Management Dynamics Volume 19 No.

1, 2010

25

The interrelationship between service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intention by customer stage in the service delivery process
Stephen G. Saunders
Monash University, Australia

Daniel J. Petzer*
University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to test the invariance of a theoretical model in order to examine the interrelationship between overall perceptions of service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions, based on the customer's stage in the service delivery process. The data were collected through a survey of 260 early stage and 264 late stage banking customers. In order to test invariance, a structural equation model (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimates of the model parameters was used. The results revealed that the SEM model was invariant across the two service delivery stages, meaning that the same theoretical model is valid for both service delivery stages. The findings provided support for the hypothesis that satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and behavioural intentions for both service delivery stages. _____________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Ever since Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) first published their research on measuring and managing service quality, the services-marketing literature has been dominated by research on developments, refinements and refutations of service quality measurement instruments. In the banking industry today, SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988) and its various adaptations and alternatives are used in hundreds of proprietary and published studies (for a comprehensive review, see Ladhari, 2008; Seth, Deshmukh and Vrat, 2005; Buttle, 1996). Most of this research has focused on the dimensions of service quality in order to better understand the processes underlying the perception of service quality.

Despite the numerous studies on measuring service quality, relatively little attention has been devoted to modelling the time dimension of service delivery and key service outcomes. It is only in the last ten years that the extant service literature has begun to focus on how service delivery in a particular time-period affects behavioural intentions such as customer recommendation and loyalty (Dagger and Sweeney, 2007; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Malhotra, 2005; Mittal, Kumar and Tsiros, 1999). Bolton and Lemon (1999) point out that many service encounters do not take place as a static once-off encounter, but rather unfold over a number of interactions between the customer and the service organisation over an extended period of time. In fact, Mittal et al. (1999) argue that many services that were once offered as a standalone service are now characterised by a significant service subsystem (consumption system) where consumption occurs over multiple time periods. Many services such as health care, education and banking involve the dynamic interaction of the customer and the service organisation over time, and are often continuously provided by the service organisation. In banking, for example, activating a credit card account requires a customer to engage in a series of encounters with the bank from the initial application, activating the account, to continually receiving and paying credit card statements. Bolton (1998) analysed the customers' rating of a service organisation at various stages of the relationship. Bolton's results indicated that a customer's ratings of the service provider obtained prior to a decision to cancel or stay loyal to the service organisation were positively related to the length of the relationship. This conclusion led both Bolton and Lemon (1999) and Rust et al. (1999) to argue that understanding the dynamics of customers' perceptions of

26

service quality over time are critical for these types of services to better develop customer retention and relationship management strategies. So, while some authors on service quality such as Ziethaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996) and Zeithaml (2000) emphasised the importance of service quality as a driver of positive behavioural intentions, other authors such as Rust et al. (1999) and Mittal et al. (1999) emphasised the importance of the dynamics of how service perceptions change and adapt during the service encounter, and the impact of these changes on customer retention (Narayandas, 1998) and profitability (Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml, 2004; Rust, Moorman and Dickson, 2002), and ultimately on the building of long-term relationships with customers (Rust and Chung, 2006) and Customer Lifetime Value (Venkatesan and Kumar, 2004). As Vargo and Lusch (2004) suggest, the common denominator in most definitions of service is that it is a process that occurs over a period of time. Despite this common denominator, Dagger and Sweeney (2007) argue that the impact of the customers' stage in the service process has not been well examined in the services marketing literature. To address this gap in the literature, Dagger and Sweeney (2007) have developed a multidimensional scale for measuring the relationships between service quality and key service outcomes (i.e. service satisfaction and behavioural intentions) based on a customer's stage in the service process. The objective of the present study is twofold. Firstly, from a modelling perspective, an empirical model of service quality is tested to consider whether key service outcomes (i.e. service satisfaction and behavioural intentions) have the same underlying structure (equivalence) for two distinct stages in the service process (i.e. early stage and late stage customers). The approach used to address this question of equivalence will be a multi-group test of invariance (Byrne, 2004). If it emerges that the model is identical across the two stages (i.e. multi-group construct validity is confirmed), the second objective will then be to apply the scale to the banking industry - to examine the interrelationship between overall perceptions of service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions, based on a customer's stage in the service process. Thirdly, the various constructs will be assessed for mean differences between the two stages. The study will conclude by providing recommendations and directions for future research. THE MEASURING OF SERVICE QUALITY Since the mid-1980s the predominant focus of service quality research has been on developing valid and reliable (often generic) scales for measuring service quality (see Ladhari, 2008; Morrison-Coulthard, 2004; Buttle, 1996 for a comprehensive review). While these scales, particularly SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988), have been criticised for conceptual and operational limitations, they remain popular instruments for measuring the quality of the service encounter in the

banking industry (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993; Babakus and Boller, 1992). Other than SERVQUAL, service quality measures such as BANKSERV (Bahia and Nantel, 2000) have been specifically developed and tailored for the banking industry. More recently, multidimensional scales for measuring service quality have been given considerably more attention in the extant literature (Dagger and Sweeney, 2007; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Bolton and Lemon, 1999). The value of these scales lies in their ability to predict important service outcomes such as service satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe, 2000; Brady and Robertson, 2001). While a number of multidimensional studies have focused on the effect of various service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction over time (Slotegraaf and Inman, 2004; Mittal, Katrichis and Kumar, 2001; Mittal et al., 1999; Mittal, Katrichis, Forkin and Konkel, 1994), these studies have not done the exploration from a service stage (or consumption stage) perspective. For example Mittal et al. (2001) focused on the weightings of service quality dimensions over a period of credit card ownership, rather than comparing the weightings of service quality dimensions during the initial acquisition process with those during the later stages of ownership. Similarly, some of these types of studies tended to focus on the variability of service quality on service outcomes such as loyalty or retention (Bolton, Lemon and Bramlett, 2006; BendallLyon and Powers, 2001). Recently Dagger and Sweeney (2007) have developed a model for measuring service quality that takes into account the dynamic nature (i.e. consumption stage) of service delivery. Their validated model consisted of dimensions adapted from Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), Brady and Cronin (2001) and the researchers' own qualitative study in 2007. The overall consumer perceptions of service quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988), service satisfaction (Oliver, 1997) and behavioural intentions scales (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996) were all derived from previous studies. Using cohort analysis within ongoing health care services, their results indicated that customers who were in different stages of the service encounter attributed different weights to the various service quality dimensions. For instance, customers in the novice stages of the service encounter (i.e. early stage customers), placed significantly more importance on tangible dimensions (i.e. furniture, decoration and lighting) of the service quality encounter than did customers in later stages of the service encounter (i.e. late stage customers), while later stage customers placed significantly more importance on staff expertise (i.e., well-trained and qualified) during the service encounter. Furthermore, Dagger and Sweeney (2007) found that the interrelationship between overall service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions differed between early stage and late stage customers.

27

The interrelationship between service quality, service satisfaction and the behavioural intentions of the customer has received considerable attention in the literature (see Cronin, Brady and Hult, 2000). One of the areas of debate is whether service quality directly influences consumers' behavioural intentions or if customer satisfaction acts as a mediator between service quality and consumers' behavioural intentions. Dagger and Sweeney's (2007) results provided further support that satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and behavioural intentions (Brady and Robertson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). For the two cohorts in Dagger and Sweeney's study - novice stage and later stage customers - it was found that the relationship between these constructs varied. While service quality was found to be a salient driver of service satisfaction for both novice stage and later stage customers, the direct impact of service quality on behavioural intentions was significantly less for late stage customers. On the contrary, the impact of service satisfaction on behavioural intentions was significantly greater for late stage customers. These findings seem to be consistent with Oliver's (1997) study that conceptualises satisfaction as a cognitive and emotional process that ultimately leads to behavioural intentions. As emotions are derived from longer-term experience with a service (Oliver, 1997; Dabholkar, 1993), satisfaction should play a greater role in developing behavioural intentions for late stage customers. What is remarkable about Dagger and Sweeney's findings is that although the two cohorts differed significantly on the dimension weightings and the interrelationships between the constructs, the overall levels (i.e. mean overall service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intention scores) did not differ between the two cohorts. These findings imply that the intensity of a customer's view may not change even though the associations between the service quality dimensions and the associations between service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions have changed significantly. The implication of this finding is that service encounters cannot be treated as static phenomena, and that those customers in different stages of the service encounter will place different emphasis on the various service quality dimensions as the service encounter unfolds. Stemming from these implications, it would be advantageous to test whether these findings hold in a different industry (e.g, banking industry) and different stages (i.e. early stage, late stage) in the service process. HYPOTHESES From the discussion above the following hypotheses are posited: H1: All 21 items of the service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions model have equivalent item-factor loadings on their corresponding first-order latent factors (i.e. invariant) across the two stages in the service process (i.e. early stage, late stage)

H2: The three first-order latent factors have equivalent regression weights on the second-order service quality factor across the two stages in the service process (i.e. early stage, late stage) Hypotheses 1 and 2 are formulated to assess measurement equivalence across the two cohorts. According to Hair et al. (2006), measurement equivalence is a necessary condition to be able to compare relationships between constructs. Although the objective is not to compare structural weights across the cohorts, one has to assess measurement equivalence to address Hypotheses 3 and 4. H3: Service quality has a significant positive effect on satisfaction for both early stage and late stage banking customers H4: Satisfaction has a significant positive effect on behavioural intentions for both early stage and late stage banking customers H5: There is no significant mean difference in the construct scores between early stage and late stage customers RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sampling The population under study is early and late stage banking customers in the physical (bricks and mortar) retail banking environment (rather than an online environment) in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. As the objective of the study was to model overall perceptions of service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions, based on customers' stage in the service process (i.e. early stage, late stage), cross-sectional analysis for two distinct cohorts was used. Early stage was defined as banking customers who had held bank accounts for less than three years, while late stage was defined as banking customers who had held bank accounts for more than five years. Data collection A total of 679 questionnaires were distributed. However, because of missing data on some questionnaires, only 524 questionnaires were considered valid and used in the structural equation models (260 early stage customers and 264 late stage customers). Data were collected from consumers at their residences by means of personal interviews by trained fieldworkers during a two-week period in April 2008. A screening question was included on the questionnaire to ensure that respondents taking part in the study indeed held a personal bank account. Quota sampling was furthermore employed to select respondents representing both cohorts on which the study focused (early stage and late stage customers). A chi-square test revealed that the samples did not differ significantly on the customer stage and various bank usage features of the respondents (Bank type: 2 = 6.76, df = 6, = 0.34; Bank visits: 2 = 5.23, df = 7, = 0.63).

28

Measurement instrument The theoretical behavioural model to be tested is presented in Figure 1. The research measures were adapted from previously validated scales and adapted to the banking environment (Dagger and Sweeney, 2007; Brady and Robertson, 2001; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988). The measurement of service quality consisted of Dagger and Sweeney's (2007) interaction, tangibles, and outcome service quality dimensions measured by 15 items (see Appendix 1). As Daggers and Sweeney's original scale included dimensions that were specific to their research context (i.e. health services) it was deemed appropriate to drop these items as they were not applicable to the banking industry. The service satisfaction and behavioural intentions constructs consisted of three items each (the instrument questions are presented in Appendix 1). The measurement scale was a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7). The questionnaire was pre-tested. The results of the pretest showed that two items from the original tangible scale were not transferable to the banking context and so it was deemed appropriate to drop these two items (i.e. colour and lighting). No other changes were made to the questionnaire.

Statistical procedures To evaluate Hypotheses 1- 4, the theoretical model was tested in AMOS 6.0 using structural equation modelling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimates of the model parameters. Byrne's (2004) and Doll, Xiaodong, Raghunathan, Torkzadeh and Xia's (2004) general procedure for testing equivalence was followed. Preliminary analyses included testing for scale reliability. To evaluate Hypothesis 5, an independent samples t-test was conducted. A popular diagnostic measure of scale reliability Cronbach's alpha coefficient - was used to test the reliability of the constructs. For the constructs to be reliable, Hair et al. (2006) believe that the generally agreed lower limit for Cronbach's alpha coefficient is 0.70. All of the constructs for the two separate cohorts (c1= early stage customers, c2= late stage customers) displayed good levels of inter-item reliability: Interaction (c1=0.92; c2=0.92), Tangibles (c1=0.92; c2=0.94), Outcome (c 1 =.92; c 2 =0.93), Service Satisfaction (coefficient alpha: c1=0.95; c2=0.93), and Behavioural Intention (coefficient alpha: c1=0.95; c2=0.95).

FIGURE 1 THEORETICAL BEHAVIOURAL MODEL

Interaction

Tangibles

Service quality

H3

Service satisfaction

H4

Behavioural intention

Outcome Early stage Late stage

TABLE 1 CFA MODEL FIT INDICES

Fit indices 2 df 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA Overall sample (n = 524) 469.44 183.00 2.57 0.973 0.969 0.055 Early stage cohort (n = 260) 415.05 183.00 2.27 0.957 0.951 0.070 Late stage cohort (n = 264) 343.72 183.00 1.88 0.970 0.965 0.058

29

TABLE 2 MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE ANALYSIS

Model number 1 2 3 Model description Unconstrained Measurement weights constrained Measurement and structural weights constrained 2 758.776 779.882 780.209 df 366 382 384 1-2 3-2 21.056 .386 176 2 >.05 >.05 Model comparison 2 df Sig.

RESULTS The assessment of measurement invariance was preceded by an assessment of the properties of the measurement scales by means of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Several indices (and their respective cut-offs) were also used to evaluate the SEMs, including goodness-of-fit chisquare value, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI) and comparative fit index (CFI). For RMSEA, cut-off values of <0.05 indicate good fit, 0.06-0.08 indicate reasonable fit and >0.08 indicate poor fit. For IFI and CFI, cut-off values of >0.95 indicated good fit (Schreiber, 2008). The results of the CFA showed reasonable fit between the measurement scales and the data of the total sample. The data for each cohort also fitted the measurement model reasonably well (see Table 1). To identify any problems with the model-fit, the discriminant validity of the model was examined. While the constructs did show significant correlations, the lack of cross-loadings and the good model-fit provided some evidence that the constructs were valid. Peter (1981) has claimed that attitudinal constructs usually have accepted correlations between the scales. To assess measurement invariance the method used by Doll et al. (2004) was used. To assess the invariance of the measurement weights of the first-order factors Doll et al. (2004) compared the baseline model (unconstrained model) with a model in which the measurement weights of the first-order factors were constrained equal. A nonsignificant 2 test would indicate that the measurement weights are invariant across the cohorts. To assess invariance in the structural weights of the second-order factor the structural weights and the measurement weights are constrained equal and compared with the model in which only the measurement weights are constrained. As previously, a non-significant 2 test would indicate that the structural weights are invariant across the cohorts. The results in Table 2 indicate that measurement invariance was confirmed across the two cohorts. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 cannot be rejected. The standardised regression weights for the Model 1 multigroup SEM are shown in Table 3. As already stated, the standardised regression weights indicated that all three first-order factors (i.e. interaction, tangibles, outcome) had equivalent regression weights on the second-order service quality factor across the two stages in the service process (i.e. early stage, late stage). For the interaction factor, the

regression weights were 0.84 (early stage) and 0.86 (late stage) respectively; for the tangibles factor the regression weights were 0.57 (early stage) and 0.62 (late stage); and the outcome factor the regression weights were 0.86 (early stage) and 0.88 (late stage). The outcome factor (c1: = 0.86; c2: = 0.88) seemed to have the greatest influence on service quality for both early stage and late stage customers; while tangibles (c1: = 0.57; c2: = 0.62) seemed to have the smallest influence on service quality for both early stage and late stage customers. At the main dimension level, the structural parameters indicated that service quality (c1: t = 185.07; c2: t = 14.59) had a significant positive effect (p < 0.05) on satisfaction for both early stage and late stage customers. Further analysis indicated that the effect was strong for the service quality-satisfaction effect (c1: = 0.90; c2: = 0.90) for both early stage and late stage customers. Therefore Hypothesis 3 cannot be rejected. Similarly, satisfaction (c1: t = 21.10; c2: t = 20.32) had a significant positive effect (p < 0.05) on behavioural intentions for both early stage and late stage customers. Further analyses indicated that the effect was strong for the satisfaction-behavioural intention (c 1 : = 0.92; c2: = 0.93) effect for both early stage and late stage customers. Therefore Hypothesis 4 cannot be rejected. This means that service quality had a very strong indirect effect (through satisfaction) on behavioural intentions. The results therefore confirmed that satisfaction was enhanced by higher perceptions of service quality, which is consistent with the quality-satisfaction-behavioural intentions models (Brady and Robertson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992) that conceptually guided this study. Nevertheless, while this study provides further support for the contention that satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and behavioural intentions, it does not find much support that the impact of satisfaction on behavioural intentions is significantly greater for late stage customers. In other words, the satisfaction-behavioural intention standardised regression weights for long term customers were the same as for early stage, so it cannot be concluded that satisfaction would play a greater role in developing behavioural intentions for late stage customers.

30

TABLE 3 STANDARDISED REGRESSION WEIGHTS

Early stage customers (c1) weight a Interaction service quality Tangibles service quality Outcome service quality Service quality satisfaction Satisfaction behaviourial intentions
a Regression b p < 0.001

Late stage customers (c2) Sig. 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b weight 0.86 0.62 0.88 0.90 0.93 t-value 12.31 9.21 13.92 14.59 20.32 Sig. 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b 0.000b

t-value 12.27 8.35 13.12 15.07 21.10

0.84 0.57 0.86 0.90 0.92

weights are standardised estimates

TABLE 4 INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

Late stage Early stage Tangibles Outcome Service quality Satisfaction Behavioural intention Late stage Early stage Late stage Early stage Late stage Early stage Late stage Early stage Late stage Early stage n 260 264 260 264 260 264 260 264 260 264 260 264 Mean 4.51 4.34 4.82 4.95 4.63 4.45 4.66 4.58 4.81 4.70 4.99 4.78 S.D. 1.26 1.41 1.22 1.26 1.22 1.27 1.03 1.11 1.37 1.32 1.54 1.62 1.611 522 0.108 1.631 0.808 0.942 522 522 522 0.103 0.419 0.347 1.158 522 0.248 t-value 1.492 df 522 Sig. 0.136

Interaction

Finally, since measurement invariance (Hypotheses 1 and 2) has been confirmed for both service stages, it is possible to test for mean differences in the construct scores (Hypothesis 5), namely the hypothesis that there is no mean difference in the first-order service quality construct scores (i.e., interaction, tangibles, outcome) and the higher order construct scores (i.e. overall service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intention) between early stage and late stage customers. The tests were conducted by using an independent samples t-test. The results shown in Table 4 support Hypothesis 5 (p < 0.05) that there is no mean difference in all three first-order service quality construct scores and the two higher-order construct scores between early stage and late stage customers. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study make a number of theoretical and practical contributions. First, from a modelling perspective, the study highlights the importance of testing for multi-group invariance (which Byrne [2004] argues has been largely ignored by researchers) to determine if a

hypothesised model is identically specified across groups. If equivalence is not found between the groups, it will then be necessary to develop separate theoretical models for each group. In this study it was found that the two groups were in fact invariant, meaning that the same theoretical model is valid for different stages in the service process. Furthermore, the results presented above confirmed that the quality-satisfaction-behavioural intentions model (Brady and Robertson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992) is a very useful conceptualisation for both stages in the service process. While this study provides further support for the contention that satisfaction mediates the relationship between service quality and behavioural intentions, it does not find much support for the relationship differing between stages in the service process. The implication of this finding is that the service quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988), service satisfaction (Oliver, 1997) and behavioural intentions scales (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996) that are widely used in service studies are equally valid across all the service stages in the banking environment.

31

The findings confirm that customers evaluate service quality at a sub-dimensional level and construct level, and that service quality drives satisfaction which in turn drives behavioural intentions (Dagger et al., 2007; Brady and Robertson, 2001; Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The hypothesis that service quality has a significant positive effect on satisfaction was supported for both early stage and late stage banking customers. Similarly the hypothesis that satisfaction has a significant positive effect on behavioural intentions was supported for both early stage and late stage banking customers. While Dagger and Sweeney (2007), Oliver (1997) and Dabholkar (1993) would claim that satisfaction would play a greater role in developing behavioural intentions for late stage customers, the results of this study suggest that satisfaction is the only driver of behavioural intentions for both early stage and late stage customers, and that service quality is not a direct driver of behavioural intentions. Finally, the findings showed that the mean factor scores for the first-order service quality scale were not significantly different for the early stage and late stage customers. This finding concurs with Dagger and Sweeney's (2007) finding that (in general) customers in different stages of the service process do not change the intensity of their perceptions. Of the three first-order factors of service quality, it was found that outcomes had the highest weightings, while tangibles had the lowest weightings for both early stage and late stage customers. These findings provide for a better understanding of the weightings that customers place on the various dimensions of service quality at different stages in the service process. While this study found that the weightings were not significantly different between early stage and late stage customers, it is conceivable that differently defined service stages could produce different weightings. Therefore it is important to always test all factor loadings for invariance prior to testing for mean differences in overall scores. While a major limitation of this study is that only two service stages were defined, it would be important for marketers to determine if more subtle distinct stages exist. As Dagger and Sweeney (2007) contend, the most useful outcome of modelling this dynamic relationship is for managers to include the customer's stage in the service process into their customer segmentation decisionmaking. For example, service employees would need to know how to adapt the service script (Bitner, 1992) to where the customer is in the service process. At a time when Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is a popular tool amongst marketing managers to retain the right customer, understanding how the service process influences customers' perceptions would mean that it is important to know the right time to manage the customer relationship (Venkatesan and Kumar, 2004).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE RESEARCH This research study has a number of limitations that could be addressed through further research. The research focused on retail banking customers who received service in a physical (bricks and mortar) banking environment. As banking services are increasingly moving to an online environment, it would be important to further validate the findings in an e-banking environment. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Malhotra (2005) have developed a reliable multidimensional scale for measuring electronic service quality (E-S-QUAL). A useful extension of this study would be to adapt the E-S-QUAL scale for online banking and to confirm the relationship between E-S-QUAL, satisfaction and online behavioural intentions across the service process. This type of research could also provide further insight into the lower weightings of the tangible dimension of service quality for both early and late customers. A major limitation of this research study is that it defined only two service stages. Further research is needed to better refine the stages and to explore the number of possible distinct stages in the service process. Identifying more than two distinct stages in the service process could allow for richer insight into the dynamics of the service quality attributes across the service stages. A worthwhile area of research relating to service stages would be to select a specific banking service or process that has a clearly defined number of interactions with the customer. Another related limitation of the research study is that the research design was cross-sectional. Future research could model the dynamics of service quality attributes over time, using a longitudinal research design so as to eliminate any interpersonal bias in the results. Nevertheless, a longitudinal design could introduce a number of disadvantages to the research design, such as the need to control for exogenous service factors that could include any major shift in the service process (i.e. online banking, mobile phone banking). In order to maintain parsimony the length of the survey restricted the number of items for each of the main dimensions. This was particularly the case with the behavioural intentions dimension as it was restricted to generic items of recommendation and loyalty. According to Zeithaml et al. (1996), there are also other behavioural intentions that could be included, such as increased spending with the organisation and paying premium prices for the service. Further studies could improve the measurement scale by potentially including items relating to spending and pricing. The inclusion of these additional items might improve the inherent reliability and validity of the measurement model. Finally, further research could consider measuring actual consumer behaviour rather than behaviour intentions.

32

REFERENCES Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 53-66. Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. 1993. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2): 125-143. Babakus, E. and Boller, W.G. 1992. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research, 24(May): 253-268. Bahia, K. and Nantel, J. 2000. A reliable and valid measurement scale for perceived service quality of banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(2): 84-91. Bendall-Lyon, D. and Powers, T.L. 2003. The influence of mass communication and time on satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing , 17(3): 589-608. Bitner, M.J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(April): 57-71. Bolton, R.N. 1998. A dynamic model of the duration of the customers' relationship with a continuous service provider. Marketing Science, 17(1): 45-65. Bolton, R.N. and Lemon, K.N. 1999. A dynamic model of customers' usage of services: usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(May): 171-86. Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Bramlett, M.D. 2006. The effect of service experiences over time on a supplier's retention of business customers. Management Science, 52(12): 1811-1823. Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualising perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3): 34-49. Brady, M.K. and Robertson, C.J. 2001. Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction: An exploratory cross-national study. Journal of Business Research, 51: 53-60. Byrne, B.M. 2004. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2): 272-300. Buttle, F. 1996. SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1): 8-32. Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. 1992. Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 55-68. Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T. 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2): 193-218.

Dabholkar, P.A. 1993. Customer satisfaction and service quality: Two constructs or one in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Cravens, D.W. and Dickson, P. (Eds.). American Marketing Association, Chicago, 4: 10-18. Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, D.C., and Thorpe, D.I. 2000. A comprehensive framework for service quality: An investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 72(2): 139-73. Dagger, T.S. and Sweeney, J. S. 2007. Service quality attribute weights: How do short-term and longer-term customers construct service quality perceptions? Journal of Service Research, 10(1): 22-42. Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.S. and Johnson, L.W. 2007. A hierarchical model of health service quality: Scale development and investigation of an integrated model. Journal of Service Research, 10(2): 123-142. Doll, W.J., Xiaodong, D., Raghunathan, T.S., Torkzadeh, G. and Xia, W. 2004. The meaning and measurement of user satisfaction: A multigroup invariance analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1): 227-262. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham R.L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ladhari, R. 2008. Alternative measures of service quality: Areview. Managing Service Quality, 18(1): 65-86. Mittal, V., Katrichis, J.M. and Kumar, P. 2001. Attribute performance and customer satisfaction over time: Evidence from two field studies. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(5): 343-56. Mittal, V., Katrichis, J.M., Forking, F. and Konkel, M. 1994. Does satisfaction with multi-attribute products vary over time? A performance based approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 21: 412-17. Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. 1999. Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: A consumption-system approach. Journal of Marketing, 63(April): 88-101. Morrison-Coulthard, L.J. 2004. Measuring service quality: A review and critique of research using SERVQUAL. International Journal of Market Research, 46(4): 479-497. Narayandas, D. 1998. Measuring and managing the benefits of customer retention: An empirical investigation. Journal of Service Research , 1(2): 108-128. Oliver, R.L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall): 41-50.

33

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1): 12-40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. 2005. E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3): 213-233. Peter, J. 1981. Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Market Research, 18(May): 133-145. Rentz, J.O., Reynolds, F.D. and Stout, R.G. 1983. Analyzing changing consumption patterns with cohort analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(February): 12-21. Rust, R.T. and Chung, T.S. 2006. Marketing models of service and relationships. Marketing Science, 25(6): 560-580. Rust, R.T., Moorman, C. and Dickson, P.R. 2002. Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both? Journal of Marketing, 66(4): 7-24. Rust, R.T., Inman, J.J., Jia, J. and Zahorik, A.J. 1999. What you don't know about customer-perceived quality: The role of customer expectation distributions. Marketing Science, 18(1): 77-92. Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. 2004. Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing , 68(1): 109-127. Schreiber, J.B. 2008. Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4: 83-97. Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vrat, P. 2005. Service quality models: A review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(9): 913-949. Slotegraaf, R.J. and Inman, J. 2004. Longitudinal shifts in the drivers of satisfaction with product quality: The role of attribute resolvability. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(August): 269-80. Teas, R.K. 1993. Expectations, performance evaluation and consumers' perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57(4): 18-34. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. 2004. The four service marketing myths: Remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4): 324-335.

Venkatesan, R. and Kumar, V. 2004. A customer lifetime value framework for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. Journal of Marketing , 68(October): 106-125. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman, A. 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(April): 31-46. Zeithaml, V.A. 2000. Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1): 67-85.

To whom all correspondence should be addressed: Prof Daniel J. Petzer, Department of Marketing Management, University of Johannesburg, dpetzer@uj.ac.za ** The assistance of Mr Jacques Nel of the University of the Free State in analysing the data of this research study is gratefully acknowledged

34

APPENDIX 1
Dimensions and construct scales Interaction (coefficient alpha: C1 = 0.92; C2 =0.92) The bank's staff treat me as an individual and not just as a number I feel that the staff at the bank understand my needs The staff at the bank are concerned about my well-being (financial and/or personal) I always get personalized attention from the staff at the bank I find it easy to discuss matters with staff at the bank Tangibles (coefficient alpha: C1 = 0.92; C2 =0.94) The furniture at the bank is comfortable (e.g. chairs, counters and booths) I like the layout of the bank The bank looks attractive I like the interior decoration at the bank The design of the bank is customer friendly Outcome (coefficient alpha: C1 = 0.92; C2 =0.93) I feel confident about the service given to me at the bank Banking with this bank has increased my chances of improving my financial wellbeing I believe my future financial wellbeing will improve as a result of banking with this bank I believe banking at this bank has been worthwhile I leave the bank feeling encouraged about the service being given at this bank Service satisfaction scale (coefficient alpha: C1 = 0.95; C2 = 0.93) My feelings about the bank are very positive I feel good about banking at this bank I feel satisfied that the results from banking with this bank is the best that can be achieved Behavioural intention scale (coefficient alpha: C1 = 0.95; C2 = 0.95) If I had to choose a bank all over again, I would choose this bank I would highly recommend the bank to other people I intend to continue banking at this bank and will make use of any other services and products I need at this bank

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.