existence of a positive relationship between these two variables (Ribbink et al., 2004; Dynamics in
Chang and Wang, 2011; Yaya et al., 2011; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014), which shows the customer
fundamental role of the variable relationship quality, which has gained less attention in
electronic space than the other variables, i.e. online quality and customer loyalty.
loyalty
The majority of previous studies have examined the relationship between relationship
quality and loyalty in a static state. However, according to the theory of dynamic
relationship marketing, relationships have a lifecycle just like products, and with the
passage of time, the relationship between business and customer changes and enters a new
level of relationship. At each level of the relationship, different relationship constructs are
needed to maintain the relationship with the customer (Zhang et al., 2016). This reveals that
relationships are dynamic, and therefore firms need to make different efforts at each stage of
the relationship life cycle to maintain their relationship and gain more customer value in the
form of loyalty. Thus, academicians and business managers need to conduct more empirical
research to shed further light on various impacts of relationship quality on customer loyalty
during the relationship lifecycle in both online and offline contexts.
Therefore, to better understand whether customer loyalty behavior in electronic space is
affected by the service quality and the relationship quality and whether this behavior
changes in different stages of the customer’s lifecycle, more experimental studies are needed
and the present paper seeks to accomplish this.
This research contributes in several ways to developing relationship marketing literature
with regard to the dynamics of the relationship: first, it suggests that the effect of online
relationship quality dimensions on customer loyalty can vary depending on the different
stages of the relationship lifecycle and that the relationship lifecycle can play a key role by
weakening or strengthening the effect of online relationship quality on customer loyalty.
Second, it provides a practical experience of the proposed framework regarding e-banking
services and shows that the direction and strength of the relationship between the
dimensions of online relationship quality and customer loyalty could change in different
stages of the relationship lifecycle. Third, it emphasizes, through challenging the
effectiveness of relationship marketing in the long run, the importance of applying different
relationship constructs (satisfaction, trust and commitment) to customers in different stages
of the relationship life cycle, as well as the adjustment of the relationship marketing
strategies to the status of the customer-business relationship and shows that relationship
marketing should be dynamic.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Online service quality
The growth of online services has dramatically changed the way customers interact with
organizations. The online service quality is the subject of most research in marketing
because of the relationship between cost, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Al-
Hawari, 2014).
In electronic service environments, website quality as the technological application link
is of great importance to the customers, for it replaces the human interactions. When
technology practically provides services, then it is essential that the definition of service
quality be revised (Arcand et al., 2017).
In the literature, online service quality has been defined extensively by various
researchers (Chang and Wang, 2011; Wu and Ko, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014., Jiang et al., 2015;
Ayo et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2017). In general, electronic service quality can be defined as the
customers’ evaluation and overall judgment concerning the superiority and quality of the
provided services in the virtual market (Amin, 2016).
JIMA In the previous studies, the authors offered different scales for measuring online service
quality. Ribbink et al. (2004) presented a five-dimensional scale to measure the online service
quality in online shops consisting of ease of use, customization, e-escape, responsiveness
and assurance.
Parasuramanet al. (2005) have offered two scales to assess electronic service quality, both
of which adopted from SERVQUAL scale; the first scale is E-S-QUAL, which consists of the
four dimensions of efficiency, fulfillment, system availability and safety. The second scale is
E-ResS-QUAL, which is more suitable for cases when customers confront non-routine
situations. This scale consists of three dimensions, responsiveness, compensation and
contact. These two scales have been used practically in different situations (Bernardo et al.,
2012).
Al-Hawari (2014), too, has presented a five-dimensional scale in banking industry, which
is a combination of the three models, i.e. Parasuraman et al. (2005), Ribbink et al. (2004) and
Zeithaml et al. (2002) and consists of efficiency, reliability, responsiveness, privacy and
contact.
These studies have found differences in the electronic-quality scale by demonstrating
that understanding the quality of e-services can vary depending on sector and product
(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014). In other words, based on customer experiences and
evaluations, the scale and dimensions of each research are unique (Ozen, 2015). In recent
years, some researchers have considered the quality of e-services in both utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions, suggesting that these two dimensions encompass different dimensions
of e-service quality (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014; Shin, 2015; Park
et al., 2014).
Accordingly, in this paper, the quality of online services is divided into utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions.
The above-mentioned scales, in measuring electronic service quality, mainly emphasize
the utilitarian dimensions such as responsiveness, safety and technological and usability
characteristics. In recent years, some authors have discussed hedonistic quality as another
dimension of electronic service quality that affects customer loyalty (Bernardo et al., 2012;
Llach et al., 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Arcand et al., 2017). Hedonistic dimensions are
defined as dimensions that focus on the entertainment aspects of using information system
and encourage long-term use (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014). With regard to the fact that
electronic trade is mainly self-service technology, the customers’ contribution is high, and
the role of hedonistic dimensions is on the increase (Lin and Hsieh, 2011). In e-banking, too,
some authors have emphasized the role of the hedonistic dimension of service quality in
accepting the mobile banking platforms, as well as the dimensions of customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty (Herington and Weaven, 2009; Chemingui and Iallouna, 2013; Shaikh
and Karjaluoto, 2015; Arcand et al., 2017). Thus, we believe that the quality of electronic
services in banking sector comprises the two dimensions of hedonistic and utilitarian
qualities.
2.1.1 Utilitarian quality. Bilgihan and Bujisic (2014) assert that utilitarian quality is an
essential feature of online sales. Utilitarian quality means the proper functioning of the
website and is one of the basic needs for any type of website (Barrera et al., 2014). Many
online shopping research studies have focused more on the utilitarian benefits of using the
internet and often assume that online shopping is targeted and most likely, the functional
benefits cause incentives for online purchase (Kim and Forsythe, 2007). Typically, online
customers are more comfortable comparing selective options to competitive prices than
offline customers and a few clicks can result in a competitive offer on the internet (Barrera
and Cepeda-Carrion, 2014). Chitturi et al. (2007, 2008) and Kivetz and Simonson (2002) argue
that consumers are more interested in the utilitarian dimension than the hedonistic Dynamics in
dimension. customer
The relationship between the utilitarian features of the website and trust has been
confirmed by some authors (Etemad-Sajadi and Ghachem, 2015; Kananukul et al., 2015; Shin
loyalty
et al., 2013; Park et al., 2014). The effect of the utilitarian perceptions of the website on
computational and emotional commitment has been shown in a research conducted by
Aurier and N’Goala (2010) and Cristobal et al. (2008), which shows that a utilitarian
perception has a positive impact on commitment. The studies by Polites et al. (2012) and
Barrera and Cepeda-Carrion (2014) suggest that utilitarian quality has a positive effect on
satisfaction. Also, Aurier and N’Goala (2010) show that utilitarian quality has a positive
effect on satisfaction, commitment and trust. Similarly, Chung and Shin (2010), Yaya et al.
(2011), Chang and Wang (2011), Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2013), Al-Hawari (2014) and Ayo
et al. (2016) have shown that service quality affects satisfaction. In the same vein, Wetzels
et al. (1998) showed the effect of utilitarian and technical quality on satisfaction. Toufaily
and Pons (2017), Polites et al. (2012) and Cui et al. (2016) confirm the impact of utilitarian
quality on loyalty. In banking sector, also, Yaya et al. (2011) and Romulo (2007) show that
utilitarian quality has a positive effect on loyalty. A study conducted by Kim et al. (2012)
indicates the effect of utilitarian value and hedonistic value on intention to repurchase.
Sousa and Voss (2012), Alonso-Almeida et al. (2014) and Hao-Erl et al. (2010) have also
shown the effect of service quality that includes both utilitarian and hedonistic dimensions
on loyalty. Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented in this paper:

H1. Utilitarian quality has a positive effect on commitment in electronic banking

services.
H2. Utilitarian quality has a positive effect on satisfaction in electronic banking
services.
H3. Utilitarian quality has a positive effect on trust in electronic banking services.
H4. Utilitarian quality has a positive effect on loyalty in electronic banking services.
2.1.2 Hedonistic quality. Van der Heijden (2004) can be considered as the pioneer in
analyzing the importance of the hedonistic role for a website. This author believed that the
hedonistic dimension focuses on the fun aspects of using more information systems and
encourages long-term use. In other words, the hedonistic features of shopping come from
entertainment, shopping and buying by excitation. The hedonistic features represent the
interactive and social aspects of an e-commerce website (Chiu et al., 2014).
The value of a website’s hedonistic features is a function of the level of entertainment
experience when using the website. Therefore, people working in this field should use
artistic tactics such as moving pictures and focus on color, sounds, social components and
visually appealing posters to give the opportunity to turn a consumer into an active person
in the virtual environment (Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014).
Sahney et al. (2013) show that enjoyment has a positive effect on online trust. Lin and Lee
(2012) also state that site design has a positive impact on trust. In the mobile banking,
Giovannini et al. (2015) confirmed that enjoyment is an antecedent of trust. Hampton-Sosa
and Koufaris (2005) emphasize that e-trust is increased by a site’s enjoyment level. Chang
and Chen (2008), Hsiao et al. (2010), Al-maghrabi et al. (2011), Shin et al. (2013) and Al-Debei
et al. (2015) showed that service quality has a positive effect on online trust. Lin and Lee
(2012) state that site design has a positive impact on trust.
JIMA In a study by Bilgihan and Bujisic (2014), it has been stated that the utilitarian and
hedonistic features of the website have a significant effect on commitment. Pura (2005) also
shows that the hedonistic value has a positive effect on commitment. The impact of website
enjoyment on satisfaction has also been confirmed by Nusair and Kandampully (2008). In a
study by Shin (2015), hedonistic quality and utilitarian quality have a positive effect on
satisfaction and satisfaction has a positive impact on loyalty. In mobile banking services,
findings of Arcand et al. (2017) confirm that enjoyment significantly and positively impacts
commitment and satisfaction. Also, other scholars (Shamdasani et al., 2008; Kassim and
Abdullah, 2010) confirmed the effect of hedonistic dimension of online service quality on
satisfaction. Similarly, Zhao and Lu (2012) and Hao-Erl et al. (2010) states that enjoyment
has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction on micro-blogging services. In another study
by Polites et al. (2012), the effect of service quality on online satisfaction has been confirmed.
Fang et al. (2016), Shin (2015) and Bilgihan and Bujisic (2014) demonstrated that utilitarian
quality has a positive effect on online loyalty. Also, Al-Hawari (2014), Barrera and Cepeda-
Carrion (2014), Chang and Wang (2011), Yaya (2011) and Gounaris et al. (2010) showed the
effect of online service quality on online loyalty.
In banking sector, Bauer et al. (2006) confirmed that enjoyment increases both the
duration of visiting e-banking and customer loyalty.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented in this paper:

H5. Hedonic quality has a positive effect on commitment in e-banking services.

H6. Hedonic quality has a positive effect on satisfaction in e-banking services.
H7. Hedonic quality has a positive effect on trust in e-banking services.
H8. Hedonic quality has a positive effect on loyalty in e-banking services.

2.2 Relationship quality

Creating a strong, long-term relationship with customers is one of the essential elements in
marketing. In so-called relationship marketing, not only creating a relationship but also
having it maintained and extended is among the necessities which make customers buy
more, pay more and feel more emotionally (Rafiq et al., 2013). Relationship quality is a
component of the relationship marketing (Ozen, 2015).
Relationship quality can be defined as a multi-dimensional construct that is related to a
customer’s assessment of his/her overall relationship with a service provider at a specific
time based on all previous interactions with that provider (Keating et al., 2011).
The concept of relationship quality comes from relational marketing research whose
ultimate goal is to foster a strong relationship and transform indifferent customers into loyal
customers. Although the concept of relationship quality has been discussed in previous
research and its concept has been tested in different areas of research, the definition and
operationalization of relationship quality in different projects is different (Chung and Shin,
2010).
Relationship quality is a higher-level construct consisting of several multiple but related
dimensions (Brun et al., 2014). Although the components of relationship quality vary from
study to study, and there is no consensus on the constituent dimensions of relationship
quality; there is considerable overlap between different conceptualizations. Finally, general
agreement indicates that satisfaction, commitment and trust are key components of
relationship quality (Palmatier et al., 2006; Vesel and Zabkar, 2010; Rafiq et al., 2013; Chung
and Shin, 2010). We, therefore, define relationship quality in the online context as a structure
comprising three dimensions, namely, online trust, online relationship satisfaction and Dynamics in
online commitment. As trust, commitment and satisfaction are the most important aspects customer
of relational marketing literature in the traditional context, numerous studies have shown loyalty
that these three dimensions are also important in the online business environment (Brun
et al., 2014).
In this study also the quality of online relationship is composed of three dimensions,
namely, commitment, trust and satisfaction according to papers such as Tung and Ozen
(2015), Rahman and Ramli (2016); Yu Giovanis et al. (2014); Rafiq et al. (2013); Chung and
Shin (2010); Walsh et al. (2010), Isabelle Brun et al. (2014).
Previous studies have presented convincing evidence of the relationship between
relationship quality as a higher-level construct consisting of trust, satisfaction and
commitment, as well as the relationship between each dimension of the relationship quality
and loyalty (Fang et al., 2016; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014; Yu and Tung, 2013; Nusair et al.,
2013; Naoui and Zaiem, 2010; Vesel and Zabkar, 2010; Palmatier, 2008; Caceres and
Paparoidamis, 2007; Papassapa and Miller, 2007; Kim et al., 2006; De Wulf et al., 2001).
In online context, too, a number of authors emphasize the conceptualization of
relationship quality with independent dimensions and consider it as consisting of trust,
commitment and satisfaction (Chung and Shin, 2010; Brun et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2010;
Arcand et al., 2017). Thus, in the present study, we have conceptualized online relationship
quality by using the three key dimensions of trust, satisfaction and commitment as related
but independent constructs.
2.2.1 Online commitment. Commitment is a stable desire to maintain the value of
communication, meaning that a higher level of commitment creates a successful, profitable
and mutually satisfactory relationship (Chung and Shin, 2010). Morgan and Hunt (1994)
defined commitment as:
[. . .] an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as
to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the
relationship endures indefinitely.
According to Luarn and Lin (2003), commitment is “a consumer’s psychological attachment
to an e-service that develops before a customer would be able to determine that their repeat
purchase behavior was derived from a sense of loyalty.” Online commitment or e-
commitment is defined as a consumer’s desire to continue a relationship with an online
retailer (Elbeltagi and Agag, 2016).
In traditional marketing literature, the concept of commitment is often considered in
three different ways, namely, emotional, normative and computational (Bansal et al., 2004;
Cater and Zabkar, 2009). In an online environment, commitment is a sort of relationship and
tendency, resembling the emotional commitment. Online commitment is defined as the
consumer’s desire to continue to communicate with an online vendor.
Commitment has become relevant to researchers and marketers who study online and
web-based environments (e.g. online shopping Park and Kim, 2003; Ozen, 2015), online
retailing (Rafiq et al., 2013), internet shopping (Chung and Shin, 2010), e-banking (Mukherjee
and Nath, 2007; Sanchez-Franco, 2009; Keating et al., 2011) and banking (Rahman and
Ramli, 2016). Most of these studies have focused on the association between commitment,
satisfaction, trust, loyalty and intention to purchase/repurchase, etc. In marketing research,
commitment is an important variable, which distinguishes between loyal and non-loyal
customers. That is, commitment is the tendency toward continuing a relationship and
ensuring its continuity (Rafiq et al., 2013).
JIMA The study findings of Rafiq et al. (2013), Shin et al. (2013), Keating et al. (2011), Ozen
(2015) and Rahman and Ramli (2016) show that commitment has a positive effect on loyalty.
Therefore, the research hypothesis is presented as follows:

H9. Commitment has a positive impact on loyalty to e-banking services.

2.2.2 Online satisfaction. Customer satisfaction plays a very important role in competitive
environments. Chang et al. (2009) defined customers’ satisfaction as “the psychological
reaction of the customer with respect to his or her prior experience with the comparison
between expected and perceived performance.” Anderson and Srinivasan (2003)
investigated the impact of customer satisfaction in the context of e-commerce. They defined
e-satisfaction as “the contentment of the customer with respect to his or her prior purchasing
experience with a given electronic commerce firm.” Online satisfaction is also defined as
customer satisfaction based on the experiences gained in previous purchases from e-
commerce companies (Amin, 2016).
Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) claimed that “a dissatisfied customer is more likely to
search for information on alternatives and more likely to yield to competitor overtures than
is a satisfied customer.” Likewise, internet users often rely on the quality of the online
system and information provided on the website when assessing their online shopping
experiences to compensate for the lack of physical contact as in traditional purchases. So,
consumer’s satisfaction in online purchases is often related to the website and its quality
compared to actual items on sale (Brun et al., 2014). When customers are satisfied with
online services, they are more willing to interact with that website in the future, which
results in becoming loyal customers (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Fang et al., 2011).
While the positive relationship between e-satisfaction and e-loyalty has been discussed
widely in the e-commerce retailing literature (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Luarn and
Lin, 2003; Gummerus et al., 2004; Harris and Goode, 2004; Yang and Peterson, 2004; Flavián
et al., 2006; Jin and Park, 2006; Chandrashekaran et al., 2007; Cyr, 2008; Chang et al., 2009),
the exploration of the relationship between e-satisfaction and e-loyalty in the e-banking
context is at a relatively nascent stage and few studies have examined the impact of e-
satisfaction on e-loyalty in e-banking (Casalo, Flavián and Guinalíu, 2008; Aldas-Manzano
et al., 2011; Levy, 2014; Al-Hawari, 2014; Mohsin Butt and Aftab, 2013; Amin, 2016; Sampaio
et al., 2017). Thus, a hypothesis is presented as follows to consider online satisfaction:

H10. Satisfaction has a positive impact on loyalty in e-banking services.

2.2.3 Online trust. Morgan and Hunt (1994) define trust as confidence in the exchange
partner. According to Doney and Cannon (1997), trust is “the perceived credibility and
benevolence of a target.” Another definition for trust is “the willingness to make oneself
vulnerable to actions taken by the trusted party based on the feelings of confidence or
assurance” (Gefen, 2002, p. 30). However, these definitions focus more on traditional service
industry; therefore, Ribbink et al. (2004, p. 447) defined e-trust as a “degree of confidence a
customer has in online exchanges or in the online exchange channels.” In addition, “an
attitude of confident expectation in an online situation of risk that one’s vulnerabilities will
not be exploited” is the definition that fits well within the online context.
Many researchers claim that trust is one of the most important factors in determining
consumers’ initial and continued use of the e-banking service (Suh and Han, 2002; Rexha
et al., 2003; Lichtenstein and Williamson, 2006). However, of negative features of online
transactions, one may refer to lack of control, risky decision-making, lack of physical contact
with online companies and lack of tangible capabilities in online exchanges (Shin et al., 2013).
Therefore, behind the quality of the relationship, trust represents one of the most important Dynamics in
prerequisites for success in e-commerce and many studies confirm that trust is an essential customer
factor in initiating and developing online exchanges and relationships (Hoffman et al., 1999;
Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002; Palvia, 2009). Yamagishi and Misumi (1994) argued that trust “plays
loyalty
the role of a booster rocket that helps one to take off the secure ground of committed
relationships.” It can also be said that trust is a determinant factor in cyberspace as it helps
maintain customers and develop long-term relationships with them (Sahney et al., 2013). That
is, when present, trust stimulates new transactions, while its absence acts as a barrier against
new transactions. Moreover, trust plays a main role in determining the consumer’s satisfaction,
perceived usefulness of the website, intention to buy and loyalty (Pengnate and Sarathy, 2017).
Although trust, commitment and satisfaction are considered as the dimensions of
relationship quality, review of the related literature indicates that there is also an
interrelation among these dimensions (Cater and Zabkar, 2009; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Geyskens et al., 1996).
Trust is the foundation of long-term relationships and an important factor of relationship
commitments (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002).
Mohammad Arifin (2016) states that trust has a positive effect on commitment. Also, A.
Moliner et al. (2005) suggest that the benevolence dimension of trust has a positive effect on
commitment. Similarly, Eastlick Anderson and Narus (1990), Anderson and Weitz (1992),
Nusair et al. (2010), Wang et al. (2016) and Shin et al. (2013) state that trust has a positive
effect on commitment. An inquiry into the relevant literature shows that trust would be an
antecedent to commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Geyskens
et al., 1996; Mukherjee and Nath, 2007; Kwon and Suh, 2004; Chumpitaz Caceres and
Paparoidamis, 2007; Aurier and N’Goala, 2010; Cater and Zabkar, 2009). In online banking
environments, likewise, e-trust appears to be an antecedent to e-commitment (Luarn and Lin,
2003; Sanchez-Franco, 2009; Chung and Shin, 2010; Arcand et al., 2017).
Also, the review of literature shows that trust and satisfaction are two closely
intertwined concepts. Most of the empirical studies conducted in different sectors, for
example, online and offline financial services sector, discuss the positive effect of trust on
satisfaction (Gummerus et al., 2004; Chiou, 2005; Lee and Lin,2005; Kim et al., 2009; Rafiq
et al., 2013; Arcand et al., 2017). E-satisfaction has been found as one of the factors affecting
e-trust such as electronic marketplace (Doong et al., 2008), e-commerce (Kassim and
Abdullah, 2010), online magazine (Horppu et al., 2008) and online banking (Sanchez-Franco,
2009). Also, an inquiry into the relevant literature shows that satisfaction would be an
antecedent to trust (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Chiu and Wang, 2011). In fact, Arcand
et al. (2017) and Kim et al. (2009) argue that in offline and online financial services sector, in
particular, trust is the main factor in ensuring satisfaction.
Therefore, the next research hypotheses are presented as follows:

H11. Trust has a positive effect on loyalty in e-banking services.

H12. Trust has a positive effect on commitment in e-banking services.
H13. Trust has a positive effect on satisfaction in e-banking services.

2.3 Relationship life cycle

Based on the theory of dynamic relationship marketing, relationships, such as products,
have a life cycle and in time, the relationship between the company and the customer
changes and enters a new level of relationship (Zhang et al., 2016). This indicates the
JIMA dynamic nature of the relationships and requires recognizing the customer relationship life
cycle on the part of the companies.
The relationship life cycle refers to the dynamic process through which exchange
relationships develop over time (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2018). Many studies that consider the
relationship as a dynamic process are based on Dwyer et al. (1987). Deuter et al. propose the
process of developing a relationship (life cycle) using the combination of insights derived
from the exchange theory and modern contract law, in which a relationship begins in the
form of five steps that begins with awareness and ends with decline (Palmatier, 2009).
Each stage represents the evolution in expectations, perceptions, orientations and
attitudes of the parties about the relation to each other (Kusari et al., 2013). Customers in
different stages of their relationship with the firm may use various ways to create value for
the firm.
2.3.1 The relationship awareness phase. At the awareness stage, the buyer and seller
find that they can potentially communicate with each other. The seller’s reputation among
the business networks, where the vendor operates, may encourage the buyer to gain further
knowledge of the vendor and vice versa (Dwyer et al., 1987). At this stage, the transaction
between the customer and the firm is not carried out.
2.3.2 The relationship exploration phase. When doing business activities such as initial
communication and trial purchases, the parties enter into the stage of discovery or
identification (Dwyer et al., 1987). At this stage, both sides evaluate the potential value of
maintaining interactions while evaluating each other’s performance. The obvious
characteristic of this stage is the limited trust in the ability and reliability of the opposite
party. According to Jap and Ganesan (2000), the relationship is still fragile and unstable, and
the main purpose of the parties is to reduce uncertainty by testing the capabilities of the
other party of the relationship (Verhoef et al., 2002).
2.3.3 The relationship buildup phase. If the initial experiences make a desirable and
positive relationship and there is evidence of reliability, it is expected that the relationship
will develop to the next stage, which is the buildup stage of the relationship (Dwyer et al.,
1987). At this stage, customers and firms experience a steady increase in mutual interest and
interdependence (Wang and Wu, 2012; Jap and Ganesan, 2000). Increasing trust and mutual
dependence will lead to a deep and long-term relationship between the customer and the
firm.
2.3.4 The relationship maturity or retention phase. If the relationship continues to
develop in the buildup phase, the parties will gain more benefits and become more
dependent on each other, in which case the relationship will evolve to the stage of maturity
or retention. At this stage, the parties of the transaction believe that their partner’s behavior
is predictable, and finally, the parties agree to establish a lasting relationship and mutual
investments at this stage by establishing loyalty (Verhoef et al., 2002; Lusch and Brown,
1996; Ganesan, 1994).
2.3.5 The relationship decline phase. At this point, the customer relationship with the
firm deteriorates and eventually may end over time (Bleier et al., 2018). Jap and Gansen
(2000) acknowledge that even relations that have succeeded may deteriorate, decline or end
in time. The attrition of the relationship can start from both the customer and the firm
(Bleier et al., 2018) when one party with a sense of dissatisfaction looks at the relationship
from a short-term perspective and begins to find alternative partners or a way to end it (Jap
and Ganesan, 2000; Heide, 1994). At this point, it is not just the dissatisfaction that makes
the customer think about ending the relationship, but customers sometimes experience
changes in their needs, and they want to look at alternatives (Dwyer et al., 1987; Jap and
Ganesan, 2000).
 Previous studies have addressed the effect of relationship quality on customer loyalty Dynamics in
from a static perspective. Also, in the scanty research that has examined this relationship as customer
a dynamic one by introducing the variable of the relationship life cycle, the relationship
dynamism has been limited to merely the study of the status of trust and commitment in the
loyalty
different stages of the relationship life cycle, and very few studies have examined the
relationship life cycle as a moderating variable of the relation between the relationship
quality and customer loyalty. For instance, Jap and Anderson (2007) investigated the state of
trust in the four stages of relationship life cycle (exploration, buildup, maturity and decline)
and came to the conclusion that the highest rate of trust in the producer is found in buildup,
maturity, exploration and decline, respectively. Furthermore, Palmatier et al. (2013)
demonstrated that commitment increases until the fourth year of the relationship and
decreases from the fourth to the sixth year.
Some of the relationship constructs (e.g. trust, coherence norms and commitment) require
more time to grow while some others grow at faster rates. For this reason, different
constructs of the relationship are dominant in different stages of the relationship (Dwyer
et al., 1987). For example, trust may be very active at the early stages of a relationship
because the buyer and seller are unlikely to countenance a long-term future together unless
they are able to assess the extent to which they trust each other. However, trust can become
an inactive (latent) element in the next stages and may no longer receive the same level of
management attention (Wilson, 1995). However, this does not mean that trust is not
important in the later stages.
The few empirical studies show that the relationship between the relationship quality
dimensions and the outcomes of customer performance such as loyalty changes at different
levels of the relationship, but the manner of the change is different. For instance, Hibbard
et al. (2001) believe that as the relationship ages, the importance of commitment in predicting
the relationship performance declines, but the role of trust in predicting the performance of
the relationship increases, and later on, in the third and fourth stages of the relationship, it
decreases. However, Zhang et al. (2016) have shown that the rate of trust and commitment
increases along with the customer performance up to the third stage of the relationship life
cycle, and it decreases in the fourth stage (relationship decline). Also, the findings of Verhoef
et al. (2002) show that relationship age increases the positive effect of satisfaction and
commitment on the number of services purchased. The study of Cambra-Fierro et al. (2018)
shows that in the buildup and maturity stages, the influence of relationship quality on
customer value co-creation is stronger than that in the decline stage.
The different results indicate that more research is required to understand the manner in
which the relationship quality dimensions affect the relationship performance, especially the
customer loyalty. Therefore, the following hypotheses are put forward:

H14. Impact of trust on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life cycle.
H15. Effect of satisfaction on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life
cycle.
H16. Impact of commitment on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life
cycle.

2.4 Online loyalty

Loyalty plays an important role in the survival and development of e-commerce (Chen, 2012)
as it is an important motivation to maintain contact with the organization (Rafiq et al., 2013).
The term e-loyalty is specified as the “‘intention to revisit a website” (Corstjens and Lal,
JIMA 2000). Customer online loyalty to a bank refers to a customer’s intention to revisit the bank’s
website and consider the reuse of a given service in the future (Amin, 2016). Therefore, it can
be said that maintaining existing customers and strengthening their loyalty are crucial
tasks for service providers seeking to gain competitive advantage (Chen and Wang, 2016) as
it is very difficult to obtain loyal customers on the internet (Chang and Wang, 2011).
E-loyalty has been discussed at length in prior online banking literature (Mohsin Butt
and Aftab, 2013; A Ahmad Al-Hawari, 2014). Therefore, it is important to focus on online
customer loyalty to online banking to maintain relationships with customers. In this context,
highly loyal customers often visit the site and advise others on using the site (Amin et al.,
2013).
Summing up what was mentioned above, the conceptual model of the research is
presented in Figure 1.

3. Method
3.1 Measurement
A standardized self-administered questionnaire was developed from an extensive literature
review. All the variables used in this research were adopted from the previous studies. A
total of 24 scaled items and one question were used to measure the constructs in this model,
two items of which were deleted at the stage of evaluating the construct measurement
models due to having factor loads below the acceptable level and 22 items remained.
Table 2 displays the measurement items and research constructs along with their
sources. All research constructs except for the relationship life cycle were measured using
Likert seven-point scale (strongly disagree = 1) to (strongly agree = 7).
In this study, the variable of relationship life cycle is measured with nominal scale and a
four-choice question (Jap and Gansen, 2000). Each option represents one of the four stages of
the relationship life cycle (exploration, buildup, maturity and decline), and the respondent by

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
the research
selecting any of them indicates at what stage of his relationship life cycle with the bank he/ Dynamics in
she is. customer
Considering that, in this paper, the relationship between the bank and existing customers
is examined, the awareness stage is eliminated because the bank and customer relationship
loyalty
is not realized until now, and, inspired by Jap and Ganesan (2000), the stages of exploration,
buildup, retention and decline of the relationship are taken into account as the fourfold
stages of the relationship life cycle.
The respondents were supposed to specify the level of their relationship with the bank by
choosing one of the options. In the previous studies, besides the relationship life cycle, other
parameters such as age or the length of the relationship have been used to measure the
relationship stage. However, the literature indicates that using the relationship life cycle to
determine the level or stage of the relationship is more solid than the other methods (Jap and
Ganesan, 2000). The relationship life cycle shows that relationship formation is an
evolutionary process. In contrast, the relationship age approach ignores temporal
heterogeneity by assuming that all the relationships in the life cycle move at equal rate
(Palmatier et al., 2013). Thus, age is not a suitable criterion to measure the relationship
stages. Some relationships may reach the stage of maturity, whereas others might still be in
the stage of development even after the passage of some years (Eggert et al., 2006).

3.2 Sample and data collection

The questionnaire was finalized once a precise study of the related literature was completed.
Bank managers’ viewpoints were received and interviews with the bank customers
were prepared. As a final step, expertized opinions were received from marketing experts.
The aim of this step was to assess the measures exploited in the study. The initial
questionnaire was frequently modified and corrected throughout these steps. The revised
questionnaire was sent to 750 customers of Iranian banks in East Azarbaijan Province using
e-bank services via email, 651 of whom agreed to fill the questionnaire.
Given that the statistical population of this study was internet banking users and their
number is unknown, therefore, 750 questionnaires were distributed to bank branch
managers and they were asked to email the questionnaires to customers who visit the bank
within a working week and use the bank’s electronic services. Two weeks later, 651
completed questionnaires were collected.
This rendered a response rate of 86%, which was adequate for using structural equation
modeling (SEM).
Of the respondents, 51.9% were male and 37.8% were aged between 21 and 30 years old
(Table 1 for participants’ demographic information).

3.3 Analysis approach

The data was analyzed using SEM using Amos 23 software, where a two-step approach was
followed (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
In the two-phase approach, first, the measurement model is processed, and then the
structural model is estimated. In the present article, two-phase model was used because it
prevents the interaction between the measurement model and the structural model and
accurately shows the validity of the items in each construct (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). The first stage consists of the following two steps: assessing the
unidimensionality of the constructs and assessing the validity and reliability of the
constructs.
Unidimensionality of the constructs presents principles for calculating validity and is
confirmed when the items of a construct in a unifactor (unidimensional) model demonstrate
JIMA No. of respondents (%)

Gender
Male 338 51.9
Female 313 48.1
Age
Less than 20 37 5.7
21–30 246 37.8
31–40 221 33.9
41–50 99 15.2
51–60 34 5.2
61þ 14 2.2
Education background
High school diploma 37 5.7
Diploma 122 18.7
Associate Degree 122 18.7
Table 1. Bachelor 213 32.7
Demographic data Master’s and Doctorate 157 24.1

acceptable goodness-of-fit (Hair et al., 1995). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) believe that as
unidimensional measurement models present more accurate tests in measuring the
constructs compared to convergent and divergent validity, they are considered more useful
measurement tools. The unidimensionality assessment of the constructs is carried out before
testing the validity and reliability of each construct (Hair et al., 1995).
All studied constructs were analyzed in a measurement model. In confirmation of the
measurement model, the items with factor loadings less than 0.5 were eliminated and the
open model was defined. However, the first item of commitment construct with factor
loading of 0/44 was not removed because its elimination decreases the fitness of many model
indexes. Therefore, according to Tabachink and Fidel (1996), who consider the factor
loadings greater than 0.34 acceptable (Meyers et al., 2006), we did not remove this item.
Based on the results of the measurement model, one item was eliminated from utilitarian
quality and commitment and two items were eliminated from trust. Table 2 lists the items
and their factor loading in the final measurement models.
The results of factor load and goodness-of-fit indices constructs have been given in Table 2.
To assess the reliability of the research constructs, we made use of three methods,
namely, Cronbach’s alpha, compound reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) argue that the compound reliability should be equal to or higher than
0.6, the AVE should be equal to or higher than 0.5, and the Cronbach’s alpha should be equal
to or higher than 0.7. Accordingly, as is shown in Table 2, the values of CR, AVE and
Cronbach’s alpha are all at the acceptable level. Thus, it can be said that the reliability of the
research constructs is at an acceptable level.
The constructs showed a high degree of convergent validity, as all the AVE values were
found to be well above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Moreover, to test for discriminant
validity, the square root of the AVE was compared to all inter-factor correlations. The
square roots of AVE for different constructs are represented on the diagonal of Table 3.
From the table, it can be inferred that the values of the square root of AVE of all of the
constructs are greater than the inter-construct correlations (Fornell&Larcker, 1981),
verifying the discriminant validity. So, it could be concluded that the measurement model
exhibited good construct validity.
 Factor Cronbach’s
Dynamics in
Constructs and items and their sources loading alpha (a) CR AVE customer
loyalty
Online service quality
Utilitarian quality: Kim and Forsythe (2007), Almeida et al. (2014) and Wen et al. 0.876 0.870 0.573
(2014)
The speed of e-service of this bank is high 0.78
Using the e-service of this bank is easy for me 0.71
e-service of this bank has increased the speed of banking works 0.74
e-service of this bank is always available for doing banking 0.76
works
The security of the e-service of this bank is high 0.79
Hedonic quality: Bernardo et al. (2012), Almeida et al. (2014), Hsu et al. (2011) 0.828 0.828 0.617
and Fang et al. (2016)
Using the e-services of this bank is interesting 0.78
I enjoy the information, offers and recommendations that are 0.80
provided for customers in this bank’s websites
Designing the e-services of this bank in terms of images, font, 0.78
sound effects and . . . is in a way that it has a pleasant
experience for me
Online relationship quality
e-trust: Fang et al. (2016), Toufaily and Pons (2017), Brun et al. (2014) and Shin 0.836 0.839 0.634
et al. (2013)
I trust the information that is provided in online environment of 0.77
this bank
I trust the promises that the bank provides in online 0.85
environment
I trust the e-services that the bank provides 0.76
e-commitment: Fang et al. (2016), Brun et al. (2014) and Shin et al. (2013) 0.881 0.787 0.571
I am dependent on the e-services of this bank to do my banking 0.44
works
Stopping the use of e-services of this bank is too difficult for me 0.89
If I decide to stop using e-services of this bank then managing 0.85
my financial works would be disturbed
e-satisfaction: Fang et al. (2016) and Wang et al. (2016) 0.854 0.859 0.671
I am satisfied of doing my banking works through e-services of 0.76
this bank
e-services of this bank have fulfilled my expectations 0.87
I am satisfied of my decision for using e-services of this bank 0.82
e-loyalty: Bernardo et al. (2012), Toufaily and Pons (2017) and Almeida et al. 0.895 0.899 0.642
(2014)
I tell the positive options of e-services of this bank to other 0.73
people
I prefer using e-services of this bank to other banks 0.77
I intend to use e-services of this bank in the future 0.79 Table 2.
I doubt to change this bank as long as providing e-services of 0.88 List of the items and
this bank continues their sources
As long as I need banking services, e-services of this bank are 0.83
associated with
my first choices
reliability and
Notes: x 2 = 445.053, df = 192p > 0.00, RMSEA = 0.045, NFI = 0.948, CFI = 0.970, GFI = 0.944, AGFI = dimensionality
0.926, TLI= 0.964, x 2/ df = 2.318 indicators
JIMA 4. Results
4.1 Research constructs in relationship life cycle
Before testing the hypotheses, it would be advisable to examine the status of the
research constructs in different stages of the relationship life cycle. Table 4 illustrates
the description statistics and variance analysis test. Based on the results, it can be
concluded that, in general, with the development of the relationship, the amount of all
constructs increases and reaches its maximum amount at the maturity stage. Finally,
by entering into the relationship decline, their amount reduces. The analysis of variance
test indicates the difference in the amount of constructs in the different stages of the
relationship life cycle.

4.2 Testing the hypothesized causal relationships

With regard to the fact that the multivariate normality hypothesis is not confirmed (c. r =
106.25, Mardias c = 270.66), to estimate the parameters with maximum likelihood, we used
bootstrapping method.
Table 5 and Figure 2 illustrate the hypothesized relationships and summarize the
hypotheses supported by the results. All the hypotheses except H6 and H8 were supported.
The goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated that this model fitted the data adequately even
though a significant chi-square was obtained ( x 2 = 586.752, df = 195, p = 0.000, N = 651). As
the likelihood ratio statistic based on chi-square is known to be sensitive to the sample size
(Byrne, 2001), a relative chi-square statistic ( x 2/df) is increasingly used as a measure of fit.
The value of x 2/df in this study was found to be 3.009, which was lower than the acceptance
limit of 5 (Hair et al., 1995). The GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, TLI and RSMEA were 0.924, 0.901,
0.936, 0.956, 0.948 and 0.056, respectively.

Construct Utilitarian quality Hedonic quality Satisfaction Commitment Trust Loyalty

Utilitarian quality 0.755

Hedonic quality 0.570 0.785
Table 3. Satisfaction 0.629 0.483 0.819
Correlation matrix Commitment 0.529 0.566 0.568 0.756
and square roots of Trust 0.580 0.566 0.572 0.567 0.797
AVE Loyalty 0.722 0.612 0.672 0.694 0.701 0.801

Stages of the relationship life cycle

Construct Exploration Buildup Maturity Decline F-value Sig.

Utilitarian quality 5.401 5.731 6.073 4.696 93.989 0.000

Hedonic quality 4.855 5.234 5.671 3.958 76.038 0.000
Satisfaction 5.279 5.672 6.115 4.141 137.280 0.000
Commitment 3.956 4.826 5.705 2.921 155.127 0.000
Trust 4.985 5.380 5.852 4.093 111.150 0.000
Table 4. Loyalty 5.279 5.672 6.115 4.141 240.127 0.000
Mean and testing of
variance analysis Note: *Numbers represent the average score. The 1 is the minimum and the 7 is the maximum score
 Std. Bootstrapping
Hypothesized path Mean S.E estimate Lower bound Upper bound p Supported

H1: Utilitarian quality ! Commitment 0.195 0.057 0.189 0.063 0.259 0.039 Yes
H2: Utilitarian quality ! Satisfaction 0.406 073 0.401 0.289 0.530 0.012 Yes
H3: Utilitarian quality ! Trust 0.378 0.069 0.369 0.254 0.489 0.016 Yes
H4: Utilitarian quality ! Loyalty 0.291 0.067 0.298 0.169 0.401 0.010 Yes
H5: Hedonic quality ! Commitment 0.297 0.071 0.296 0.164 0.407 0.013 Yes
H6: Hedonic quality ! Satisfaction 0.106 0.074 0.110 0.004 0.267 0.085 Yes
H7: Hedonic quality ! Trust 0.358 0.065 0.364 0.259 0.471 0.007 Yes
H8: Hedonic quality ! Loyalty 0.065 0.054 0.068 0.023 0.144 0.178 No
H9: Commitment ! Loyalty 0.325 0.054 0.323 0.242 0.419 0.009 Yes
H10: Satisfaction ! Loyalty 0.155 0.061 0.148 0.055 0.242 0.020 Yes
H11: Trust ! Loyalty 0.230 0.056 0.231 0.142 0.327 0.008 Yes
H12: Trust ! Commitment 0.291 0.067 0.296 0.195 0.426 0.006 Yes
H13: Trust ! Satisfaction 0.295 0.070 0.294 0.182 0.420 0.007 Yes
customer

estimates
standardized
Table 5.
loyalty
Dynamics in

hypotheses using the

Testing the
JIMA

Figure 2.
Measurement model

The results of the structural model indicated that 11 paths were significant at p < 0.05 and 1
path at p < 0.1 in the structural model except H8. The test of the structural model indicated
that utilitarian quality has a positive impact on commitment ( b = 0.189, p < 0.05),
satisfaction ( b = 0.401, p < 0.05), trust ( b = 0.369, p < 0.05) and loyalty ( b = 0.298, p <
0.05). It was also found that hedonic quality has a positive impact on commitment ( b =
0.296, p < 0.05), trust ( b = 0.364, p < 0.05), satisfaction ( b = 0.110 p < 0.1), but it has no
effect on loyalty ( b = 0.068, p = 0.178).
In addition, the results show that online commitment ( b = 0.323, p < 0.05), online
satisfaction ( b = 0.148, p < 0.05) and online trust ( b = 0.231, p < 0.05) have positive effects
on customer loyalty in online banking; also, the customers’ trust in online banking services
has a positive effect on customer commitment ( b = 0.296, p < 0.05) and customer
satisfaction ( b = 0.294, p < 0.05).
 Moreover, based on the results of squared multiple correlations, it can be stated that 0.75 Dynamics in
variance of online loyalty construct is explained by the model. This coefficient (R2) is 0.42 for customer
online trust, 0.43 for online commitment and 0.48 for online satisfaction. loyalty
4.3 Moderator model of the relationship life cycle
To test the effect of the moderator variable of the relationship life cycle, the modeling of
multi-group structural equations was used. The test of moderator hypotheses is shown in
Tables 6 and 7. In the sample, there are 148 customers in the exploration, 216 customers in
the buildup, 207 in the maturity and 80 customers in the decline stage.
The results of x 2 test in the relationship life cycle stages (Table 6) show that different
assumptions should be considered about the moderator variable (relationship life cycle) in
different stages of the process.
Based on the results of Table 6 on H14, H15 and H16, it can be concluded that H14 and
H16 are confirmed while H15 is rejected. That is, in various stages of the relationship life
cycle, trust imposes different positive significant (D x 2 = 7.439; p = 0.059) effects on customer
loyalty. In other words, as the relationship lifetime increases, the impact of online trust on
customer loyalty increases and the impact decreases as the relationship declines, confirming
hypothesis H14. As is seen in Table 7, the effect of online trust on customer loyalty is not
significant in the exploration stage ( b = 0.219, p = 0.119) and the decline stage ( b = 0.069,
p = 0.463), but it is significant in the middle stages of the relationship, i.e. in the buildup
stage ( b = 0.232, p = 0.005) and the maturity stage ( b = 0.553, p = 0.003). These results
indicate that trust has a strong effect on customer loyalty during the middle stages of the
relationship, especially the maturity stage and in the beginning or final stages of the
relationship, it does not have the power to predict the customer’s loyalty.
Regarding H16, the moderating effect of relationship life cycle on the effect of online
commitment on customer loyalty was found to be significantly different in various stages of
the relationship life cycle (D x 2 = 7.392; p = 0.060). In other words, with the increase in the
duration of the relationship, the impact of online commitment on customer loyalty decreases.
Likewise, the impact of online commitment on customer loyalty is significant in different
stages of the relationship, except for the decline stage ( b = 0.084, p = 0.958). In the
exploration stage, online commitment has the highest degree of positive effect on loyalty
( b = 0.539, p = 0.008), but as the customer enters the buildup stage ( b = 0.248, p = 0.056)
and maturity stage ( b = 0.189, p = 0.005), its effect on predicting the customer’s loyalty
behavior decreases. This result indicates that customers behave differently in the early and
middle stages (buildup and maturity) in comparison with decline stage.
The different effect of online satisfaction on loyalty in different stages of relationship life cycle is
not confirmed (D x 2 = 1.424; p = 0.700), and it can be said that online satisfaction has an equal effect
on customer loyalty in different stages of the relationship life cycle. Thus, H15 is not confirmed.

Table 6.
Hypothesis Assumed path Model x2 df D x2 P Comparison of
differences in x 2
H14 Trust ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – –
Equal model 1,375.447 783 7.439 0.059 values (test of path
H15 Satisfaction ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – – coefficients
Equal mode 1,369.430 783 1.424 0.700 consistency) at
H16 Commitment ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – – different stages of the
Equal mode 1,375.398 783 7.392 0.060 relationship life cycle
 JIMA

Table 7.

stages of the
group structural
coefficients in the
modeling of multi-
Estimation of path

relationship life cycle

equations in different
Exploration stage Buildup stage Maturity stage Decline stage
Std. Std. Std. Std.
Hypothesis Assumed path estimate SE P estimate SE P estimate SE P estimate SE P

H13 Trust ! Loyalty 0.219 0.18 0.119 0.232 0.106 0.005 0.553 0.089 0.003 0.069 0.171 0.463
H14 Satisfaction ! 0.085 0.129 0.443 0.17 0.106 0.054 0.111 099 0.273 0.100 0.333 0.676
Loyalty
H15 Commitment ! Loyalty 0.539 0.129 0.008 0.284 0.099 0.056 0.189 0.077 0.005 0.084 0.190 0.958
5. Discussion and managerial implications Dynamics in
5.1 Discussion customer
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the effect of service quality and
relationship quality on customer loyalty in different stages of the relationship life cycle in
loyalty
online banking services. The results of the research demonstrated that the utilitarian quality
of online banking services has a positive effect on the three dimensions of relationship
quality (trust, commitment and satisfaction) and customer loyalty. These results are in line
with those obtained by Shin et al. (2013), Park et al. (2014), Aurier and N’Goala (2010), Polites
et al. (2012), Yaya et al. (2011) and Romulo (2007) in online environment.
Furthermore, the research results show that the hedonic quality has a positive effect on
the relationship quality dimensions (commitment, satisfaction and trust), These results are
in line with those obtained by Hwang and Kim (2007), Sahney et al. (2013), Bilgihan and
Bujisic (2014), Shin (2015), Kassim and Abdullah (2010), Shamdasani et al. (2008) and Bauer
et al. (2006). However, the hedonic quality has not a positive effect on online loyalty, in other
words, it can be deduced that in online banking services, providing hedonistic services and
creating desirable experiences do not directly affect customer loyalty.
Also, the research results show trust has a positive effect on satisfaction and
commitment. These results are in line with those obtained by Arcand et al. (2017), Sanchez-
Franco (2009), Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) and Kassim and Abdullah (2010).
The results are different in different stages of the relationship life cycle. Customers’
commitment to and trust in online banking services affect their loyalty differently in
different stages of the relationship life cycle, but the varying effect of customers’ satisfaction
with online banking services on their loyalty in different stages of relationship life cycle was
not confirmed. The results demonstrated that the impact of online trust on customer loyalty
increases until the maturity stage of the relationship and decreases and reaches its minimum
route in the decline stage. As was discussed in the theoretical framework section, in the early
stages of the relationship, the two parties’ trust in each other has not been fully shaped and
is fragile, so obviously, its effect on customer loyalty is not noteworthy. However, with the
growth of the relationship and the increase in the trust between the two sides, the element of
trust turns into a powerful construct in predicting the customer’s loyalty behavior. This
result is to some extent in line with the results obtained by Hibbard et al. (2001), who believe
that the role of trust in predicting the relationship performance increases at first but
decreases in the third and fourth stages of the relationship, as well as with the results gained
by Zhang et al. (2016), who state that the rate of trust increases along with the customer’s
performance until the third stage of the relationship life cycle and decreases in the fourth
stage.
The results obtained concerning the impact of online commitment on customer loyalty
indicate that as the relationship ages, the effect of online commitment on customer loyalty
decreases. This finding accords with the scanty empirical studies in this field. According to
Hibbard et al. (2001), with the aging of the relationship, the importance of commitment in
predicting customer performance diminishes. Likewise, Moorman et al. (1992) propose that
the cooperation based on relationship grows old in time, and thus, the impartiality existing
in the relationship decreases, the two parties’ expectations and opportunism increase, and
ultimately, the continuity of the relationship is threatened. Cambra-Fierro et al. (2018), too,
by testing the relationship between relationship quality and value co-creation which goes
under change during the relationship life cycle, confirm the claims of Moorman et al. (1992).
On the whole, this result, along with the few previous findings, points out that
commitment, as one of the basic elements of relationship marketing, which plays an
essential part in maintaining the relationship with customers, in the long run, loses its
JIMA importance in predicting customer loyalty as time passes (relationship aging) and marketers
cannot gain success in maintaining relationship with customers in the long run merely by
creating commitment. Although commitment plays an effective part in the early stages of
the relationship in attracting and retaining customers, with the aging of the relationship, it is
considered as one of the minimum requisites for sustaining the relationship, and marketers
should invest on other marketing measures to sustain the relationship with customers. This
finding is deemed to be a challenge for relationship marketing and requires more research to
elucidate the matter.

5.2 Theoretical contrition

Service firms in online contexts, through offering utilitarian and hedonistic services and
creating quality relationships with customers, expect to achieve customers’ long-term value
in the form of customer loyalty. Most of the previous studies investigated the relationship
between service quality, relationship quality and customer loyalty in a static state. The
present study is the first attempt to examine the relationship in a dynamic state by adding
the relationship life cycle to the model in online banking services. This research, in addition
to studying the impact of service quality and relationship quality on customer loyalty,
argues that according to the relationship dynamism theory (Palmatier et al., 2013), the
customer’s loyalty behavior has a dynamic state and can vary in different stages of the
relationship life cycle, depending on the quality of customer-company relationship.

5.3 Managerial implication

Considering the positive impact of utilitarian quality on the relationship quality and loyalty,
bank managers should consider that customers will remain loyal to online banking services
only when they evaluate the quality of the banking services as desirable and when the
banks can establish a suitable relationship with the customers through the use of various
technological devices. Customers consider as desirable a relationship that they can trust, the
two parties are committed to and are satisfied with.
Also considering the effect of hedonic quality on relationship quality and not affecting
loyalty, it can be deduced that in online banking services, providing hedonistic services and
creating desirable experiences do not directly affect customer loyalty; however, they have
indirect positive effect on customer loyalty by elevating online relationship quality, so in
service sector, one of the main sources of creating a good feeling and pleasant experience in
the customers is the personnel, and regarding the fact that online services are provided
through technology and the personnel are not directly involved, the hedonic dimension.
These results indicate that loyal customers, in receiving online banking services, are more
after meeting their utilitarian needs rather than hedonistic needs. However, as was pointed
out, in online banking services, hedonistic quality has a positive effect more on online trust,
commitment and satisfaction of the customers.
Also, managers should consider that trust is the main factor to guarantee customer
satisfaction and commitment, so the present research, too, shows that in online banking
services, that is, with the increase in customer trust, satisfaction and commitment of the
customers to online services also increase.
Also, through identifying the different effects of online relationship quality dimensions
on customer loyalty in different stages of relationship life cycle, help us to better understand
customer loyalty. These findings could be of benefit for the online service companies that
understand the importance of different investments for the customers in gaining the highest
rate of customer loyalty. Therefore, if a company seeks to make optimum use of its
resources, it should put on its agenda the strategy of dividing the customers based on the Dynamics in
relationship life cycle and customizing its services. customer
Purchase behavior will be reinforced and the customers’ relation with the company will
develop and enter the buildup stage. According to the customer relationship marketing
loyalty
theory (Pansari and Kumar, 2017), if a customer receives services that lead to his/her
satisfaction, it is very likely that his/her relationship with the company will be sustained, the
relationship life value will increase, and the customer will maintain his/her relationship with
the company. If the initial experiences in a relationship are pleasant and positive and if the
relation leads to desirable outcomes besides there being evidence of dependability in it,
the two parties will proceed to deepen and develop the relationship through increasing the
overall level of mutual dependence and the satisfied customers will use references to
introduce new customers to the company.
In the middle stages (buildup and maturity) of the relationship, because of the stable
relationship between the companies and customers and their active contribution in creating
value for the companies through repeated purchase, there is no need for further investment
and service companies such as banking industry can gain more profit by maintaining their
customers and developing their relationship with the customers. In these stages, in addition
to creating profit by repeated purchase, the customers are prepared to offer their knowledge,
information and skill to the company, which can lead to the improvement of the company’s
awareness. Based on the results of the present study, marketing investment should be
different in the early, middle and final stages of the relationship. Due to the fact that in the
beginning stage of the relationship, the necessary trust has not yet been formed and
the customer does not have much interaction with the company, the relationship is fragile.
Companies should focus the largest investments on providing more profits for the customers
in their first purchase and consolidating the relationship so that the repeated about the
customers’ needs as well as being a step in better meeting their needs and demands and
preventing the customers from entering the decline stage of the relationship.
The entrance of customer relationship into the decline stage is considered a threat to any
company, so companies should go through the reasons for ending the relationship so that
they can benefit from the suggestions given by the customers who have left the company to
improve their services and to decrease the negative value created by the customers. Also in
this stage, winning the customers back to purchase and directing the relationship to the
maturity stage can be another strategy for the companies.

6. Limitations and further research

One of the present research limitations was that dynamics of the relationship was realized
through the addition of the life cycle variable to the model. This was done while our study
was a cross-sectional study and the research data was collected during a specific time
interval. Accordingly, one would end up with further insight into the dynamics of the
relationship and possibly different outcomes should the data be collected longitudinally.
Therefore, interested researchers are advised to collect and analyze data during different
years.
In the present article, we considered online service quality through the two dimensions
utilitarian and hedonistic dimensions. However, as was discussed in the theoretical
background, scholars have also used other scales in measuring online service quality. Thus,
the future researchers are advised, to gain a deeper and more comprehensive insight, to
investigate the impact of online service quality on relationship quality and customer loyalty
in financial services by applying other scales of online service quality.
JIMA References
Adjei, M.T. and Clark, M.N. (2010), “Relationship marketing in A B2C context: the moderating role of
personality traits”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-79.
Aldas-Manzano, J., Ruiz-Mafe, C., Sanz-Blas, S. and Lassala-Navarré, C. (2011), “Internet banking
loyalty: evaluating the role of trust, satisfaction, perceived risk and frequency of use”, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1165-1190.
Al-Debei, M.M., Akroush, M.N. and Ashouri, M.I. (2015), “Consumer attitudes towards online
shopping”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 707-733, doi: 10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0146.
Al-Hawari, A.M. (2014), “Does customer sociability matter? Differences in e-quality, e-satisfaction, and
e-loyalty between introvert and extravert online banking users”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 538-546.
Al-Maghrabi, T., Dennis, C. and Halliday, S.V. (2011), “Antecedents of continuance intentions towards
e-shopping: the case of Saudi Arabia”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 85-111, doi: 10.1108/17410391111097447.
Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Bernardo, M., Llach, J. and Marimon, F. (2014), “Building loyalty through
functional and hedonic quality”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 3,
pp. 387-404, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-06-2013-0278.
Amin, M. (2016), “Internet banking service quality and its implication on e-customer satisfaction and e-
customer loyalty”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 280-306, doi:
10.1108/IJBM-10-2014-0139.
Amin, M., Isa, Z. and Fontaine, R. (2013), “Islamic banks: contrasting the drivers of customer
satisfaction on image, trust, and loyalty of Muslim and non-Muslim customers in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 79-97, doi: 10.1108/
02652321311298627.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended Two-Step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Anderson, J.C. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in
distribution channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-54.
Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2003), “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency framework”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123-138, doi: 10.1002/mar.10063.
Arcand, M., Promtep, S., Brun, I. and Rajaobelina, L. (2017), “Mobile banking service quality and
customer relationships”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1068-1089,
doi: 10.1108/IJBM-10-2015-0150.
Arifin, M. (2016), “Impact of E-Banking user behavior to loyalty”, International Journal of Business and
Management Invention ISSN (Online), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 90-97.
Aurier, P. and N’Goala, G. (2010), “The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 303-325, doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0163-z.
Ayo, C.K., Oni, A.A., Adewoye, O.J. and Eweoya, I.O. (2016), “E-Banking users’ behavior: e-service
quality, attitude, and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 3, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-12-2014-0175.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bansal, H.S.P., Irving, P.G. and Taylor, S.F. (2004), “A Three-Component model of customer
commitment to service providers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 234-250, doi: 10.1177/0092070304263332.
Barrera, R.B. and Cepeda-Carrion, G.A. (2014), “Simultaneous measurement of quality in different Dynamics in
online services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 123-144, available at: www.
tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
customer
Barrera, R.B., García, A.N. and Moreno, M.R. (2014), “Evaluation of the e-service quality in service
loyalty
encounters with incidents: differences according to the socio-demographic profile of the online
consumer”, Revista Europea de Direccion y Economía de la Empresa, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 184-193,
doi: 10.1016/j.redee.2014.09.004.
Bauer, H., Falk, T. and Hammerschmidt, M. (2006), “eTransQual: a transaction process-based approach
for capturing service quality in online shopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 7,
pp. 866-875, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.021.
Bernardo, M., Marimon, F. and Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. (2012), “Functional quality and hedonic
quality: a study of the dimensions of e-service quality in online travel agencies”, Information and
Management, Vol. 49 No. 7-8, pp. 342-347, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.06.005.
Bilgihan, A. and Bujisic, M. (2014), “The effect of website features in online relationship marketing: a
case of online hotel booking”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 222-232, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2014.09.001.
Bleier, A., Verleye, K. and De Keyser, A. (2018), “Customer engagement through personalization
and customization”, Customer Engagement Marketing, pp. 75-94, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
61985-9_4.
Brun, I., Rajaobelina, L. and Ricard, L. (2014), “Online relationship quality: scale development and initial
testing”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-27, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-02-
2013-0022.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modelling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
Caceres, I. and Paparoidamis, V. (2007), “Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment
and business to business loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 7/8, pp. 54-61, doi:
10.1108/03090560710752429.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Melero-Polo, I. and Javier Sese, F. (2018), “Customer value co-creation over the
relationship life cycle”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 336-355, doi:
10.1108/JSTP-01-2017-0009.
Casalo, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2008), “The role of satisfaction and website usability in
developing customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking services”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 6, p. 399e417, doi: 10.1108/02652320810902433.
Cater, B. and Zabkar, V. (2009), “Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research
services: the client’s perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 785-797,
doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.10.004.
Chandrashekaran, M., Rotte, K., Tax, S.S. and Grewal, R. (2007), “Customer satisfaction loyalty and
strength satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 153-163.
Chang, H.H. and Chen, S.W. (2008), “The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention
trust and perceived risk as a mediator”, Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 818-841,
doi: 10.1108/14684520810923953.
Chang, H.H. and Wang, H.W. (2011), “The moderating effect of customer perceived value on online
shopping behavior”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 333-359, doi: 10.1108/
14684521111151414.
Chang, H.H., Wang, Y.-H. and Yang, W.-Y. (2009), “The impact of e-service quality, customer
satisfaction and loyalty on e-marketing: moderating effect of perceived value”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 423-443.
Chemingui, H. and Iallouna, H. (2013), “Resistance, motivations, trust and intention to use mobile
financial services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 574-592.
JIMA Chen, S.C. (2012), “The customer satisfaction–loyalty relation in an interactive e-service setting: the
mediators”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 202-210, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2012.01.001.
Chen, C.D. and Ku, E.C.S. (2013), “Bridging indistinct relationships and online loyalty: evidence from
online interest-based communities”, Online Information Review, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 731-751, doi:
10.1108/OIR-01-2011-0220.
Chen, C.F. and Wang, J.P. (2016), “Customer participation, value co-creation and customer loyalty e a
case of airline online check-in system”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 346-352, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.010.
Chiou, J.-S. (2005), “The antecedents of consumers’ loyalty toward internet service providers”,
Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 685-695.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2007), “Form versus function: how the intensities of
specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic Trade-Offs mediate product preferences”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 702-714, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.44.4.702.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus
utilitarian benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 48-63, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.3.48.
Chiu, C.M., Wang, E.T., Fang, Y.H. and Huang, H.Y. (2014), “Understanding customers’ repeat purchase
intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 85-114, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00407.x.
Chumpitaz Caceres, R. and Paparoidamis, N.G. (2007), “Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust,
commitment and business-to-business loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8,
pp. 836-867, doi: 10.1108/03090560710752429.
Chung, K.H. and Shin, J.I. (2010), “The antecedents and consequents of relationship quality in internet
shopping”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 473-491, doi:
10.1108/13555851011090510.
Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), “Building store loyalty through store brands”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 281-291.
Cristobal, E., Flavian, C. and Guinaliu, M. (2007), “Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ): measurement
validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty”, Managing Service Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 317-340, doi: 10.1108/09604520710744326.
Cui, X., Lai, V.S. and Lowry, P.B. (2016), “How do bidders’ organism reactions mediate auction stimuli
and bidder loyalty in online auctions? The case of Taobao in China”, Information and
Management, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 609-624, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.01.005.
Cyr, D. (2008), “Modeling website design across cultures: relationships to trust, satisfaction and E-
loyalty”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, p. 47e72, doi: 10.2753/
MIS0742-1222240402.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumer relationships:
a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50,
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.4.33.18386.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Doong, H.-S., Wang, H.-C. and Shih, H.-C. (2008), “Exploring loyalty intention in the electronic
marketplace”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 142-149.
Dwyer, F.R. and Oh, S. (1987), “Output sector munificence effects on the internal political economy of
marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 347-358.
Eggert, A., Wolfgang Ulaga, W., and Schultz, F. (2006), “Value creation in the relationship life cycle: a
quasi-longitudinal analysis”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 20-27, doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.07.003.
Elbeltagi, I. and Agag, G. (2016), “E-retailing ethics and its impact on customer satisfaction and Dynamics in
repurchase intention”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 288-310, doi: 10.1108/IntR-10-2014-
0244.
customer
Elliot, R. (2007), “Linking e-service quality and markups: the role of imperfect information in the supply
loyalty
chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 14-41.
Etemad-Sajadi, R. and Ghachem, L. (2015), “The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of online
avatars on e-service quality”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 52, pp. 81-86, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2015.05.048.
Fang, Y., Chiu, C. and Wang, E.T.G. (2011), “Understanding customers’ satisfaction and repurchase
intentions”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 479-503, doi: 10.1108/10662241111158335.
Fang, J., Shao, Y. and Wen, C. (2016), “Transactional quality, relational quality, and consumer e-loyalty:
Evidence from SEM and fsQCA”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36
No. 6, pp. 1205-1217, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.006.
Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M. and Gurrea, R. (2006), “The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and
consumer trust on website loyalty”, Information and Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi:
10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationship”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, p. 70.
Gefen, D. (2002), “Customer loyalty in E-Commerce”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.E.M., Scheer, K.L. and Kumar, N. (1996), “The effects of trust and
interdependence on relationship commitment: a trans-Atlantic study”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 303-317.
Giovannini, C.J., Ferreira, J.B., Silva, J.F.D. and Ferreira, D.B. (2015), “The effects of trust transference,
mobile attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust”, Brazilian Administration Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 90-108.
Gounaris, S., Dimitriadis, S. and Stathakopoulos, V. (2010), “An examination of the effects of service
quality and satisfaction on customers’ behavioral intentions in e-shopping”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 142-156, doi: 10.1108/08876041011031118.
Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Kaluscha, E.A. (2002), “Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical
assessment”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 783-812, doi:
10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00043-0.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Pura, M. and van Riel, A. (2004), “Customer loyalty to content-based web
sites: the case of an online health-care service”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 175-186.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), “Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings”,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hampton-Sosa, W. and Koufaris, M. (2005), “The effect of web site perceptions on initial trust in the
owner company”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 55-81.
Hao-Erl, Y., Wei-Jen, C., Jia-Ying, C., Bo-Chan, P. and Chia-Shing, C. (2010), “Applying an extended E-S-
Qual scale to assess the effects of E-service quality on online loyalty with customer satisfaction
and perceived value as mediators”, Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS Int. Conference on Applied
Computer and Applied Computational Science, www.mba.ttu.edu.tw/front/bin/home.phtml
JIMA Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M. (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of
online service dynamics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 139-158, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretai.2004.04.002.
Heide, J.B. (1994), “Inter-organizational governance in marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship marketing
outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247, doi: 10.1177/1094670502004003006.
Herington, C. and Weaven, S. (2009), “E-retailing by banks: e-service quality and its importance to
customer satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 9/10, pp. 1220-1231.
Hibbard, J.D., Frederic, F.B., Rajiv, P.D. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Does relationship marketing age
well?”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 29-35.
Hinnawi, R.S. (2001), “The Impact of Relationship Marketing Underpinnings on Customer’s Loyalty”:
Case Study-Bank of Palestine, MS Degree Thesis, the Islamic University-Gaza.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. and Peralta, M. (1999), “Building consumer trust online”, Communications
of the Acm, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 80-85.
Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A. and Ellonen, H.K. (2008), “Online satisfaction, trust and
loyalty, and the impact of the offline parent Brand”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 403-413.
Hsiao, K.L., Lin, C.C., Wang, X.Y., Lu, H.P. and Yu, H. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of trust in
online product recommendations an empirical study in social shopping”, Online Information
Review, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 935-953, doi: 10.1108/14684521011099414.
Hsu, T.H., Hung, L.C. and Tang, J.W. (2011), “The multiple criteria and sub-criteria for electronic service
quality evaluation An interdependence perspective”, Online Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 241-260, doi: 10.1108/14684521211229057.
Hussien, M.I. and Aziz, R.A.E. (2013), “Investigating e-banking service quality in one of Egypt’s banks: a
stakeholder analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 557-576, doi: 10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0086.
Jap, S. and Anderson, E. (2007), “Testing a life cycle theory of cooperative inter-organizational
relationships: movement across stages and performance”, Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 260-275, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0610.
Jap, S.D. and Ganesan, S. (2000), “Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: implications for
safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 227-245, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.2.227.18735.
Jiang, L., Jun, M. and Yang, Z. (2015), “Customer-perceived value and loyalty: how do key service
quality dimensions’ matter in the context of B2C e-commerce?”, Service Business, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 301-317, doi: 10.1007/s11628-015-0269-y.
Jin, B. and Park, Y.J. (2006), “The moderating effect of online purchase experience on the evaluation of
online store”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, pp. 203-211.
Kananukul, C., Jung, S. and Watchravesringkan, K. (2015), “Building customer equity through trust in
social networking sites”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 148-166,
doi: 10.1108/JRIM-03-2014-0019.
Kassim, N. and Abdullah, N.A. (2010), “The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on
customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings a cross cultural analysis”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-371, doi: 10.1108/
13555851011062269.
Keating, B.W., Alpert, F., Anton Kriz, A. and Quazi, A. (2011), “Exploring the mediating role of
relationship quality in online services”, MPRA Paper, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 33-41, https://mpra. ub.
uni-muenchen.de/40506
Kim, D.J. and Hwang, Y. (2012), “A study of mobile internet user’s service quality perceptions from a Dynamics in
user’s utilitarian and hedonic value tendency perspectives”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 409-421, doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9267-8.
customer
Kim, J. and Forsythe, S. (2007), “Hedonic usage of product virtualization technologies in online apparel
loyalty
shopping”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 502-514, doi: 10.1108/09590550710750368.
Kim, J.H., Kim, M.J. and Kandampully, J. (2009), “Buying environment characteristics in the context of
e-service”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 9/10, pp. 1188-1204.
Kim, W.G., Lee, Y. and Yoo, Y. (2006), “Predictors of relationship quality and relationship outcomes in
luxury restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 143-169, doi:
10.1177/1096348005285086.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002), “Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant of customer
preferences toward frequency program rewards”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 155-170, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1558483
Kusari, S., Hoeffler, S. and Iacobucci, D. (2013), “Trusting and monitoring business partners throughout
the relationship life cycle”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 119-138,
doi: 10.1080/1051712X.2012.757716.
Kwon, I.G. and Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain
relationships”, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 4-14.
Lee, G.G. and Lin, H.F. (2005), “Customer perceptions of E-Service quality in online shopping”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 161-176, doi:
10.1108/09590550510581485.
Levy, S. (2014), “Does usage level of online services matter to customers’ bank loyalty?”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 292-s299, doi: 10.1108/JSM-09-2012-0162.
Liang, C.J., Chen, H.J. and Wang, W.H. (2008), “Does online relationship marketing enhance customer
retention and cross-buying?”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 769-787, doi:
10.1080/02642060801988910.
Lichtenstein, S. and Williamson, K. (2006), “Understanding consumer adoption of internet banking: an
interpretive study in the Australian banking context”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 50-66.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Muñoz-Leiva, F. and Rejon-Guardia, F. (2013), “The determinants ofsatisfaction
with e-banking”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 5, pp. 750-767, doi:
10.1108/02635571311324188.
Lin, J.C. and Hsieh, P. (2011), “Assessing the self-service technology encounters: development and
validation of SSTQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 194-206, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretai.2011.02.006.
Lin, M.Q. and Lee, B.C.Y. (2012), “The influence of website environment on brand loyalty: Brand trust
and Brand affect as mediators”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 308-321.
Llach, J., Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M. and Bernardo, M. (2013), “Determinants of online booking
loyalties for the purchasing of airline tickets”, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 23-31, doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.006.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.-H. (2003), “A customer loyalty model for e-service context”, Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 156-167, doi: 10.1108/08876040410536486.
Luo, J., Ba, S. and Zhang, H. (2012), “The effectiveness of online shopping characteristics and well-
designed websites on satisfaction”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1131-1144, https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2606012
Lusch, R.F. and Brown, J.R. (1996), “Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing
channel”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 19-38.
JIMA Marimon, F., Vidgen, R., Barnes, S. and Cristobal, E. (2010), “Purchasing behavior in an online
supermarket: the applicability of E-S-QUAL”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 111-129, doi: 10.2501/S1470785310201089.
Meyers, L.S., Gamest. and Goarin, A. J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research, Design and
Interpretation, Thousand oaks. London. New Delhi, Sage publication.
Mohsin Butt, M. and Aftab, M. (2013), “Incorporating attitude towards halal banking in an integrated
service quality, satisfaction, trust and loyalty model in online Islamic banking context”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-23.
Moliner, M.A., Sánchez, J., Rodríguez, R.M. and Callarisa, L. (2005), “Perceived relationship quality and
post-purchase perceived value: an integrative framework”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1392 -1422, doi: 10.1108/03090560710821233.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpanede, R. (1992), “Relationship between providers and users of
market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-329.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1252308
Mukherjee, A. and Nath, P. (2007), “Role of electronic trust in online retailing a re-examination of the
commitment-trust theory”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 1173-1202, doi:
10.1108/03090560710773390.
Naoui, F.B. and Zaiem, I. (2010), “The impact of relationship quality on client’s loyalty: an application in
the para pharmaceutical industry”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 137-156, doi: 10.1108/17506121011059759.
Nusair, K. and Kandampully, J. (2008), “The antecedents of customer satisfaction with online travel
services: a conceptual model”, European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Nusair, K.K., Hua, N. and Li, X. (2010), “A conceptual framework of relationship commitment: e-travel
agencies”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 106-120, doi: 10.1108/
17579881011065029.
Nusair, K.K., Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F. and Cobanoglu, C. (2013), “Generation Y travelers’ commitment
to online social network websites”, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 13-22, doi: 10.1016/j.
tourman.2012.05.005.
Ozen, H. (2015), “Online relationship quality: does it increase repurchase intention from private
shopping sites?”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,
Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 300-312, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i7/1742.
Palmatier, R.W. (2008), “Interfirm relational drivers of customer value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72
No. 4, pp. 76-89, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.4.76.
Palmatier, R.W. (2009), “Relationship Marketing, Cambridge”, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of
relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-153, doi:
10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136.
Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B., Dant, R.P. and Grewal, D. (2013), “Relationship velocity: toward a theory of
relationship dynamics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 13-30, doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0219.
Palvia, P. (2009), “The role of trust in e-commerce relational exchange: a unified model”, Information
and Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 213-220.
Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 294-311, doi:
10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6.
Papassapa, R. and Miller, K.E. (2007), “Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer
loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 21-31, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2005.11.006.
Parasuraman, A.A., ZeithamI, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “E-S-Qual: a multiple item scale for Dynamics in
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-231, doi:
10.1177/1094670504271156.
customer
Park, C. and Kim, Y. (2003), “Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase behaviour in an
loyalty
online shopping context”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 16-29, doi: 10.1108/09590550310457818.
Park, J.G., Lee, S. and Lee, J. (2014), “Communication effectiveness on IT service relationship quality”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 321-336, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-04-
2013-0186.
Pengnate, S. and Sarathy, R. (2017), “An experimental investigation of the influence of website
emotional design features on trust in unfamiliar online vendors”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 67, pp. 49-60, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.018.
Polites, G.L.K., Williams, C.K., Karahanna, E. and Seligman, L. (2012), “A theoretical framework for
consumer e-satisfaction and site stickiness: an evaluation in the context of online hotel
reservations”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 1-37, available at: www.tandfonline.com/loi/hoce20
Pura, P. (2005), “Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services”, managing
service quality”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 509-538,
doi: 10.1108/09604520510634005.
Rafiq, M., Fulford, H. and Lu, X. (2013), “Building customer loyalty in online retailing: the role of
relationship quality”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 494-517, doi:
10.1080/0267257X.2012.737356.
Rahman, M.A. and Ramli, M.F. (2016), “The influence of relationship quality on customer loyalty in the
dual-banking system in the Northern states of peninsular Malaysia”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 219 No. 31, pp. 606-613, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.040.
Rexha, N., Kingshott, R.P.J. and Shang Shang Aw, A. (2003), “The impact of the relational plan on
adoption of electronic banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Ribbink, D., van Riel, A.C.R., Liljander, V. and Streukens, S. (2004), “Comfort your online customer: quality,
trust and loyalty on the internet”, managing service quality”, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 446-456, doi: 10.1108/09604520410569784.
Rômulo, C.D.O. (2007), “Evidences from link between quality and loyalty in e-service: an empirical
study”, Sistemas and Gestão, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37-52, doi: 10.7177/sg.2007.SGV2N1A1.
Sahney, S., Ghosh, K. and Shrivastava, A. (2013), “Conceptualizing consumer “trust” in online buying
behaviour: an empirical inquiry and model development in Indian context”, Journal of Asia
Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 278-298, doi: 10.1108/JABS-Jul-2011-0038.
Sampaio, C.H., Ladeira, W.J. and Santini, F.D.O. (2017), “Apps for mobile banking and customer
satisfaction: a cross-cultural study”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7,
pp. 1133-1153.
Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2009), “The moderating effects of involvement on the relationships between
satisfaction, trust and commitment in e-banking”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 247-258, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2009.04.007.
Shaikh, A. and Karjaluoto, H. (2015), “Mobile banking adoption: a literature review”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Shamdasani, P., Mukherjee, A. and Malhotra, N. (2008), “Antecedents and consequences of service
quality in consumer evaluation of self-service internet technologies”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 117-138, available at: www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Shin, D., H. (2015), “Effect of the customer experience on satisfaction with smartphones: assessing
smart satisfaction index with partial least squares”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 627-641, doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.10.001.
JIMA Shin, J.I., Chunga, K.H., Ohb, J.S. and Leec, C.W. (2013), “The effect of site quality on repurchase
intention in internet shopping through mediating variables: the case of university students in
South Korea”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 453-463, doi:
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.02.003.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2012), “The impacts of E-Service quality on customer behavior in Multi-Channel
E-Services”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 7-8, pp. 789-806, doi:
10.1080/14783363.2012.661139.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2002), “Effect of trust on customer acceptance of internet banking”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1 Nos 3/4, pp. 247-263.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), “Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd Edition, Harper Collins
Publishers: New York.
Toufaily, E. and Pons, F. (2017), “Impact of customers’ assessment of website attributes
on e-relationship in the securities brokerage industry: a multichannel perspective”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34, pp. 58-69, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.09.011.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”, MIS Quarterly and the
Society for Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 695-704, available at: www.jstor.org/
stable/25148660
Verhoef, P., Franses, P. and Hoekstra, J. (2002), “The effect of relational constructs of customer referrals
and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: does age of relationship
matter?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 202-216.
Vesel, P. and Zabkar, V. (2010), “Relationship quality evaluation in retailers’ relationships with
consumers”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1334-1365, doi: 10.1108/
03090561011062871.
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., Sassenberg, K. and Bornemann, D. (2010), “Does relationship quality
matter in e-services? A comparison of online and offline retailing”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 130-142.
Wang, W., Liang, C. and Wu, Y. (2006), “Relationship bonding tactics, relationship quality and
customer behavioral loyalty-behavioral sequence in Taiwan’s information service industry”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-57.
Wang, W.-T., Wang, Y.-S. and Liu, E.-R. (2016), “The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: the
integration of the commitment–trust theory and e-commerce success model”, Information and
Management, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 625-642, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.01.006.
Wang, Y.D. and Wu, C.F. (2012), “Forecasting energy market volatility using garch models: can
multivariate models beat univariate models?”, Energy Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 2167-2181, doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2012.03.010.
Wen, C.R., Prybutok, V., Blankson, C. and Fang, J. (2014), “The role of E-quality within the consumer
decision making process”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1506-1536, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2013-0352.
Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K. and Van Birgelen, M. (1998), “Marketing service relationships: the role
of commitment”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5,
pp. 406-423.
Wilson, D.T. (1995), “An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-345.
Wu, H.C. and Ko, Y.J. (2013), “Assessment of service quality in the hotel industry”, Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 218-244, doi: 10.1080/
1528008X.2013.802557.
Wu, J.J., Hwang, J.N., Sharkhuu, O. and Tsogt-Ochir, B. (2017), “Shopping online and off-line? Dynamics in
Complementary service quality and image congruence”, Asia Pacific Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.01.004.
customer
Yamagishi, M. and Misumi, J. (2004), “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan”,
loyalty
Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 129-166.
Yang, H.E., Cheng, W.J., Chan, J.Y., Pan, B.C. and Chia, C.S. (2010), “Applying an extended E-SQaul
Scale to assess the effects of e-service quality on online loyalty with customer satisfaction and
perceived value as mediators”, in: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS Int. Conference on Applied
Computer and Applied Computational Science, Hangzhow, China, pp. 55-59, http://www.mba.ttu.
edu.tw/front/bin/home.phtml
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of
switching costs”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822, doi: 10.1002/
mar.20030.
Yaya, L.H.P., Marimon, F. and Casadesus, M. (2011), “Customer’s loyalty and perception of ISO 9001 in
online banking”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 8, pp. 1194-1213, doi:
10.1108/02635571111170767.
Yu, T.W. and Tung, F.C. (2013), “Investigating effects of relationship marketing types in life insurers in
Taiwan”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 111-130, doi:
10.1108/09604521311303408.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through websites: a
critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-375, doi: 10.1177/009207002236911.
Zhang, M., Huang, L., He, Z. and Wang, A.G. (2014), “E-Service quality perceptions: an empirical
analysis of the Chinese E-Retailing industry”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 11/12, pp. 1357-1372, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2014.933555.
Zhang, R., Li, G., Wang, Z. and Wang, H. (2016), “Relationship value based on customer equity
influences on online group-buying customer loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3820-3826, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.074.
Zhao, L. and Lu, Y. (2012), “Enhancing perceived interactivity through network externalities: an
empirical study on micro-blogging service satisfaction and continuance intention”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 825-834, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.019.

Further reading
Byron, W., Keating, B.W., Alpert, F., Anton Kriz, A. and Quazi, A. (2011), “Exploring the mediating role
of relationship quality in online services”, MPRA Paper, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 33-41, available at:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40506
Eastlick, M., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2006), “Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an
integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 877-886.
Hansen, D.J., Beitelspacher, J.S. and Deitz, D.G. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of consumers’
comparative value assessments across the relationship life cycle”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 473-479, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.006.
Lach, J., Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M. and Bernardo, M. (2013), “Determinants of online booking
loyalties for the purchasing of airline tickets”, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 23-31, doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.006.
Roberts, K., Varki, S. and Brodie, R. (2003), “Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer
services: an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, pp. 169-196, doi:
10.1108/03090560310454037.
JIMA Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994), “Developmental processes of cooperative inter-organizational
relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118, doi: 10.5465/
amr.1994.9410122009.
Wu, S.L. and Li, P.C. (2011), “The relationships between CRM, RQ, and CLV based on different hotel
preferences”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 262-271, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.09.011.

About the authors

Akram Garepasha, is an Doctor of Business Management from Islamic Azad University of Tabriz.
Samad Aali is an Academic staff member of Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. I am a Ph.D.
degree in marketing management. I have 20 years of teaching experience and I am interested in
marketing research. Currently, in addition to teaching, I am a marketing consultant for Iranian
companies. I also translated many books in the field of marketing in Persian, including marketing 3
(Philip Kotler and et al.), transformational sales (Philip Kotler and et al.) and strategic marketing
management (Alexander Chernev). I am also a member of the Editorial Board in a number of
domestic and foreign journals. Samad Aali is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
samad.aly@gmail.com
Ali Reza Bafandeh Zendeh is an Academic staff member of Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. A
Ph.D. degree in System management. 22 years of teaching experience A member of the Editorial
Board in a number of domestic and foreign journals..
Soleyman Iranzadeh is an Academic staff member of Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. A Ph.D.
degree in Industrial management. 30 years of teaching experience A member of the Editorial Board in
a number of domestic and foreign journals.

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