Effects of Service Quality, Customer Effects of Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Switching Barriers Satisfaction and Switching Barriers on Passenger Behavior Intensions in on Passenger Behavior Intensions in Scheduled Coach ServiceScheduled Coach Service

Authors: William JEN & Tang-Jung LUAuthors: William JEN & Tang-Jung LU

2003/10/292003/10/29

OUTLINEOUTLINE

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

4. METHODS AND MATERIALS

5. RESULTS

6. DISSCUSSION

1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION

The opening of national freeway route in Taiwan

Increasing the level of competition

Companies became interested in passenger behavioral intentions

Research on traveler behaviorObjective and quantifiable variables, such as fare, frequency, traveling time and waiting time (Ortuzar and Iacobelli, 1998; Ferrari, 1999 )

Research on marketingSubjective and difficult to quantify latent variables, such as service qualityservice quality, service sacrificeservice sacrifice, sservice valueervice value, customer satisfactioncustomer satisfaction and switcswitching barriershing barriers (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ravald and Gronroos, 1996)

Most of the studies only confirmed the relationships between three or four latent variables.

PurposesPurposes

To consider all the above-mentioned latent variables in an integrated model.

Using Linear Structural Relation (LISREL) to test the model and hypotheses.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Service Quality (SQ)2.1 Service Quality (SQ)Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988)

The comparison results of expected and perceived service.

Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy.

2.2 Service Sacrifice (SS)2.2 Service Sacrifice (SS)Heskett et al.(1990)

What is given up or sacrificed to acquire a service.

Zeithaml(1988); Dodds et al. (1991)

Perceived monetary and non-monetary price

2.3 Service Value (SV)2.3 Service Value (SV)Dodds and Mornoe (1985); Lovelock (2000)

A trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived costs.

2.4 Customer Satisfaction (CS)2.4 Customer Satisfaction (CS)Woodruff et al. (1993)

An evaluation of an attitude.Rust and Oliver (1994)

An evaluation of an emotion.

2.5 Switching Barriers (SB)2.5 Switching Barriers (SB)Jones et al. (2000)

Any factor which increases the difficulty for customers in changing provider.

Interpersonal Relationships, Perceived Switching Costs, Attractiveness of Alternatives.

2.6 Behavioral Intentions (BI)2.6 Behavioral Intentions (BI)Zeithaml et al. (1996)

A good predictor of company financial consequences.

Comment positively, Recommend to other consumers, Remain loyal, Spend more with the company, Pay a premium for the service.

2.7 Integrated Model2.7 Integrated ModelDodds et al. (1985); Zeithaml (1988); Lee and Cunningham (1996); Oh (1999)

SQ→ SV, CS and BI SV→ CS and BI CS→ BI

Cronin, Jr. et al. (2000) constructed a model with 5 latent variables.

ServiceSacrifice

ServiceQuality

ServiceValue

Satisfaction

BehavioralIntentional

-

+

+

+

++

+

3. PROPOSED MODEL AND 3. PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES HYPOTHESES

ServiceSacrifice

ServiceQuality

ServiceValue

Satisfaction

BehavioralIntentionals

PerceivedSwitching Costs

InterpersonalRelationships

Attractiveness ofAlternatives

H1

H6H10H9H8

H7

H5

H3

H4

H2

Switching Barriers

4.METHODS AND MATERIALS4.METHODS AND MATERIALS

4.1 Measurements4.1 Measurements(1) SQ (Jen and Hu, 2000)

Interaction with Passengers, with six questions Tangible Service Equipment, with six questions Convenience of Service, with five questions Operating Management Support, with three questions

(2) SS (Zeithaml, 1988) Monetary price: Fare Non- Monetary price: Out of vehicle time, Waiting Ti

me, In Vehicle Time

(3) SV (Dodds et al., 1991; Brown et al., 1993) The company’s service is valuable. The company’s service based on certain price is a

cceptable. It is worthier to travel by this company’s coach t

han the other coach companies or modes.

(4) CS (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991) Emotion words: Interest, Enjoyment, Surprise, A

nger, Shame/Shyness Overall Satisfaction: The company’s service satisfi

ed me.

(5) SB (Rusbult, 1980; Gremler, 1995; Ping, 1993) Interpersonal Relationships, with two questions Perceived Switching Costs, with three questions Attractiveness of Alternatives, with three questions

(6) BI (Zeithaml et al., 1996) Remain loyal, with one questions Recommend to others, with one questions Spend more with the company, with one questions

4.2 Analysis4.2 Analysis Using Linear Structure Relationship

(LISREL) to analyze the proposed model.

Two-Step Procedure (Anderson and Gering, 1988)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Path Analysis

4.3 Data Collection4.3 Data Collection Research Subjects

Taipei-Tainan route (302 km), with 4 companies.

Taichung-Kaohsiung route (189 km), with 4 companies.

Survey MethodQuestionnaires were distributed randomly in the waiting rooms and passengers were requested to mail the completed questionnaires back to us.

5. RESULTS5. RESULTS

Taipei-Tainan route

Research object Company A Company B Company C Company D Total

Sent out 1030 376 702 718 2826

Return 133 92 228 153 606

Response rate 12.91% 24.47% 32.48% 21.31% 21.44%

Taichung-Kaohsiung route

Research object Company E Company B Company C Company F Total

Sent out 1000 426 840 411 2677

Return 66 106 202 117 491

Response rate 6.60% 24.88% 24.05% 28.47% 18.34%

5.1 Sample and Data5.1 Sample and Data5.1.1 Valid Response Rate

5.1.2 Sample Frame

571(52%) passengers were male,

684(62%) passengers were aged 20-29,

482(44%) passengers were students,

500(46%) passengers had average incomes of under NTD 10,000 a month,

456(43%) passengers traveled by scheduled coach two to four times per season

520(48%) passengers were traveling to return home.

5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

※GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=GFI adjusted for degrees of freedom; RMR=root mean square residual; NFI=normed-fit index; NNFI=non-normed-fit index; CFI=Bentler’s fit index

※ χ2∕df ＜ 5; GFI＞ 0.9; AGFI＞ 0.9; RMR＜ 0.05; NFI＞ 0.9; NNFI＞ 0.9; CFI ＞ 0.9※First model 1: Delete V10 (Anger), First model 2: Delete V11 (Shame/Shyness)

Properties Properties of of Revised Revised Measurement Measurement ModelModel

5.3 Path Analysis 5.3 Path Analysis

ServiceSacrifice

ServiceQuality

ServiceValue

Satisfaction

BehavioralIntentionals

PerceivedSwitching

Costs

InterpersonalRelationships

Attractivenessof Alternatives

-0.661***

0.252***

0.603***

0.235***

0.119**

0.224***

0.032 0.143*** -0.098**

0.385***

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H8H9

H10

*** denotes a significant value (p<0.001); ** denotes a significant value (p<0.05)*** denotes a significant value (p<0.001); ** denotes a significant value (p<0.05)

6. DISSCUSSION6. DISSCUSSION

6.1 Conclusion6.1 Conclusion All the hypotheses are verified, except H8 (The

effect of interpersonal relations on behavioral intentions).

Service Value is the key influence on passenger satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

Service Sacrifice is the key influence on service value.

6.2 Managerial Implication6.2 Managerial Implication

Increasing service value by reducing service sacrifice

Setting reasonable fares

Reducing out of vehicle time

Reducing passenger perception of waiting time and in vehicle time

6.3 Suggestions for Future Research6.3 Suggestions for Future Research

Other latent variables should included in the model, such as trust and user involvement.

Further analyses about the switching barriers for alternative transportation modes.

Comparing the difference between each routes or different passengers.

THE ENDTHE END