Download The Impacts of Risk Reduction Strategy on Customer

2010 現代經營管理研討會
The Impacts of Risk Reduction Strategy on Customer Loyalty
HUI-JU CHENa
TAO-HSIN HSUb
YU-YING LINc
a
b
德霖技術學院企管系副教授
德霖技術學院企管系助理教授
c
德霖技術學院企管系講師
Abstract
Many studies have empirically demonstrated the effect of service quality, relationship
bonding, and customer perceived benefits on satisfaction or behavioral loyalty. However, in
financial services industry, some customers are more confident of gaining profits and focus on
the revenue-acquirement; but other customers might focus on risk-avoidance, since they only
require principle-guarantee. Such proposition is correspondent to Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and
Sabol’s (2002) argument, which divides two sources contributing to customer perceived value,
one is providing customer perceived benefits, and the other is reducing customer perceived
risk. The literature generally agrees that customers evaluating supplier offerings by two
dimensions, benefit side (what is received) and sacrifice side (what is given) (Zeithaml 1988;
Ostrom and Lacobucci 1995; Holbrook 1994; Slater and Narver 2000; Lam, Shankar,
Erramilli, and Murthy 2004). Recently, a third dimension, risk, has been proposed as the other
driver to promoting customer evaluation (Day and Crask 2000; Huber and Herrmann 2000).
Particularly, when customers are facing economic stagnancy, it is believed reduction of
customer perceived risk will suppress the requirement of more benefits.
To investigate the effectiveness of risk reduction strategy, a field survey will be
conducted and the questionnaires will be distributed to respondents with experience in
financial services. Then, data collected will be examined the links between risk reduction
strategy (functional, performance, and financial), customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty
(customer retention and customer cross-buying) through structural equation modeling (SEM).
Specifically, the purpose of this study is aim to explore the influence of risk reduction strategy
on customer attitude and behavioral intention in financial services industry. Particularly,
different dimension of post-purchase risk reduction might play a different role in contributing
to the maintenance and development of consumer-supplier relationships.
Keywords：Reduction of functional risk, Reduction of performance risk, Reduction of
financial risk, Customer retention, Customer cross-buying
379
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Introduction
Deregulation in the financial services industry, along with mergers and acquisitions, has led to
increasing competition between sectors of the financial services industry such as banks,
securities corporations, and insurance companies. As a consequence, institutions from one
sector have attempted to generate business at the expense of other sectors, like banks trying to
involve securities brokerage and insurance services. Through the process of providing
multiple services to customers, multi-service providers have come to realize that current
customers are by far the best prospects for new services (Kamakura, Ramaswami, and
Srivastava 1991). That means the effective strategy of successfully extending new services is
to target existing customers than new customers. This realization has led to an emerging trend
of “customer lifetime value” in the financial services industry.
Previous work has done a lot in customer retention and customer cross-buying. The former is
related to relationship maintenance, and the latter is related to relationship development
(Verhoef 2003). It is often assumed that customer’s satisfaction with current products/services
will lead to higher intention for retention and cross-buying. However, recent studies indicate
that relationship development might require different strategies than relationship maintenance
(Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas 2001; Bolton, Lemon, and Verhoef 2004; Reinartz and Kumar
2003). This point is quite valuable to managers of multi-service providers, while they try to
meet customers’ need through one-stop shopping.
Many studies have empirically demonstrated the effect of service quality, relationship
bonding, and customer perceived benefits on satisfaction or behavioral loyalty (Verhoef,
Franses, and Hoekstra 2001; Brady, Knight, Cronin, Tomas, Hult, and Keillor 2005; Crosby,
Evans, and Cowles 1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Wulf, Odekerken-Schroder, and Lacobucci
2001; Verhoef 2003; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans 2006). However, in financial
services industry, some customers are more confident of gaining profits and focus on the
revenue-acquirement; but other customers might focus on risk-avoidance, since they only
require principle-guarantee. Such proposition is correspondent to Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and
Sabol’s (2002) argument, which divides two sources contributing to customer perceived value,
one is providing customer perceived benefits, and the other is reducing customer perceived
risk. The literature generally agrees that customers evaluating supplier offerings by two
dimensions, benefit side (what is received) and sacrifice side (what is given) (Zeithaml 1988;
Ostrom and Lacobucci 1995; Holbrook 1994; Slater and Narver 2000; Lam, Shankar,
Erramilli, and Murthy 2004). Recently, a third dimension, risk, has been proposed as the other
driver to promoting customer evaluation (Day and Crask 2000; Huber and Herrmann 2000).
Particularly, when customers are facing economic stagnancy, it is believed reduction of
customer perceived risk will suppress the requirement of more benefits.
380
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Specifically, the purpose of this study is aim to explore the influence of customer perceived
risk on customer attitude and behavioral intention in financial services industry. Particularly,
different dimension of post-purchase risk reduction might play a different role in contributing
to the maintenance and development of consumer-supplier relationships.
Conceptual Model
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model. This model considers risk reduction as the independent
variables, mediating by satisfaction, then influencing customer retention and customer
purchase intention toward new services, that’s cross-buying. This study argues that customer’s
satisfaction dose help developing relationship maintenance, but may not influence
relationship development. This notion is consistent with Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas (2001),
who argue that retaining customer is not the same as inducing them to cross buying. In
addition, the significance of risk reduction strategy emphasizes performance risk, rather than
functional and financial ones. Since the inherent purpose of financial services is to reducing
uncertainty or through taking uncertainty to making wealth for customers (Beckett 2000). No
matter what kind of purpose serving by financial services, customers’ evaluation is always
performance first, outcome taking the priority (Gronroos 1984; Brady and Cronin 2001).
Therefore, the proposition is if customers perceive transaction performance is better than their
expectation, it will enhance their perception of faultless and valuable transaction. More than
this, such perception might have a direct effect on customer retention and cross-buying, both
contributing to the customer lifetime value (Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas 2001; Reinartz and
Kumar 2003, Reinartz, Thomas, and Kumar 2005).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Reduction of
Functional
Risk
Reduction of
Customer
Customer
Performance
Satisfaction
Satisfactio
Risk
n
381
Customer
Customer
Retention
Cross-buying
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Reduction of
Customer Lifetime Value
Financial
Risk
Risk Reduction Strategy
Definitions of Perceived Risk, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Lifetime Value
Customer’s Risk Perception
In the exchange process, particularly the pre-purchase stage, consumers always concern the
consequences of a purchasing decision. Such uncertainty about future financial and
non-financial loss is called “perceived risk” (Dunn, Murphy, and Skelly 1986; Srinivasan and
Ratchford 1991). In this way, consumers implicitly assume that both the probability and the
outcome of each purchase event are uncertain (Dowling and Staelin 1994). Previous work
focuses on how such a pre-purchase perceived risks affect consumers’ consideration about
choice set, information searching, product involvement, product adoption (Bearden and
Shimp 1982; Murray 1991; Srinivasan and Ratchford 1991; Dowling and Staelin 1994;
Dholakia 1997), and how the reduction of customer’s perceived risks enhances their perceived
value and purchase intention (Sweeney, Soutar and Johnson 1999; Chen, Chang, and Chang
2005). All the evaluations are measured in the prepurchase period. However, in most of
service context, customer’s relationship with supplier extends into the consumption period
(Mittal, Kumar, and Tsiros 1999). Therefore, postpurchase evaluation about risk reduction
effect should also been thoroughly discussed. Particularly, such an effect might influence
customer retention and probability of cross-buying. Unfortunately, few researchers notice this
emerging significance, except for Wangenheim’s work (2005), which investigate the
relationship of post-purchase evaluation of risk reduction and negative word-of-mouth.
Perceived risk is a multidimensional construct, and its typical categorization includes six
types (Greenleaf and Lehmann 1995; Havlena and DeSarbo 1990; Dunn, Murphy, and Skelly
1986; Stone and Gronhaug 1993) (for definitions of these types, see Table 1). The relative
importance of the various risk dimensions need not necessarily be the same across purchase
decisions (Stone and Gronhaug 1993). In the packaged goods context, Dunn, Murphy, and
Skelly (1986) found financial and performance risks play the major roles. Alternatively,
Murphy and Enis (1986) reported that convenience goods tend to rank lower than preference,
shopping, and specialty goods in terms of financial risk. In Tsiros and Heilman’s (2005) study,
they argue that functional, performance, and physical risks dominate the other risks on
382
2010 現代經營管理研討會
purchasing behavior in perishable categories.
In this article, the risks encountering in the postpurchase period of financial service context
are discussed, which include functional, performance, and financial risks. The reason for
excluding the other three risks is that the product category risk of financial services is more
related with monetary loss, less with non-monetary loss; because the inherent intangible and
rational attributes. Hence, the physical and emotional hurt is seldom happened in the
exchange and consumption process. Functional risk describes the danger that functional
service cannot be completed or completed with fault procedure owing to the equipment
shutdown, machines lacking the required functions, or personnel wrongdoing. Such risk might
cause customer time-wasting, psychological anxiety, private information disclosure, or the
most worst, unfinished deal. Performance risk is the principal risk, which refers to financial
service may not satisfy customer’s original need, such as investment loss, loan-inquire failure,
low deposit interest rate, or unexecuted insurance coverage. Brady and Cronin (2001) point
out that even customers have positive perception about each service dimension, but the
negative valence of the outcome can ultimately lead to an unfavorable service experience.
Financial risk means that customers may feel it’s not a good deal because of price unfairness.
In previous studies, researchers have argued that money savings is the primary motivation for
engaging in relational exchanges (Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner 1998; Peltier and Westfall
2000). If customers perceive it’s a worthwhile exchange, the acquisition utility of the
purchase would be improved (Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent 2000).
Table 1
Dimension of Risk
Definition
Functional risk
Product/service does not perform as expected.
Performance risk
Product/service does not meet standards of quality.
Financial risk
Product/service is not worth the financial price.
Physical risk
In the purchase or consumption process, customers
might get physical hurt.
Psychological risk
In the purchase or consumption process, customers
might get ego’s hurt or the emotional anxiety.
Social risk
In the purchase or consumption process, customers
might feel embarrassed or worry the negative
evaluation of family or friends.
383
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Customer Satisfaction
Satisfaction with the relationship is regarded as an important outcome of buyer-seller
interaction. We define satisfaction as the emotional state that occurs as a result of a customer’s
interactions with the firm over time (Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann 1994; Crosby, Evans,
and Cowles 1990). Two general conceptualizations of customer satisfaction exist in the
literature: transaction-specific satisfaction and cumulative satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor
1994; Shankar, Smith, and Rangaswamy 2003). While transaction-specific satisfaction may
provide specific diagnostic information about a particular product or service encounter,
cumulative satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction that accumulates across a series of transactions or
service encounters) is a more fundamental indicator of the firm’s past, current, and future
performance (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, and Murthy 2004). Therefore, we focus on cumulative
satisfaction in our investigation and, for simplicity, refer to cumulative satisfaction as
customer satisfaction in this study.
Customer Lifetime Value
Besides the long-standing interest in studying customer loyalty and retention (Anderson and
Sullivan 1993, Dick and Basu 1994), recently, marketers have broadened the scope of their
research by focusing on customer lifetime value (Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas 2001; Reinartz
and Kumar 2003), which is defined as the net present value of all earnings from an individual
customer (Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon 2000). The streams of earnings are derived from two
sources, customer retention and cross-buying. Cross-buying refers to the degree to which
customers purchase products or services from a set of related or unrelated categories of the
company (Reinartz and Kumar 2003). In order to fully recognize customer value or customer
profitability, companies must take into account all the provider-customer relationship, which
includes duration and the number of different products/services (Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas
2001; Reinartz and Kumar 2003, Reinartz, Thomas, and Kumar 2005). That is to say, the main
resources contributing to customer lifetime value are customers’ purchase intention toward
current services and new services. Although some researcher argue durable customers are
likely to spread positive word of mouth, which might increase customer lifetime value, then
leading to company profit (Reichheld and Teal 1996). But such an intangible asset is quite
difficult to be observed and predicted.
Propositions Development
Relationships of Risk Reduction and Satisfaction
Previous research indicates that whenever customers facing purchase or consumption
384
2010 現代經營管理研討會
uncertainty, they are likely to involve in some information searching behavior in order to
reduce the risks (Dowling and Staelin 1994; Srinivasan and Ratchford 1991). After reducing
the risks, customer’s perceptions of value are greater (Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson 1999;
Chen, Chang, and Chang 2005). The underlying rationale is that customers aim to maximize
the subjective utility they obtain from a particular supplier (Kotler 1994), hence, when they
perceive lower risks, meaning probability of future loss and cost is lower, then they are more
confident about what they get from the exchange. This argument is in line with Day and Crask
(2000); Huber and Herrmann’s (2000) proposition, who posit that risk reduction as one driver
to promoting customer evaluation, and we infer such positive evaluation would lead to higher
satisfaction.
Theoretically, customer’s perception about risk reduction can be considered a cognition-based
construct, whereas customer satisfaction is primarily an affective and evaluative response
(Oliver 1993). The social science literature indicates that cognitive thought processes trigger
affective responses (Weiner 1986), suggesting that customer risk-reducing judgments affect
their attitude of satisfaction. Therefore, we put following propositions:
P1: Customer perceiving the reduction of “functional risk” positively affects customer
satisfaction.
P2: Customer perceiving the reduction of “performance risk” positively affects customer
satisfaction.
P3: Customer perceiving the reduction of “financial risk” positively affects customer
satisfaction.
Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999) proposed that performance and financial risks are
interdependent, therefore, they combined these two types into one construct in evaluating the
effect of perceived risk on customer’s willingness to buy. Stone and Grongaug (1993) also
argue that there exists intercorrlations between the risk perception dimensions. We further
argue the causal link between performance risk and the other two risks, this is to say,
functional risk and financial risk playing the mediating roles in the relationship of
performance risk and satisfaction. Why is that? Customer’s perception about financial risk is
derived from comparison with reference price, which is affected by previous price and
competitor price (Collie, Bradley, and Sparks 2002; Maxwell 2002), but also affected by
outcome performance (Darke and Dahl 2003). When consumers perceive the service outcome
is not less than their expectation, this will lessen their negative feeling about the unworthy
feeling. It’s also believed that if customers are satisfied with the performance outcome of
financial services, then, customers might put less weight on the dysfunctional problem. The
rational is that performance risk involving large volume of monetary loss comparing to
functional and financial ones, hence, if managers in financial services industry can handle
385
2010 現代經營管理研討會
well performance risk, the positive valence of the outcome can ultimately lead to an favorable
service experience even customers have negative perception about other service dimension
(Brady and Cronin 2001). In sum, we infer the following propositions:
P4: Customer perceiving the reduction of “performance risk” positively affects the perception
of “functional risk” reduction.
P5: Customer perceiving the reduction of “performance risk” positively affects the perception
of “financial risk” reduction.
Relationships of Satisfaction and Customer Lifetime Value
Marketers typically assume that satisfied customers are more loyal, and this relationship has
been supported by many studies (Ganesan 1994; Hennig-Thurau and Klee 1997). A satisfied
customer’s affect toward a service provider could motivate the customer to patronize the
provider again. With cross-sectional research design, results show that satisfaction affects
customer retention (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Liang and
Wang 2006). As to the longitudinal data, some previous work also finds positive paths from
satisfaction to purchase intentions for current products/services (Bolton, Kannan, and
Bramlett 2000; Mittal and Kamakura 2001). Even more, this influence has been confirmed in
a meta-analysis (Szymanski and Henard 2001). The underlying rational for this link is that the
more utility customers get from current services, they are more satisfied, and then, they might
likely to purchase more for augmenting utility. Thus, we propose
P6: Customer satisfaction positively affects customer retention.
It’s quite intuitive to infer consumers’ prior purchase or consumption experience to their
purchase willingness toward new products/services, and many researchers agree with this
proposition (Anderson, Fornell, and Rust 1997). However, recent studies indicate that
inducing current customers to buy new products/services might require different strategies
than just retaining them (Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas 2001; Reinartz and Kumar 2003).
Researchers suggest that relationship maintenance and relationship development should be
considered as two separate dimensions of customer lifetime value. In line with this, Verhoef,
Franses, and Hoekstra (2001) and Verhoef’s (2003) empirical results from longitudinal data
also show that satisfaction with existing services does not definitely lead to the purchase of
new services, even from the same supplier. Thus, we don’t link customer’s satisfaction to
customer cross-buying.
Verhoef (2003) argue that satisfaction is retrospective evaluations of past interaction
386
2010 現代經營管理研討會
experience, while commitment is forward looking for future possible interaction. Following
this inference, he empirically demonstrated satisfaction doesn’t contribute to customer’s
cross-buying behavior, but commitment does. Consistent with this notion, Bendapudi and
Berry (1997) argue that customers who have a higher commitment are also likely to seek
greater relationship expansion and enhancement. And Garbarino and Johnson’s (1999) results
also show that customer satisfaction is likely to be effective for short-term relationship
whereas commitment is more effective for the long-term relationship. Combining the above
proposition, we argue that when customers show behavior loyalty toward current services,
they are not just merely satisfied, but the inherent commitment has emerged. That means,
successful relationship maintenance not only satisfies customers’ needs, but also arouses their
committed feeling, and the latter will spillover to cross-buying intention. Such argument is
also supported by brand extension studies. Volckner and Sattler (2006) show that when
customers feel trusted and committed toward parent brand, they will convince original
company’s willingness to provide great offer, even in a new field, thus, loyal customers are
more likely to purchase new goods and services.
Therefore, we propose:
P7: Customer retention positively affects customer cross-buying.
Relationships of Performance Risk and Customer Lifetime Value
Iacobucci (1992) categories financial investment as the credence service, which is difficult to
evaluate even after some trial has occurred. Because consumers are not confident of their
abilities to judge the goodness of credence service, Ostrom and Iacobucce (1995) suggest that
they might place less importance on price and greater importance on quality. More than this,
as the magnitude of the consequences of the service increases, consumers would put more
focus on quality than on other exchange dimension. Following this direction, we suggest that
reduction of performance risk is more qualified as the major customer value creator than the
other two risks, since most customers take principal guarantee as the major evaluation of
service quality, which is measured by the reduction of performance risk.
The discussion so far suggests that customer’s risk-reduction perception affects customer
satisfaction and customer satisfaction affects customer lifetime value. Theoretical justification
for the mediating role of satisfaction can be attributed to a well-investigated framework in
attitudinal literature (Edwards 1990). The framework is depicted as follows:
Cognition
Affect
Behavioral Intention
Applying this framework to our study, it can be identified customer perceived risk-reduction
387
2010 現代經營管理研討會
as the cognition variable, customer satisfaction as the affect variable, and customer loyalty
toward original services and new services as the behavioral intent. However, previous
research also suggests that cognition about a product/service may affect purchase behavior
directly (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol 2002; Brady, Knight, Cronin, Tomas, Hult, and
Keillor 2005). That means customers will show their behavioral loyalty toward service
provider as long as they receive superior value (Bolton and Drew 1991). Also, Brady, Knight,
Cronin, Tomas, Hult, and Keillor (2005) proposed a comprehensive service evaluation model,
which not only links customer evaluation to satisfaction, but also demonstrates the direct
relationship between customer evaluation and behavioral loyalty. Therefore, we argue that
reduction of performance risk might have the direct influence on customer lifetime value
besides through affecting customer satisfaction, then to customer behavioral loyalty.
P8: Customer perceiving the reduction of “performance risk” positively affects customer
retention.
P9: Customer perceiving the reduction of “performance risk” positively affects customer
cross-buying.
388
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Methodology
To address the above issues, a survey will be conducted to assess customers’
perceptions on risk reduction and behaviors toward customer lifetime value. Based on
previous studies, this study will develop items to measure the respondents’ perception of risk
reduction, customer satisfaction, customer retention, and customer cross-buying in the context
of financial services. To assure the reliability and validity of the instrument, some customers
with experience of financial services and managers who deal with financial transaction will be
consulted with the questionnaire to uncover potential problems with statements, instructions,
and format.
As to the data analysis, this study plans to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to test the adequacy of the measurement model and used LISREL 8.30 to analyze the
covariance matrix. Separate CFAs will be used for exogenous variables (perceptions of
functional, performance, and financial risk reduction) and endogenous variables (customer
satisfaction, customer retention, and customer cross-buying), and an overall CFA for all scales.
Then, the structural model will be evaluated in two stages. First, the reliability and validity of
the constructs for the total measurement model were assessed. Second, the overall fit of the
structural model and the structural parameters were examined to determine if the data
supported the proposed model and hypotheses.
A Rival Model
An emerging consensus is that researchers should compare rival models, not just test the
proposed model (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Bollen and Long 1992). What would be a rival model?
Given that our primary model posits that customer perceiving “performance risk” as the
major risk when evaluating financial services, and it not only directly influences customer
satisfaction, but also functional risk, financial risk, customer retention, and cross-buying.
Therefore, the alterative rival model would hypothesize the three types of risks enjoying the
same weight contributing to customer attitude and behavioral intention. See figure 2, there
allows no effect from performance risk on functional risk, financial risk, customer retention
and cross-buying, implying that risk reduction strategy only has indirect effect on customer
lifetime value.
389
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Figure 2
Rival Model
Reduction of
Functional
Risk
Reduction of
Performance
Risk
Customer
Customer
Customer
Customer
Satisfaction
Satisfactio
Retention
Cross-buying
n
Reduction of
Financial
Customer Lifetime Value
Risk
Risk Reduction Strategy
Conclusions
Understanding customer responses to risk reduction strategy in financial services settings is
important because financial service providers distributing investment instruments will require
the ability to form and sustain relationships that reduce consumers’ perception of risk. We
predict this study will demonstrate the link between risk reduction perception, customer
satisfaction, and customer lifetime value and, therefore, financial services institutions should
account for functional, performance, and financial risk reduction strategies as the key
attributes in improving customer satisfaction and loyalty. These aspects are crucial for
lengthening, deepening, and broadening customer-firm relationships.
Expertise is the key point to help customers reducing and effectively controlling performance
risk. This proposition is consistent with Crosby, Evans and Cowles’ (1990) argument, which
found the influence of salespersons’ professional judgment on long-term customer
relationship. And in Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, Evans’ (2006) meta-analysis, their result shows
that expertise and communication are the most effective relationship marketing strategies. We
further propose that not only in repeating purchase of the same category; but also in broader
purchasing among different categories, the expertise should understand the interrelationship
among those purchases and making integration to better satisfy customers’ need. Therefore,
we suggest selection and training of boundary spanners is quite critical. This notion supports
Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) premise that “skills and knowledge” are the most important seller
value-creation attributes.
390
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Customers now can through one channel to shop for many different financial services to
satisfy his/her needs, in a better way, to get more integrate financial planning from financial
advisers. Through such change, practitioners can create customers lifetime value in a more
effective and cost-saving way. Brady, Knight, Cronin, Tomas, Hult, and Keillor (2005)
propose that in the service industry, there is different degree of interaction between the service
provider and customers. Therefore, we argue that in the financial service industry, there exists
different degree of professional advices between different channels. In an on-line exchange
environment, customers require low-level interaction between customers and professional
advisers than through traditional channel. Therefore, the core perceived risk might need to
change to the cost-reduction dimension. Besides, pure stock broking services require
low-level interaction, but when advisory services taking the major part, the interaction level
will raise up. We argue that this situation is particularly expressive in cross-selling.
Combining the result of this study, professional judgment for integrating customers’ perceived
risk is truly the successful strategy for promoting customer lifetime value for the company.
References
Anderson, E., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share
and profitability: findings from Sweden”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp.
53-66.
Anderson, E., Fornell, C. and Rust, R. (1997), “Customer satisfaction, productivity, and
profitability: differences between goods and services”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No.
2, pp. 129-145.
Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 125-143.
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.
Bearden, W. O. and Shimp, T. A. (1982), “The use of extrinsic cues to facilitate product
adoption”, Journal of Marketing research, Vol. 19, pp.229-239.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L. (1997), “Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships
with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Blattberg, R., Getz, G. and Thomas, J. (2001), Customer Equity: Building and Managing
Relationships as Valuable Assets, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Bollen, K. and Long, J. S. (1992), “Tests for structural equation models: introduction”,
Sociology Methods Research, Vol. 21 pp, 123-131.
Bolton, R. N. and Drew, J. (1991), “A multistage model of customers’ assessments of
391
2010 現代經營管理研討會
service quality and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 875-884.
Bolton, R. N., Kannan, P. K. and Bramlett, M. D. (2000), “Implications for loyalty program
membership and service experiences for customer retention and value”, Journal of the
academy of marketing science, Vol. 28, pp. 95-108.
Bolton, R. N., Lemon, K. N. and Verhoef, P. C. (2004), “ The theoretical underpinnings of
customer asset management: a framework and propositions for future research”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-292.
Brady, M. K. and Cronin, J. J. (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
service quality: a hierarchical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 34-49.
Chen, T. Y., Chang, P. L. and Chang, H. S. (2005), “Price, brand cues, and banking customer
value”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 Nol.3, pp. 273-291.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81.
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 125-131.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling:
an interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 68-81.
Collie, T. Bradley, G. and Sparks, B. A. (2002), “Fair process revisited: differential effects of
interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information”,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 545-555.
Day, E. and Crask, M. R. (2000), “Value assessment: the antecedent of customer
satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 52-60.
Darke, P. R. and Dahl, D. W. (2003), “Fairness and discounts: the subjective value of a
bargain”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 328-338.
Dick, A. S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-114.
Dholakia, U. M. (1997), “An investigation of the relationship between perceived risk and
product involvement”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 159-167.
Dowling, G. R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived risk and intended
risk-handling activity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21(1), pp. 119-134.
392
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Dunn, M. G., Murphy, P. E. and Skelly, G. U. (1986), “The influence of perceived risk on
brand preference for supermarket products”, Journal of retailing, Vol. 62(2), pp.
204-216.
Edwards, K. (1990), “The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and
change”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust and
commitment in customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp.
70-87.
Greenleaf, E. A. and Lehmann, D. R. (1995), “Reasons for substantial delay in consumer
decision making”, Journal of consumer research, Vol. 22, pp. 186-199.
Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, Vol. 18 No.
4, pp. 36-44.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D. and Bitner, M. J. (1998), “Relational benefits in service
industries: the customer’s perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Havlena, W. J. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1990), “On the measurement of perceived consumer
risk”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 22 (4), pp. 927-939.
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Klee, A. (1997), “The impact of customer satisfaction and
relationship quality on customer retention: a critical reassessment and model
development”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 737-764.
Holbrook, M. B. (1994), “The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the
consumption experience”, in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
Roland Rust and Richard Oliver, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.
21-71.
Huber, F. and Herrmann, A. (2000), “The role of customer value in arriving at an
assessment of satisfaction: results of a causal analytic study”, in Spotts, H. E. and
Meadow, H. L., eds, Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 1, Academy of
Marketing Science, Coral Gables, FL, pp. 10-15.
Kamakura, W. A., Ramaswami, S. N. and Srivastava, R. K. (1991), “Applying latent trait
analysis in the evaluation of prospects for cross selling of financial services”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 329-349.
Kotler, P. (1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
393
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K. and Murthy, B. (2004), “Customer value,
satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business
service context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp.
293-311.
Liang, C. J. and Wang, W. H. (2006), “The behavioural sequence of the financial services
industry in Taiwan: service quality, relationship quality and behavioural loyalty”, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 119–145.
Maxwell, S. (2002), “Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase”,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 191-212.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W. A. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase
behavior: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 131-142.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. (1999), “Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions over time: a consumption-system approach”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 88-101.
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.
Murphy, P. E. and Enis, B. M. (1986), “Classifying products Strategically”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 24-42.
Murray, K. B. (1991), “A test of services marketing theory: consumer information
acquisition activities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 10-25.
Oliver, R. L. (1993), “A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction:
compatible goals, different concepts”, in Swartz, T. A., Bowen, D. E. and Brown, S. W.
(Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 65-85.
Ostrom, A. and Iacobucci, D. (1995), “Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 17-28.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D. D. and Evans, K. R. (2006), “Factors influencing
the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 70, pp. 136-153.
Peltier, J. W. and Westfall, J. (2000), “Dissecting the HMO-benefits managers relationship:
what to measure and why”, Marketing of Health Services, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 4-13.
Reichheld, F. F. and Teal, T. (1996) The loyalty effect, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
394
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Reinartz, W. J. and Kumar, V. (2003), “The impact of customer relationship characteristics
on profitable lifetime duration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 77-99.
Reinartz, W. J., Thomas, J. S. and Kumar, V. (2005), “Balancing acquisition and retention
resources to maximize customer profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp.
63-79.
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V., and Lemon, K. (2000) Driving customer equity: How customer
lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy, New York: The Free Press.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in
online and offline environments”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.
20 No. 2, pp. 153-175.
Slater, S. and Narver, J. C. (2000), “Intelligence generation and superior customer value”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, Winter, pp. 120-127.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. & Sabol, B. (2002) Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges, Journal of Marketing, 66(1), pp. 15-37.
Srinivasan, N. and Ratchford, B. T. (1991), “An empirical test of a model of external search
for automobiles”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18(2), pp. 233-242.
Stone, R. N. and Gronhaug, K. (1993), “Perceived risk: further considerations for the
marketing discipline”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27(3), pp. 39-50.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N. and Johnson, L. W. (1999), “The role of perceived risk in the
quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment”, Journal of Retail, Vol.
75(1), pp. 77-105.
Szymanski, D. and Henard, D. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.
16-35.
Tsiros, M. and Heilman, C. M. (2005), “The effect of expiration dates and perceived risk on
purchasing behavior in grocery store perishable categories”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
69, pp. 114-129.
Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 33-46.
Verhoef, P. C. (2003), “Understanding the effect of customer relationship management
efforts on customer retention and customer share development”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 67, pp. 30-45.
Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H. and Hoekstra, J. C. (2001), “ The impact of satisfaction and
payment equity on cross buying: a dynamic model for a multi-service provider”,
395
2010 現代經營管理研討會
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 359-378.
Volckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2006), “Drivers of brand extension success”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70, pp. 18-34.
Wangenheim, F. (2005), “Postswitching negative word of mouth”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 8(1), pp.67-78.
Weiner, B. (1986), An attribution theory of motivation and emotion, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Wulf, K. D., Odekerken-schroder, G., and Iacobucci, D. (2001) Investments in consumer
relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration, Journal of Marketing,
65(4), pp. 33-50.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.
396