Effects of Service Quality, Customer
Satisfaction and Switching Barriers
on Passenger Behavior Intensions in
Scheduled Coach Service
Authors: William JEN & Tang-Jung LU
2003/10/29
OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
4. METHODS AND MATERIALS
5. RESULTS
6. DISSCUSSION
1. INTRODUCTION

The opening of national freeway route in
Taiwan
Increasing the level of competition
Companies became interested in passenger
behavioral intentions

Research on traveler behavior
Objective and quantifiable variables, such as
fare, frequency, traveling time and waiting time
(Ortuzar and Iacobelli, 1998; Ferrari, 1999 )

Research on marketing
Subjective and difficult to quantify latent
variables, such as service quality, service
sacrifice, service value, customer satisfaction
and switching barriers (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975; Ravald and Gronroos, 1996)

Most of the studies only confirmed the
relationships between three or four latent
variables.
Purposes

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 REVIEW
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)
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)
Dodds and Mornoe (1985); Lovelock (2000)
A trade-off between perceived benefits and
perceived costs.
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)
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)
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 Model
Dodds 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.
Service
Sacrifice
-
Service
Value
+
+
Service
Quality
Behavioral
Intentional
+
+
+
+
Satisfaction
3. PROPOSED MODEL AND
HYPOTHESES
Switching Barriers
Service
Sacrifice
Interpersonal
Relationships
H1
Service
Value
H6
H2
Service
Quality
H4
H7
Satisfaction
H8
H9
Behavioral
Intentionals
H5
H3
Perceived
Switching Costs
Attractiveness of
Alternatives
H10
4.METHODS AND MATERIALS
4.1 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
Time, 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
acceptable.
It is worthier to travel by this company’s coach
than the other coach companies or modes.
(4) CS (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991)


Emotion words: Interest, Enjoyment, Surprise,
Anger, Shame/Shyness
Overall Satisfaction: The company’s service
satisfied 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 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 Collection
 Research Subjects
Taipei-Tainan route (302 km), with 4 companies.
Taichung-Kaohsiung route (189 km), with 4
companies.

Survey Method
Questionnaires were distributed randomly in the
waiting rooms and passengers were requested to
mail the completed questionnaires back to us.
5. RESULTS
5.1 Sample and Data
5.1.1 Valid Response Rate
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%
5.1.2 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)
Initial Measure model
Revised model 1
Revised model 2
χ2
2494.078
1461.406
1248.403
df
322
296
271
χ2/df
7.746
4.937
4.607
GFI
0.859
0.902
0.914
AGFI
0.822
0.875
0.889
RMR
0.069
0.056
0.051
NFI
0.841
0.900
0.912
NNFI
0.833
0.903
0.916
CFI
0.858
0.918
0.930
※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)
Construct and Indicators
Properties
of
Revised
Measurement
Model
Behavioral Intentions
V1
V2
V3
Service Value
V4
V5
V6
Passenger Satisfaction
V7
V8
V9
V12
Service Sacrifice
V13
V14
V15
V16
Service Quality
V17
V18
V19
V20
Interpersonal Relationships
V21
V22
Perceived Switching Costs
V23
V24
V25
Attractiveness of Alternatives
V26
V27
V28
Standardized
Loading
t-value
0.878
0.925
0.550
35.162***
38.066***
18.976***
0.820
0.837
0.703
***
31.559
32.531***
25.454***
0.899
0.900
0.799
0.694
37.516***
37.579***
31.232***
25.608***
0.637
0.720
0.697
0.701
21.580***
25.228***
24.187***
24.396***
0.642
0.802
0.790
0.778
***
22.296
30.056***
29.468***
28.826***
0.921
0.894
***
23.357
22.957***
0.502
0.546
0.797
***
0.284
0.577
0.786
14.632
15.875***
21.645***
***
7.880
14.391***
16.922***
Reliability
0.838a
0.771b
0.856
0.302
0.831
0.672
0.701
0.495
0.896
0.807
0.809
0.639
0.482
0.783
0.405
0.518
0.485
0.492
0.841
0.412
0.642
0.625
0.605
0.903
0.848
0.800
0.751
0.252
0.298
0.636
0.845
0.080
0.333
0.618
Variance
Extracted
Estimate
0.643
0.623
0.684
0.475
0.571
0.824
0.512
0.674
5.3 Path Analysis
Service
Sacrifice
Interpersonal
Relationships
H1
-0.661***
H2
Service
Value
H6
0.032 H8
H4
H3
Attractiveness
of Alternatives
H9
0.143***
H10 -0.098**
0.385***
0.252***
Service
Quality
Perceived
Switching
Costs
0.119**
H5 0.603***
0.235***
Behavioral
Intentionals
H7
0.224***
Satisfaction
*** denotes a significant value (p<0.001); ** denotes a significant value (p<0.05)
6. DISSCUSSION
6.1 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 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 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 END