Management Research ReviewThe paths from service quality dimensions to customer loyalty: An application onsupermarket customersOlgun Kitapci Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol Zhrem Yaman Mustafa Gulmez

Article information:To cite this document:Olgun Kitapci Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol Zhrem Yaman Mustafa Gulmez, (2013),"The paths from servicequality dimensions to customer loyalty", Management Research Review, Vol. 36 Iss 3 pp. 239 - 255Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171311306391

Downloaded on: 17 March 2015, At: 07:55 (PT)References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2333 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Martin Fraering, Michael S. Minor, (2013),"Beyond loyalty: customer satisfaction, loyalty, and fortitude",Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 334-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330807Emel Kursunluoglu, (2014),"Shopping centre customer service: creating customer satisfaction andloyalty", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32 Iss 4 pp. 528-548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2012-0134Wei-Ming Ou, Chia-Mei Shih, Chin-Yuan Chen, Kuo-Chang Wang, (2011),"Relationships among customerloyalty programs, service quality, relationship quality and loyalty: An empirical study", Chinese ManagementStudies, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 194-206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506141111142825

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 434496 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

The paths from service qualitydimensions to customer loyaltyAn application on supermarket customers

Olgun KitapciDepartment of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Ibrahim Taylan DortyolDepartment of Business, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey

Zuhrem YamanDepartment of Health Management, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey, and

Mustafa GulmezDepartment of Tourism, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study is to determine the paths between the five SERVQUAL dimensions,customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.

Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a sample of 505 supermarket customersin Turkey who have completed a self-administered questionnaire. The paper uses means, such asstandard deviation and multiple regression analysis, to analyze and propose the conceptual model onsupermarket management.

Findings The paper concludes that empathy, tangibility, responsiveness, and assurance are factorsthat are positively related to customer satisfaction, which in turn is positively related to customerloyalty.

Originality/value The paper provides certain suggestions to supermarket managers regarding theterms of service quality dimensions, satisfaction, and loyalty.

Keywords Service quality dimensions, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Supermarkets, Turkey

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe importance of the service sector in the global economy is rapidly increasing.Services are estimated to constitute nearly 75 and 80 percent of the value of the USeconomy (Laroche et al., 2004). The supermarket sector, which was a growing sector inthe USA in the 1920s, emerged in Turkey in 1954 with Migros and Gima (the mostpopular supermarkets in Turkey) and became widespread between the dates 1960 and1970. By the year 2000, a significant increase in the numbers of the supermarkets, andespecially hypermarkets, was clearly evident. In 2001, there were 435 supermarkets inTurkey. By 2003, that figure reached 968 and in 2005 soared to 1,872. It has beendeclared that the estimations for 2012 are that there will be 2,840 supermarkets inTurkey (http://arsiv.sabah.com.tr).

The sector in question, which has risen to become a locomotive industry in Turkeyseconomy, with both its growth and employment figures, continued to perform in thefirst nine months of 2011. According to the employment index of Kariyer.net, one of the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Management Research ReviewVol. 36 No. 3, 2013

pp. 239-255q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

2040-8269DOI 10.1108/01409171311306391

The paths tocustomer loyalty

239

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

largest human resources platforms, in the first nine months of the year, there was anincrease of 45 percent in employment figures from the supermarket sector (www.haberler.gen.al).

Prior to providing the literature review, which is related to the factors of the presentstudy, it will be helpful to provide information on the service structure of the Turkishsupermarket in order to avoid concerns regarding the effects of service levels on theconsumer perceived service quality. Accordingly, in Turkish supermarkets, the serviceencounter process is still an important tool for supermarkets to differentiate themselvesfrom competitors. In supermarkets where homogenous products are sold in general,specific factors such as store atmosphere, providing sufficient and dependable service,accessibility, courteousness, suave, and sophisticated employees who are willing to helpthe consumer, directly affect the consumers service quality perceptions. Therefore,improving customer satisfaction and delivering better quality service than competitorshelps service providers to differentiate their offerings (Jamal and Anastasiadou, 2007).

It is well known that service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty arebecoming the most important factors of successful business competition for serviceproviders (Rust et al., 1995; Zeithaml, 1996). The nature of the relationship betweenservice quality and customer satisfaction has always been an attractive field ofstudy (Tam, 2004). Quality and satisfaction, along with value, were propounded asservice-oriented constructs which should be investigated to understand the dynamicsof loyalty based on behaviors such as repurchase and word-of-mouth (WOM) referrals(Hutchinson et al., 2009). Therefore, as the development of service quality has beenidentified as a key strategy to increase the level of customer satisfaction and intentionto revisit, providing quality service for customers poses great importance for bothretention and customer satisfaction (Lee et al., 2011), which is described as a preconditionfor customer loyalty (Tam, 2004). As a result, service managers and researchers havedirected their efforts towards understanding the customers perceptions of servicequality, and towards the manner in which these perceptions are reflected on customersatisfaction and behavioral intentions (Olorunniwo et al., 2006).

It is very difficult, however, to find studies related to service quality dimensions andtheir effects on customer satisfaction and its customer satisfaction on the factors ofcustomer loyalty such as positive word-of-mouth (p-WOM) and repurchase intention inthe supermarket sector. As Jamal and Anastasiadou (2007, p. 398) stated, despite asignificant interest in service quality and its dimensions, very little research hasinvestigated the effects of specific dimensions of service quality on satisfaction andloyalty. In conclusion, the purpose of our study is to investigate the path of servicequality! customer satisfaction! customer loyalty. We find this study particularlyto be interesting because there have been no such studies conducted in Turkey,concerning customer loyalty for supermarkets.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: following a brief presentation ofthe perceived service quality, satisfaction and loyalty, the research hypotheses areproposed and the research methodology is detailed. The analysis of the collected dataand the testing of the hypotheses are complemented by a discussion of the main resultsin relation to the complementing literature. The article ends with a revision of the mainfindings and limitations of this study, and also includes suggestions for futureresearch.

MRR36,3

240

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Literature reviews and hypotheses developmentPerceived service qualityUntil the mid-1980s, the majority of studies on product quality focused on the physicalaspect of product quality. From that date on however, studies have begun to considerthe distinguishing features of services, which have since formed the basis for revisingthe quality definition for services (Soteriou and Chase, 1998).

Defining the concept of quality is the most important criteria in the economicdevelopment of international companies, whereas under different circumstances it hasprevented the emergence of a universal definition (Reeves and Bednar, 1994). In addition,it is difficult to define service quality as opposed to the quality of goods. The generaldefinition of quality is satisfying customers requirements (Ghobadian et al., 1994).

Service quality, as an output of the service encountering process, is defined as thelevel of service offered to meet customer expectations (Duffy et al., 1997). Accordingly,the concept of service quality emerged as the result of the interaction betweenconsumer and service provider (Leisen and Vance, 2001).

The definition of service quality from customer viewpoint is as follows(Parasuruman et al., 1985, in Johns, 1999, p. 965):

Service quality is an inference regarding the superiority of a product or service based on arational assessment of characteristics or attributes, or an affective judgment or emotionalresponse similar to an attitude.

Gronroos (1984) stated that service firms should define perceived service quality anddetermine the influence of service quality in order to compete successfully. Accordingly,he explained the perceived service quality as being the outcome of an evaluation process.In this process, the customer compares expectations and perceptions with the result of theprocess, referred as perceived service quality.

Accordingly, a year after Gronroos study, Parasuruman et al. (1985) suggested aconceptual model. Similarly, they claimed that service quality is a comparison betweenexpectations and performance. They conceptualized the perceived service quality asfollows (Parasuruman et al., 1988, p. 16):

A global judgment, or attitude, related to the superiority of the service.

Within the framework of the European thought process which is also known as theScandinavian school, Gronroos (2001) stated that the technical quality and thefunctional quality dimensions of a service replace the physical features of a product.The image dimension has entered into the model as a dynamic factor. That is due to thefact that customers then transfer their general perceptions and previous experienceswith them to the next service encounter process.

Among the consumer satisfaction theories, some researchers, includingParasuruman and his colleagues, define service quality as the gap between serviceperceptions and customer expectations (Vinagre and Neves, 2008).

The North American School has focused its research on the intangible factors with theassumption that there are very few tangible factors in the service encounter process(Perez et al., 2007). The most important advocates of this tradition, Parasuruman andhis colleagues have greatly contributed to the field of service quality with the SERVQUALscale they developed in light of the Scandinavian service management schooland especially the pioneering work done by Gronroos (Chowdhary and Prakash, 2007).

The paths tocustomer loyalty

241

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

The research focused on the notion that quality evaluation should not only focus onservice output but should also embody the service encounter process (Kang, 2006).

The Gap Model, which was first developed by Parasuruman and his colleagues, isconsidered the most eminent work done on the topic (Jun et al., 2004), and focuses on thedifferences between consumers viewpoints and marketers viewpoints (Svensson,2006), has evoked a revolution (Redman and Mathews, 1998), and encouraged manyresearchers to investigate service quality contributors as part of the marketing concept(Chowdhary and Prakash, 2007). The debates and contributions within the frameworkof measuring and conceptualizing service quality have evolved around the SERVQUALscale (Espinoza, 1999), and the roots of the efforts of conceptualizing service qualityhave now reached to that model and scale (Hamer, 2006). The pioneer work ofParasuruman et al. (1988), propounded that service quality leans on multi-dimensionalfactors (Saunders, 2008). This conceptual model provides an advantage on easilyunderstanding service quality components (Kuei and Lu, 1997).

Parasuruman et al. (1985) mentioned the presence of five gaps that negatively affectservice quality:

Gap 1. Consumer expectations vs management perceptions.

Gap 2. Management perceptions vs service quality specifications.

Gap 3. Service quality specifications vs service encounter process.

Gap 4. Service encounter process vs outsider communication.

Gap 5. Expected service vs perceived service.

The aforementioned studies are invaluable for service quality management. Especially,the Parasuruman team with Zeithaml and Berry has especially greatly contributed to thedevelopment and expansion of the service quality field (Caruana et al., 1998).

The service quality concept is focused on how the service meets the consumers needsand demands (Lewis et al., 1994). All of these definitions lean towards the assumptionthat consumers may evaluate an object only after she/he has interpreted or perceivedit and parallel-wise, they may then comprehend the service quality by comparingthe perceptions and expectations after having received the service (Lee et al., 2000).

The interest in the service quality field and the complexity of the factors definingservice quality has given rise to the generation of numerous multi-dimensional models(Ekinci, 2002; Brogowicz et al., 1990). Some of the most important research conductedon the topic includes: Gronroos (1984), Parasuruman et al. (1985), Haywood-Farmer(1988), Parasuruman et al. (1988), Brogowicz et al. (1990), Babakus and Mangold (1992),Mattsson (1992), Teas (1993), Cronin and Taylor (1994) and Philip and Hazlett (1997).

It can be concluded from these studies that service quality has numbers of dimensions;however there is no concrete agreement on the exact nature of the dimensions (Murrayand Howat, 2002). The SERVQUAL model has been pointed to as being the mostextensively and successfully used service quality measurement in the twenty-firstcentury (Kassim and Abdullah, 2010). The five dimensions of SERVQUAL: tangibles,reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy are shown in Table I.

In an early study on customers service quality perceptions, Becker et al. (1997)measured customers perceptions and expectations in floral service quality. The resultsof that study exposed the finding that the reliability was the most important and the

MRR36,3

242

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

tangibles dimension was the least important of the five SERVQUAL dimensions.In a study by Bougoure and Lee (2009), a comparison between wet markets andsupermarkets was made in the context of SERVQUAL dimensions, and the resultsrevealed that supermarkets were perceived to be more reliable and more responsivethan wet markets; in addition they offered better tangibles and greater level ofpersonalization. In a similar study performed by Torlak et al. (2010), discount stores andsupermarkets in Turkey were investigated via the customer perception of servicequality dimensions. Accordingly, supermarket customers perceived physical aspectsand store policy dimensions to be at a higher level, in contrast, discount store customersgave more priority to personal interaction. There are several studies which indicate thatperceived service quality is the antecedent of satisfaction (Lee et al., 2000; Murray andHowat, 2002) or that it has direct and indirect effects on behavioral intentions such asloyalty and p-WOM (Ladhari, 2009) or that there is a positive relationship betweenservice quality, satisfaction, and revisit intension (Lee et al., 2011) or that service qualitypositively influences customer satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2009). Service quality hasestablished itself as being an important determinant of both customer satisfaction(Falk et al., 2010) and WOM communication (Matos and Rossi, 2008). One of the mainpurposes of the present study is to determine the dominant service quality dimensionsfor supermarkets. By doing so, the interrelationships between these dimensions andcustomer satisfaction and loyalty will be investigated and their contribution tocumulative satisfaction determined. Hence our prior hypotheses are:

H1. Tangibles have a significantly positive influence on customer satisfaction.

H2. Reliability has a significantly positive influence on customer satisfaction.

H3. Responsiveness has a significantly positive influence on customer satisfaction.

H4. Assurance has a significantly positive influence on customer satisfaction.

H5. Empathy has a significantly positive influence on customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction and customer loyaltyCustomer satisfaction, which has been considered by many firms to be a powerfulintangible asset for competitive advantage in the global arena (Ueltschy et al., 2009), isthe response of the customer who evaluates his/her prior expectations and actualperformance of the product/service (Ueltschy et al., 2009). Here, expectations correspondto predictions about what will happen in the future (Ueltschy et al., 2004, 2009).Accordingly, in the service management literature, customer satisfaction can be defined

Dimensions Explanations

Tangibles Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnelReliability Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accuratelyResponsiveness Willingness to help customer and provide prompt serviceAssurance Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust

and confidenceEmpathy Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers

Source: Lee et al. (2011)

Table I.Five dimensionsof SERVQUAL

The paths tocustomer loyalty

243

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

as being a summary of cognitive and affective reaction to a service incident or to along-term service relationship (Lee et al., 2011). In other words, customer satisfaction ordissatisfaction in services marketing is a result of experience of the customer with aservice quality encounter and comparison of that encounter with the expectations(Caruana et al., 1998). Therefore, satisfaction is admitted to being idiosyncratic, becauseit is the interaction of perceptual interpretation of expectations of the service provided bythat service encounter (Ueltschy et al., 2007).

Satisfied customers may be a great source to increase profitability. That is becausesatisfied customers are likely to commit to the service organization and have better socialinteraction with service providers, while dissatisfied customers complain more andrepurchase less (Lee et al., 2011). However, satisfied customers will only seek out theservice provider in the future and will also be willing to pay a premium price for thatservice (Ueltschy et al., 2007). Customer satisfaction is considered to be one of the mainfactors that influences repurchase intention (Ueltschy et al., 2007). One of the othercontributions of satisfied customers to the firm is p-WOM. In marketing literature,researchers have reported that WOM plays an important role in the product choice processand in the selection of service providers (Gilly et al., 1998). In actuality, p-WOM is a veryimportant advertising tool for firms. According to early studies, it is nine times as effectiveas traditional advertising (Mazzarol et al., 2007, p. 1476). WOM may be defined as aninformal communication source among senders and receivers in regards to the service orproduct (Murray, 1991). Sweeney et al. (2008) suggests that the potential for WOM toimpact perceptions or actions depends on the nature of the sender-receiver relationship,the richness and strength of the message and its delivery. It is an emotionally expressedbehavior that will influence others purchasing intentions by informing them of a superiorexperience (Kassim and Abdullah, 2010). In the context of the service quality field, it can bestated that the consumer with high service quality perception will intend to recommendthe service provider, and in this manner, a p-WOM will occur (Gounaris et al., 2003).This recommendation is an explicit encouragement to visit a service provider (Money et al.,1998). Repurchase intention and p-WOM together compose loyalty. Kassim andAbdullah (2010) have stated that loyalty determines behavioral intentions and is a keypredictor of a brands purchase and repurchase intentions. Customer loyalty is defined asbeing a strong commitment to re-buy and re-patronize a service in the future (Jamal andAnastasiadou, 2007; Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000). However, loyal andsatisfied customers recommend services to others in the context of p-WOM(Olorunniwo et al., 2006; Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000; Kitapci and Dortyol,2009). It has been found that customer satisfaction (and value) is a significant determinantof loyalty (Lai et al., 2009). Thus, the related hypotheses are:

H6. Customer satisfaction has a significantly positive influence on customerrepurchase intention.

H7. Customer satisfaction has a significantly positive influence on p-WOM.

Research modelThe research model for measuring satisfaction and loyalty of supermarket sector isshown in Figure 2 with model results. This model consists of seven latent variables:tangibility, responsibility, assurance, responsiveness, empathy, satisfaction, and loyalty.

MRR36,3

244

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

MethodologyThe survey questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part includes statements tomeasure the level of service quality and the satisfaction and loyalty levels of customers.For measuring the service quality 17 statements are used. These questions were adaptedfrom Kueh and Voon (2007). In accordance with the original model (Parasuruman et al.,1985) tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy are included asquality dimensions. Each of these dimensions is measured with three or four statementsin the questionnaire.

Three statements were used to measure the customer satisfaction and twostatements measured customer loyalty. These items were adapted from Laroche et al.(2004) and Nam (2008).

The second part includes items to determine the demographic profiles of therespondents. In part one, a five-point Likert scale was used for data collection with 1 ascompletely agree and 5 as completely disagree (Likert, 1934). Reliability andinternal consistency of statements are measured by Cronbachs a coefficient values.The data were collected from customers of Oncu Supermarket which is planning to bea national supermarket chain with 60 branches (actual number is 30) in Turkey.A systematic sampling technique was used (Nakip, 2003). The questionnaire was pilottested in early November 2011 by 20 supermarket customers. Respondents in the pilottest did not have problems with the questionnaire, although a few minor changes ofwording were suggested.

Following the pilot test, a large-scale consumer questionnaire was administered by50 research students (of a local university). The survey took place in 30 branches of OncuSupermarket in a period between 28 November and 15 December 2011. They interviewed510 consumers. Five were not included in the analysis because of incompleteness error.505 questionnaires were considered as useful which represents a 99 percent responserate. The questionnaire was in Turkish. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in orderto ensure a high response rate and to reduce the missing data in the questionnaires.SPSS 18.0 for Windows was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics such as means,standard deviation, regression and factor analysis, frequency tests were calculated.

FindingsTable II summarizes the demographics of the respondents.

The sample of consumers contained more males (56.4 percent) than females(43.6 percent). About 34.5 percent of the respondents were between 21 and 30 years ofage which is followed by 31-40 age group (22.4 percent) and 41-50 age group(15.2 percent). Most of the respondents were married (71.9 percent). About 44.6 percentof the respondents have graduate degree, followed by high school degree group(26.3 percent), primary school degree (17.6 percent), and secondary school degree group(8.7 percent). The most of the participants incomes are 750 TL and lower (37.6). About26.9 percent of the sample perceived their incomes as much lower and 43.2 percentas little lower. A significant result that shows the economic status of the consumersis that just 2.5 percent and 3.1 percent of the participants considered their incomes,respectively, as little higher and much higher. The rate of the consumers whothought they had an average income is 25.6 percent (Table II).

Results of descriptive statistics and Cronbachs a are illustrated in Table III. TheCronbachs a value for three items of satisfaction is 78.6 percent. For the three items in

The paths tocustomer loyalty

245

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

responsiveness dimension alpha is 76.1 percent; for three items in empathy dimensionalpha is 74 percent; for four items in assurance dimension alpha is 73.9 percent; for twoitems in loyalty alpha is 71.3 percent; for three items in reliability dimension alpha is70.8 percent and finally for four items in tangibility dimension alpha is 64.5. The meanvalues, maximum and minimum values, standard deviations, number of items andreliability analysis are summarized in Table III.

Table III indicates that customers placed highest marks for the followingstatements: supermarket uses modern equipments (4.48), I would like to revisitthe supermarket that I have already dealt with (4.28) and your entire experience withthe supermarket; overall you are very satisfied with the supermarket (4.22). Generally,arithmetic means of model variables are in a range from 3.43 to 4.48. On the otherhand, standard deviations of individual statements range from 0.917 to 1.283.

(F)a (P)b

Age20 and lower 60 11.821-30 174 34.531-40 113 22.441-50 77 15.251-60 57 11.361 above 24 4.8Total 505 100Level of educationLiterate 5 1.0First school 89 17.6Second school 44 8.7High school 133 26.3Graduate degree 225 44.6Master or doctorate degree 9 1.8Total 505 100GenderFemale 220 43.6Male 285 56.4Total 505 100Income c

750 TL and lower 190 37.6751-1,250 TL 136 26.91,251-1,750 TL 73 14.51,751-2,250 TL 67 13.32,251 TL and more 39 7.7Total 505 100JobsStudent 124 24.6Pensioner 43 8.5Officer 80 15.8Employee 38 7.5Housewife 103 20.5Self-employed 110 21.8Total 505 100

Notes: aF frequency; bP percentage; c1 USD 1.90 TL; n 505Table II.Demographic breakdownof the respondents

MRR36,3

246

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Variables Cronbachs a Mean SD

Empathy 0.740 3.80 1.157Employees in the supermarket understand particularneeds of their customers 3.74 1.198Employees in the supermarket dedicate enough personalattention to customers 3.76 1.145The supermarket leaves an impression that what is bestfor a customer is always the supermarkets priority 3.92 1.129Reliability 0.708 3.86 1.315The supermarket provides its services without makingmistakes 3.67 1.210Promises given to customers are being met withinagreed time frame 3.92 1.155Employees in the supermarket show sincere efforts tosolve customerss problems 4.00 1.179Responsiveness 0.761 4.02 1.101Employees in the supermarket provide prompt andactual service to customers 4.03 1.025Employees in the supermarket are ready to assist clientsat any moment 4.14 1.098Employees in the supermarket provide customers withall necessary information 3.89 1.182Tangibility 0.645 3.92 1.147Supermarket uses modern equipment 4.48 0.917Employees in the supermarket have a professionallooking 3.62 1.256Interior of the supermarket is attractive 3.78 1.186Materials such as informative signs regardingsupermarket are visually appealing and easy tounderstand 3.80 1.229Assurance 0.739 4.05 1.063Employee behavior raises customers confidence 4.19 1.045Customers of the supermarket feel confident regardingall travel arrangement elements (product transport fromsupermarket to customers home) 4.06 1.080Employees in the supermarket are polite to theircustomers 4.24 0.974Employees in the supermarket have necessaryknowledge to answer all questions raised by customers 3.74 1.154Satisfaction 0.786 3.91 1.026Assuming you view your entire experience with thesupermarket, overall you are very satisfied with thesupermarket 4.22 0.926In general, my satisfaction level related to thesupermarket that I have already deal with is high 4.08 0.973Complete service offer by a supermarket is significantlyabove expected 3.43 1.181Loyalty 0.713 4.11 1.119I would like to revisit the supermarket that I havealready deal with 4.28 0.956I recommend my close environment to visit thesupermarket that I have already deal with 3.95 1.283

Table III.Descriptive statistics

of variables

The paths tocustomer loyalty

247

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Finally, an adequate level of reliability is notable among all variables except tangibilityvariable (Cronbachs a values were higher than 0.7).

Multiple regression analysis is used to test the relationships between variables.The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table IV. The general purpose ofmultiple regressions is to learn more about the relationship between several independentor predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable (Nakip, 2003, p. 310).

The results in Table IV show that independent variables together describe 56 percentof customer satisfaction variability. The value of R 2 coefficient is significant (F 126.753,p , 0.01). The impacts of four service quality variables on consumer satisfaction aresignificant. The Beta coefficients of empathy, responsiveness, tangibility, and assuranceare, respectively, 0.244, 0.102, 0.237, and 0.218. Empathy dimension (t 5.579, p 0.000),responsiveness dimension (t 2.172, p 0.030), tangibility dimension (t 5.537,p 0.000), and assurance dimension (t 4.012, p 0.000) dimensions are significantlyconnected with customer satisfaction. Reliability dimension has not a significantlypositive influence on customer satisfaction. From the beta estimates, it can be said thatempathy dimension is strongly connected to customer satisfaction than other four servicequality dimensions. On the other hand, employees in the supermarket understand needsof their customers.

Application of regression analysis assumes that the variables have a linear relationshipwith each other. The scatterplot matrices in Figure 1 show that, all assumptions areaccepted. Therefore, it is considered that no further transformation is required for theindependent variables.

The results in Table V show that customer satisfaction significantly contributeson repurchase intention (F 326.788, p 0.000) at the 1 percent significance level andpredicts 40.2 percent of the variance in repurchase intention. The Beta coefficients ofcustomer satisfaction is 0.701 which shows that customer satisfaction (t 18.401;p 0.000) is significantly connected with repurchase intention. From the beta estimate,it can be said that customer satisfaction is strongly connected with repurchase intention.

The results in Table VI show that customer satisfaction significantly contributeson p-WOM (F 170.484, p 0.000) at the 1 percent significance level and predicts25.3 percent of the variance in p-WOM. The Beta coefficients of customer satisfaction is0.701 which shows that customer satisfaction (t 13.057; p 0.000) is significantlyconnected with p-WOM. From the beta estimate, it can be said that customersatisfaction is strongly connected to the p-WOM.

Independent variables Beta coefficients t-value p-value

(Constant) 0.401 2.648 0.008Empathy 0.244 5.579 0.000 * *

Responsiveness 0.102 2.172 0.030 *

Reliability 0.081 1.882 0.060Tangibility 0.237 5.537 0.000 * *

Assurance 0.218 4.012 0.000 * *

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01 levels; R 0.748; R 2 0.559; F 126.753;Sig. F 0.000

Table IV.Multiple regressionanalysis of SERVQUALdimensions towardscustomer satisfaction

MRR36,3

248

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Satisfied customers make positive verbal communications between groups such asfamily, friends and the actual or potential consumers about service providers andrepurchases from the same service provider (Tables V and VI).

In Figure 2, all the significant paths and their coefficients are illustrated with signs. Among them, responsiveness is significant at p,0.05 level while empathy,tangibility, assurance, and loyalty are significant at p , 0.01 level.

Independent variable Beta coefficients t-value p-value

(Constant) 1.028 4.490Customer satisfaction 0.747 13.057 0.000 *

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.01 level; R 0.503; R 2 0.253; F 170.484; Sig. F 0.000

Table VI.Regression analysis of

customer satisfactiontowards p-WOM

Independent variable Beta coefficients t-value p-value

(Constant) 1.542 10.104Customer satisfaction 0.701 18.401 0.000 *

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.01 level; R 0.634; R 2 0.402; F 338.587; Sig. F 0.000

Table V.Regression analysis of

customer satisfactiontowards repurchase

intention

Figure 1.Scatterplot matrixof dependent and

independents variables

SAT TAN REL RES ASS EMP

SAT

TAN

REL

RES

ASS

EMP

Notes: Abbreviations are as follows: TAN tangibility,REL reliability, RES responsiveness, ASS assurance,EMP empathy, and SAT satisfaction

The paths tocustomer loyalty

249

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Conclusion and discussionAlthough, the main objective of this research is to study how service quality dimensionsinfluenced satisfaction and loyalty of customers by investigating a suggested researchmodel, the study itself is also relevant to a broad range of service company that focustheir efforts towards feeding long term relationships with customers. The study suggeststhat four SERVQUAL dimensions (empathy, responsiveness, assurance and tangibility)are important antecedents of satisfaction, and, also the satisfaction affects the resultsof customer loyalty such as positive word-of mouth and repurchase. The latter resulthas similar reflection with the work of Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt (2000). In the studywhich examined the relationships between service quality, customer satisfaction andstore loyalty, they stated that satisfaction influenced WOM and repurchase intention.This study also showed that responsiveness, assurance, tangibility and empathy hadsignificant influence on customer satisfaction, while in the case of reliability, andsignificance was not confirmed. The dimension of reliability is related with providingsufficient and dependable service. Accordingly, the result that exposed no relationshipbetween customer satisfaction and reliability dimension, may be the consequence of thesupermarkets (that constitutes the sample) previous failures to provide sufficient anddependable service which cause reliance problems among its customers.

The Beta coefficients for empathy, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibility are0.244, 0.102, 0.218, and 0.237, respectively. These results show that the influence ofempathy dimension on consumer satisfaction is stronger than the influence of otherdimensions. And also, the results indicate the positive influences of customersatisfaction on both repurchase intention and p-WOM. However, the present search hassome different findings with respect to Jamal and Anastasiadou (2007) who found thatreliability, tangibility and empathy have significant effects on satisfaction, andtangibility is the strongest predictor of satisfaction. In contrast with, we come up withthe finding that empathy, responsiveness, assurance and tangibility are positivelyrelated to the satisfaction while empathy is the strongest indicator. The reason of thedifferences may be related to the business sectors. In the former research the sector inquestion was banking sector. Therefore, it should be understandable that there can bedifferences in related to service quality dimensions among different sectors.

Figure 2.Research model andthe model results

MRR36,3

250

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

In the light of the results of descriptive statistics, we can establish thatsupermarkets were not sufficiently successful in creating satisfaction among theircustomers. It is evident that management in the future must pay particular attention tothese important issues because they represent some of the most important requisitesfor creating long-term relationships with customers. Business activities shouldcommence with understanding the needs of the customers if their aim is to achievecustomer loyalty.

Supermarkets must develop efficient systems for a better analysis and resolutionof customer complaints. The study emphasizes that a relatively low percentage ofcustomers are actually ready to submit a formal complaint. p-WOM communicationcan be very influential in any purchase decision. East et al. (2007, p. 181) showed thatp-WOM is more common than negative WOM. According to some studies, over95 percent of unsatisfied customers actually never complain.

Limitations and future researchThis study has some limitations. The presented research was conducted based solelyon supermarket sectors; therefore, results cannot be generalized onto other sectors ofeconomy. Future research should focus on measuring customer satisfaction andloyalty with wholesales and other service industries. In addition, it would be useful toconsult on studies from other regions of Turkey or other countries nearby Turkey,since the use of an identical model would be useful to compare the results.

Limited resources and time resulted in a small sample (n 505) and, therefore, thefindings cannot be also generalized to all supermarket customers. Future research isrequired to collect data from the customers of different supermarkets and increase thesample size.

Our tested model entailed a total of seven variables the five SERVQUALvariables and, satisfaction and loyalty. This model can be developed with differentvariables.

References

Babakus, E. and Mangold, W.G. (1992), Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services:an empirical investigation, Health Services Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 767-86.

Becker, W.A., Behe, B.K., Johnson, J.L., Townsend, C.D. and Litzenberg, K.K. (1997), Consumerperceptions of service quality in the Texas retail floral industry, HortScience, Vol. 32No. 2, pp. 318-23.

Bougoure, U. and Lee, B. (2009), Service quality in Hong Kong: wet markets vs supermarkets,British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 70-9.

Brogowicz, A.A., Delene, L.M. and Lyth, D.M. (1990), A synthesised service quality model withmanagerial implications, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 27-45.

Caruana, A., Money, A.H. and Berthon, P.R. (1998), Service quality and satisfaction themoderating role of value, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 11/12, pp. 1338-52.

Chowdhary, N. and Prakash, M. (2007), Prioritizing service quality dimensions, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 493-509.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconcilingperformance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of servicequality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 125-31.

The paths tocustomer loyalty

251

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Duffy, J.A., Duffy, M. and Kilbourne, W. (1997), Cross national study of perceivedservice quality in long-term care facilities, Journal of Aging Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4,pp. 327-36.

East, R., Hammond, K. and Wright, M. (2007), The relative incidence of positive and negativeword of mouth: a multi-category study, International Journal of Research in Marketing,Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 175-84.

Ekinci, Y. (2002), A review of theoretical debates on the measurement of service quality:implications for hospitality research, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 26No. 3, pp. 199-216.

Espinoza, M.M. (1999), Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure acomparative study between Quebec and Peru, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 449-68.

Falk, T., Hammerschmidt, M. and Schepers, J. (2010), The service quality-satisfaction linkrevisited: exploring asymmetries and dynamics, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 288-302.

Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M. (1994), Service quality: concepts and models,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 43-66.

Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.L., Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Yale, L.J. (1998), A dyadic study ofinterpersonal information search, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26No. 2, pp. 83-100.

Gounaris, S.P., Stathakopoulos, V. and Athanassopoulos, A.D. (2003), Antecedents to perceivedservice quality: an exploratory study in the banking industry, International Journal ofBank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 168-90.

Gronroos, C. (1984), A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Gronroos, C. (2001), The perceived service quality concept a mistake?, Managing ServiceQuality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 150-2.

Hamer, L.O. (2006), A confirmation perspective on perceived service quality, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 219-32.

Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988), A conceptual model of service quality, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 19-29.

Hutchinson, J., Lai, F. and Wang, Y. (2009), Understanding the relationship of quality, value,equity, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions among golf travellers, TourismManagement, Vol. 30, pp. 298-308.

Jamal, A. and Anastasiadou, K. (2007), Investigating the effects of service quality dimensionsand expertise on loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 3/4, pp. 398-420.

Johns, N. (1999), What is this thing called service?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33Nos 9/10, pp. 958-74.

Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), Customers perceptions of online retailing service qualityand their satisfaction, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21No. 8, pp. 817-40.

Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto, D. (2000), Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role ofcustomer satisfaction and image, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 346-51.

Kang, G. (2006), The hierarchical structure of service quality: integration of technical andfunctional quality, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 37-50.

MRR36,3

252

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Kassim, N. and Abdullah, N.A. (2010), The effect of perceived service quality dimensions oncustomer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings, Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-71.

Kitapci, O. and Dortyol, I.T. (2009), The differences in customer complaint behaviour betweenloyal customers and first comers in the retail banking industry: the case of Turkishcustomers, Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 932-41.

Kueh, K. and Voon, B.H. (2007), Culture and service quality expectations: evidence fromGeneration Y consumers in Malaysia, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 269-70.

Kuei, C. and Lu, M.H. (1997), An integrated approach to service quality improvement,International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-36.

Kuo, Y., Wu, C. and Deng, W. (2009), The relationship among service quality, perceived value,customer satisfaction, and post-urchase intention in mobile value-added services,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 887-96.

Ladhari, R. (2009), Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural intentions,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19, pp. 308-31.

Lai, F., Griffin, M. and Babin, B.J. (2009), How quality, value, image, and satisfaction crateloyalty at a Chinese telecom, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 980-6.

Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2004), I versus we: how individualists andcollectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, p. 293.

Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), The determinants of perceived service quality and itsrelationship with satisfaction, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-31.

Lee, J., Kim, H., Ko, Y.J. and Sagas, M. (2011), The influence of service quality on satisfaction andintention: a gender segmentation strategy, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 54-63.

Leisen, B. and Vance, C. (2001), Cross-national assessment of service quality in thetelecommunication industry: evidence from the USA and Germany, Managing ServiceQuality, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 307-17.

Lewis, B.R., Orledge, J. and Mitchell, V. (1994), Service quality: students assessment of banksand building societies, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-12.

Likert, R. (1934), A simple and reliable method of scoring the turnstone attitude scales, Journalof Social Psychology, Vol. 5, p. 228.

Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), Word-of-mouth communications in marketing:a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-96.

Mattsson, J. (1992), A service quality model based on an ideal value standard, InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 18-33.

Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity,triggers and conditions: an exploratory study, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41Nos 11/12, pp. 1475-94.

Money, R.B., Gilly, M.C. and Graham, J.L. (1998), Explorations of national culture andword-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United Statesand Japan, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 76-87.

Murray, D. and Howat, G. (2002), The relationship among service quality, value, satisfaction,and future intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure centre, SportManagement Review, Vol. 5, pp. 25-43.

Murray, K. (1991), A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisitionactivities, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 10-25.

The paths tocustomer loyalty

253

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Nakip, M. (2003), Pazarlama Arastirmasi: Teknikler ve Uygulamalar, 1st ed., Seckin Yayincilik,Ankara.

Nam, S. (2008), The impact of culture on the framework of customer value, customer satisfactionand customer loyalty, disseration, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, CA.

Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), Service quality, customer satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions in the service factory, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20/1,pp. 59-72.

Parasuruman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.

Parasuruman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perception of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 35-48.

Perez, M.S., Gazquez, J.C., Carrillo, G.M.M. and Fernandez, R.S. (2007), Effects of service qualitydimensions on behavioral purchase intentions: a study in public-sector transport,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 134-51.

Philip, G. and Hazlett, S. (1997), The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P attributesmodel, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 260-86.

Redman, T. and Mathews, B.P. (1998), Service quality and human resource management:a review and research agenda, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-77.

Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), Defining quality: alternatives and implications,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45 (special issue: Total quality).

Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1995), Return on quality: making service qualityfinancially accountable, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 58-70.

Saunders, S.G. (2008), Measuring and applying the PAKSERV service quality construct:evidence from a South African cultural context, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No. 5,pp. 442-56.

Sivadas, E. and Baker-Prewitt, F.L. (2000), An examination of the relationship between servicequality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty, International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 73-82.

Soteriou, A.C. and Chase, R.B. (1998), Linking the customer contact model to service quality,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 495-508.

Svensson, G. (2006), New aspects of research into service encounters and service quality,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17, pp. 245-57.

Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Mazzarol, T. (2008), Factors influencing word of moutheffectiveness: receiver perspectives, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4,pp. 344-64.

Tam, J.L.M. (2004), Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: an integrativemodel, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20, pp. 897-917.

Teas, R.K. (1993), Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers perceptions ofquality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 18-34.

Torlak, O., Uzkurt, C. and Ozmen, M. (2010), Dimensions of service quality in grocery retailing:a case from Turkey, Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 413-22.

Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Eggert, A. and Bindl, U. (2007), Service quality and satisfaction:an international comparison of professional services perceptions, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 21/6, pp. 410-23.

MRR36,3

254

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Tamilia, R.D. and Yannopoulos, P. (2004), Cross-cultural invarianceof measures of satisfaction and service quality, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,pp. 901-12.

Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Zhang, M., Cho, H. and Yingwei, R. (2009), Is there really an Asianconnection? Professional service quality perceptions and customer satisfaction, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 62, pp. 972-9.

Vinagre, M.H. and Neves, J.G. (2008), The influence of service quality and patients emotions onsatisfaction, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 87-103.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.

Further reading

Kelley, S. and Turley, L. (2001), Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sportingevents, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 161-6.

Web siteshttp://arsiv.sabah.com.tr/2005/12/07/res_gda 101-4-20051207.htmlwww.haberler.gen.al/2011-10-17/perakende-sektoru-istihdam-rakamlarinda-yuzde-45-artis-yasandi

About the authorsOlgun Kitapci holds a PhD in Marketing at Cumhuriyet University. He is an Assistant Professorof Marketing at Akdeniz University. His research interests include service marketing, servicequality and customer relationship management. Olgun Kitapci is the corresponding author andcan be contacted at: okitapci@yahoo.com.tr

Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol is a Research Assistant of Marketing at Cumhuriyet University.His research interests include CRM, marketing researches and service quality.

Zuhrem Yaman is a Research Assistant of Health Management at Selcuk University.His research interest includes marketing strategy and service quality.

Mustafa Gulmez is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Akdeniz University. He receivedhis PhD in Marketing from Cumhuriyet University. His research interests include marketingcommunication and tourism marketing.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The paths tocustomer loyalty

255

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Muahmmad Kashif, Sharifah Suzana Wan Shukran, Mohsin Abdul Rehman, Syamsulang Sarifuddin.2015. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian Islamic banks:a PAKSERV investigation.International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:1, 23-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Tek

nolo

gi M

ARA

At 0

7:55

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)