ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction in retail banking: Exploring the

asymmetric impact of attribute performances
Alessandro Arbore ,1, Bruno Busacca 2
Bocconi University, Via Bocconi, 8, 20136 Milan, Italy

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

The paper presents the results of an extensive study on the determinants of customer satisfaction for a
Keywords: retail bank. In doing so, it uses a revised version of the traditional analyses based on derived measures of
Retail banking attribute importance. The need for a revised methodology is prompted by the insights of the two- and
Customer satisfaction three-factor theories of customer satisfaction, such as Kano’s framework. Indeed, the evidence from
Three-factor theory 5000 customers of a prominent Italian bank confirms a non-linear and asymmetric relationship
between attribute performances and overall customer satisfaction. The results from both a traditional
and our revised approach are compared. While this approach can be applied across different industries,
it should not be assumed that the numerical results presented in the paper apply to contexts with
substantially different underlying characteristics. General trends and implications for banking services
are reported in the conclusions.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Background and literature review

The relevance of customer satisfaction in financial services has
been widely investigated and assessed by the literature. Following
an increase in positive evidence, the focus on customer satisfaction
has become a primary goal, especially in the retail banking
industry. A full understanding of its antecedents has therefore
become a critical issue for both researchers and practitioners.
This paper presents the results of an extensive study on the
determinants of customer satisfaction in a prominent Italian bank.
It uses a revised version of the traditional analyses, based on
derived measures of attribute importance (e.g. Dolinsky, 1991). The
need for a revised methodology is prompted by the intuitions of
the two- and three-factor theories, which demonstrated a non-
linear and asymmetric relationship between attribute perfor-
mances and overall customer satisfaction (Anderson and Mittal,
2000; Brandt, 1988; Gale, 1994; Johnston, 1995; Kano, 1984;
Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002; Oliver, 1997).
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 5836 6529; fax: +39 02 5836 3790.
E-mail addresses: alessandro.arbore@sdabocconi.it (A. Arbore),
bruno.busacca@sdabocconi.it (B. Busacca).
1
Alessandro Arbore is Assistant Professor of Management at Bocconi
University and Professor of Marketing at SDA Bocconi School of Management. He
is senior researcher at the Customer and Service Science Lab, Bocconi University.
2
Bruno Busacca is Full Professor of Marketing at Bocconi University. He is
Director of the Masters Division at SDA Bocconi School of Management.
2.1. Customer satisfaction in the banking industry
A growing number of retail banks are directing their strategies
towards customer satisfaction. In fact, researchers have demon-
strated that customer satisfaction serves as a link to critical
consumer behaviors, such as cross-buying of financial services,
positive word-of-mouth, willingness to pay a premium-price, and
tendency to see one’s bank as a ‘‘relationship’’ bank (Winstanley,
1997; Ehigie, 2006; Ndubisi, 2006).
Ultimately, these behaviors proved to have a positive impact on
key corporate outcomes, such as retention rates, average deposit
amounts, cost to the bank of providing services, and future
earnings (Winstanley, 1997; Nagar and Rajan, 2005; Manrai and
Manrai, 2007). These results are consistent with a broader
literature assessing the positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and firm profitability (cf. Anderson et al., 1994;
Fornell et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 1996; Ittner and Larcker, 1998;
Eklof et al., 1999; Zeithaml, 2000).
Following the evidence from these studies, the value of
identifying the most influential factors to trigger satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in retail banking becomes especially clear. This
information allows the firm to steer and optimize its marketing
efforts given its limited resources, keeping in mind that market-
based assets, in turn, will increase shareholder value (Day and
Fahey, 1988; Srivastava et al., 1998).
Over time, researchers have identified many antecedents of
customer satisfaction in different service industries (e.g. Oliver,
1993; Levesque and McDougall, 1996; Varki and Colgate, 2001).

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
272 A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280
Table 1
Drivers of customer satisfaction in retail banking.
Dimension Attributes
Functional Reliability, speed, accuracy, security, functionality
quality
Relational Responsiveness, assurance, friendliness, courtesy,
quality commitment, communication
Convenience Opening hours, travel distance, queuing time, parking
places, ATM availability
Economics Charges/interest rates, price-quality ratio, price
fairness
Tangibles Phisycal layout and furniture, phisycal facilities, dècor
of branch environment, atmosphere of branch
environment, cleanliness of branch environment, size
and furnishing of customer space, dress of the
personnel
Problem handling and recovery
Several studies, for example, have emphasized the link between
satisfaction and the ‘‘service quality’’ construct (Taylor and
Baker, 1994; Levesque and McDougall, 1996; Johnston, 1997;
Jamal and Naser, 2002; Ndubisi, 2006; Lassar et al., 2000;
Oppewal and Vriens, 2000). The traditional operationalization
of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) includes five
dimensions: reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy. Building on the work of Parasuraman et al., other
research in the banking literature distinguishes between two
main dimensions affecting customer satisfaction: the quality
of the core service provided by the bank and the quality of
the relationship with the bank. Relevant drivers within the
first dimension include ‘‘reliability’’, ‘‘security’’, ‘‘functionality’’,
‘‘accuracy’’, and ‘‘speed’’ (cf. Levesque and McDougall, 1996;
Winstanley, 1997; Jamal and Naser, 2002, 2003; Jones,
2004; Ndubisi, 2006). Relationship drivers seem to be even more
important and include ‘‘responsiveness’’, ‘‘competences’’, ‘‘assur-
ance’’, ‘‘trust’’, ‘‘friendliness’’, ‘‘courtesy’’, ‘‘availability’’, ‘‘commit-
ment’’, ‘‘flexibility’’, and ‘‘communication’’ (cf. Levesque and
McDougall, 1996; Johnston, 1997; Winstanley, 1997; Jamal
and Naser, 2002, 2003; Lassar et al., 2000; Jones, 2004;
Oppewal and Vriens, 2000; Ndubisi, 2006; Manrai and Manrai,
2007).
Another recurrent key factor is the perception of costs,
specifically ‘‘price fairness’’ and ‘‘price-quality ratio’’ (Levesque
and McDougall, 1996; Winstanley, 1997; Varki and Colgate,
2001; Matzler et al., 2006). Further satisfaction drivers are
peripherals like the ‘‘location’’, both in terms of convenience and
accessibility (Oppewal and Vriens, 2000; Manrai and Manrai,
2007). More controversial is the significant impact of other
‘‘tangibles’’, such as the ‘‘physical layout’’ of the bank (Johnston,
1997; Oppewal and Vriens, 2000; Jones, 2004; Manrai and Manrai,
2007).
Finally, researchers emphasize the positive role played by
problem-handling skills, like ‘‘capability to avoid potential con-
flicts’’, ‘‘efficient and effective handling of complaint’’, ‘‘efficiency
of solving problems’’, and ‘‘speed of finding and restoring errors’’
(Levesque and McDougall, 1996; Ndubisi, 2006; Manrai and
Manrai, 2007). A summary of this literature review is offered in
Table 1.
Authors Method
Levesque and McDougall (1996), Winstanley (1997), Factor analysis, ordinary least squares
Jamal and Naser (2003), Jones (2004), and Ndubisi (OLS) regression, stepwise regression,
(2006) OLS regression
Levesque and McDougall (1996), Johnston (1997), Structural equation model (SEM),
Winstanley (1997), Lassar et al. (2000), Oppewal and critical incident technique (CIT), OLS
Vriens (2000), Jamal and Naser (2002), Jamal and regression, conjoint analysis, stepwise
Naser (2003), Jones (2004), and Ndubisi (2006) regression
Manrai and Manrai (2007), Levesque and McDougall Factor analysis
(1996), Oppewal and Vriens (2000), Jones (2004),
Manrai and Manrai (2007)
Levesque and McDougall (1996), Varki and Colgate Structural equation model (SEM),
(2001), Nagar and Rajan (2005), Manrai and Manrai multivariate linear regression,
(2007), Matzler et al. (2006) multiple linear regression analysis
Positive impact on customer satisfaction: Levesque OLS regression
and McDougall (1996), Jamal and Naser (2002), Jamal
and Naser (2003), no impact on customer satisfaction:
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999), Oppewal and Vriens
(2000), and Jones (2004)
Capability to avoid potential conflicts, efficient and Levesque and McDougall (1996),
effective handling of complaint, efficiency of solving Winstanley (1997), Ndubisi (2006),
problems, speed of finding and restoring errors and Manrai and Manrai (2007)
2.2. The three-factor theory of customer satisfaction
Most of the studies reported on the pages above use indirect
measures to assess the importance of attributes in retail banking.
Typical indirect measures are the coefficients of a multiple
regression where the dependent variable is an overall performance
rating (e.g. overall customer satisfaction), and the independent
variables are specific performance ratings for each attribute
(Dolinsky, 1991; Wittink and Bayer, 1994; Anton, 1996; Taylor,
1997; Lowenstein, 1995).
However, the implicit importance estimated this way would be
an average importance and would overlook any asymmetric
relationship between attribute performance and overall customer
satisfaction (Mittal et al., 1998; Matzler et al., 2004; Deng et al.,
2008). This is a relevant shortcoming of the previous literature,
which conflicts with both evidence and theory.
Studies on customer satisfaction demonstrate that product
attributes may affect overall satisfaction in a non-linear way.
Preliminary studies from the 1970s and 1980s were successful in
testing a two-factor theory of customer satisfaction (Swan and
Combs, 1976; Maddox, 1981; Cadotte and Turgeon, 1988). They
demonstrated that consumers judge products on a limited set of
attributes, some of which are relatively important in determining
satisfaction, while others are not critical to consumer satisfaction
but unsatisfactory performance in these attributes may lead to
dissatisfaction.
Kano (1984) was the first to formalize these intuitions, adding
original contributions to the theory. Kano’s model was later
refined by other studies (Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Brandt, 1988;
Gale, 1994; Johnston, 1995; Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002; Oliver,
1997). These authors distinguish three categories of attributes:
basic factors, excitement factors, and performance factors (Fig. 1).
Basic factors (or Kano’s dissatisfiers) are minimum requirements
that do not have a positive impact on satisfaction if expectations are
exceeded, but generate dissatisfaction if they are not fulfilled.
Excitement factors (or Kano’s satisfiers) are delighting attributes
that have no impact on dissatisfaction, but can foster satisfaction if
delivered. Finally, performance factors (or Kano’s one-dimensional
factors) have a symmetric impact on both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, in proportion to their level of fulfillment.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280
Exciting attributes
Satisfaction
Performance
attributes
Expectations Expectations
not fulfilled exceeded
Basic attributes
Dissatisfaction
Source: Adapted from Matzler et al., 1996
Fig. 1. The three-factor theory of customer satisfaction. Source: Adapted from
Matzler et al. (1996).
After Kano, different methodologies have been proposed to
identify the three factors. The most common methods are Kano’s
questionnaire, the critical incident technique, the analysis of
complaints and compliments, the importance grid, and the
penalty-reward-contrast analysis. Appendix 1 sums up these
contributions and their possible limitations. For detailed discus-
sion, refer to the article by Busacca and Padula (2005). The
methodology refined for this study is a development of the
penalty-reward-contrast analysis (Brandt, 1988).
3. Hypotheses
Zielke (2008) recently recalled that only a few authors have
developed hypotheses on the asymmetric effects of performance
dimensions on satisfaction. Even more surprisingly, almost every
study on customer satisfaction for financial services (see the
previous section) implicitly assumes no asymmetric effects at all.
We claim that this is a major shortcoming in the retail banking
literature, conflicting with the theoretical background introduced
above (Kano, 1984).
Hypothesis 1. Significant non-linear effects of performance
dimensions on overall satisfaction exist in retail banking.
Hypothesis 2. When the traditional coefficients of a multiple
regression are used as indirect measures of attribute importance,
the estimated results may disregard significant non-linear effects.
To estimate asymmetric effects using indirect measures of
attribute importance, we propose a new approach, presented
below. More specifically, regarding the list of relevant attributes in
retail banking, this study will follow an exploratory approach (see
Sections 4 and 7). We acknowledge the limits of this step, while
recalling that our main focus is on the evaluation of asymmetric
outcomes.
4. Data collection and methodology
For the purposes of this study, customer satisfaction of a
prominent Italian bank was analyzed. The research is based on a
survey of a sample of 5209 customers. Data were collected by a
certified research company using computer-assisted telephone
interview methodology. The sampling frame was the set of the
Bank’s customers with either a checking or a savings account at
the time of the survey (March–April 2006). Stratified random
sampling was used, based on geographic area, number of months
within the customer base, average number of transactions per
month, and average monthly balance.
273
Overall satisfaction and attribute performance were measured
using a Likert-like scale of 1 (extremely low) to 10 (extremely high).
A complete set of attributes was first identified, based on previous
literature and suggestions from company management. Then, a
subset of relevant satisfaction drivers was identified through both
qualitative and quantitative exploratory analysis (e.g. Cooley and
Lohnes, 1971; Darlington, 1990). Having a very large dataset, a
cross-validation approach was used and a stepwise regression
procedure was run (e.g. Darlington, 1990; Lindeman et al., 1980;
Neter et al., 1985; Stevens, 1986). Finally, using variance inflation
factors (VIF), we verified that multicollinearity among the
variables was not severe.
The idea behind the technique used in this paper is to assess
the importance of these attributes by distinguishing – ex post – the
following cases:
 the impact of negative performance of an attribute (i.e. negative
ratings) on unsatisfied bank customers;
 the impact of excellent performance of an attribute (i.e. top
rating scores) on delighted customers.
To estimate these effects, two dummy variables and two
interaction terms for each relevant attribute are introduced into
a classic multivariate regression model (see the formula below).
Overall satisfaction is the dependent variable.
The first dummy is set to ‘‘1’’ when the following conditions are
simultaneously met: the customer is unsatisfied with the company
(e.g. overall customer satisfaction below 5 in a Likert-like scale
from 1 to 10) and s/he gave negative feedback on the attribute in
question. Symmetrically, the second dummy associated with each
attribute is set to ‘‘1’’ when: the customer is delighted with the
company (e.g. overall customer satisfaction above 8 on a scale of
1–10) and s/he provided positive feedback on the attribute in
question.
Finally, as we said, two further terms for each attribute must be
added. They are two interaction terms multiplying the actual
performance of the attribute by the dummy variables identified
above. By doing this, the two terms will provide two independent
adjustments to the traditional coefficient of the attribute. Specifi-
cally, their parameters will provide the following:
 a corrective adjustment to estimate the extent to which top
performance in this attribute contributed to high levels of
customer satisfaction;
 a corrective adjustment to estimate the extent to which poor
performance in this attribute contributed to low levels of
customer satisfaction.
In formula,
Y^ i ¼ b0 þ b1j X ji þ b2j D1ji þ b3j X ji D1ji þ b4j D2ji þ b5j X ji D2ji
where Yi is the overall satisfaction (from 1 to 10) expressed by the
ith customer and Xji the performance evaluation (from 1 to 10) of
the jth attribute, expressed by the ith customer. D1ji ¼ 1 if the ith
customer expressed a negative evaluation of the jth attribute
(Xjio5) and overall dissatisfaction with the bank (Yio5); 0
otherwise. D2ji ¼ 1 if the ith customer expressed a positive
evaluation of the jth attribute (Xji47) and overall satisfaction
with the bank (Yi47); 0 otherwise.
It is important to note that the specification of the dummy
variables may lead to a spurious correlation problem. For this
reason, Table 2 details their Pearson correlation coefficients with
the dependent variable, confirming that no strong relationship
exists due to our mathematical process (Studenmund, 2001). In
fact, all the coefficients range from 0.57 to 0.26 (in absolute value),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

274 A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280

that is, a moderate to weak relationship. Nonetheless, caution is
warranted when interpreting the t-scores and overall fit of the
regression, since they could be overstated in the presence of strong
spurious relationships.
The empirical results are presented in Section 5. While we are
confident that this general approach is broadly applicable across
different industries, it should not be assumed that our specific
findings apply to contexts with substantially different underlying
characteristics from the context considered in this paper.
5. Empirical findings
The case of an Italian retail bank is used to show how the
analysis of customer satisfaction must take into consideration the
asymmetric impact that attribute performances may have on it.
The results from both a traditional and our revised approach are
compared.
The typical procedure used in the banking literature on
customer satisfaction estimates the importance of the attributes
through either standardized or unstandardized regression coeffi-
cients. We started out with the same procedure. The dependent
variable, again, is ‘‘overall customer satisfaction with the bank’’.
The unstandardized results are shown in Table 3, while Table 4
lists our set of critical value drivers in decreasing order of
importance, at least according to this approach. Appendix 2
provides a definition of the variables, as they were described to the
respondents. Nonetheless, we would like to understate the
relevance of our list of attributes (we only claim internal validity),
while keeping attention on the issue of asymmetric effects.
Table 2
The moderate correlation between our dummy variables (D1j and D2j) and the
dependent variable (Y).
Pearson correlations between the dummy variables and overall customer
satisfaction
The estimated model provides very good measures both in
terms of statistical significance and overall fit, explaining almost
60% of the variance in customer satisfaction. Nevertheless, as
already said, the assumptions of linearity are inconsistent with
both theory and empirical evidence. The relationship between
attribute-level performance and overall satisfaction is more
complex and requires specific adjustments.
The proposed adjustments are computed through the metho-
dology described in the previous section. The new results are
reported in Table 5. This also provides company management with
a visual representation of the results, making them easier to
interpret. Notably, the estimated impacts of low performance on
dissatisfaction are significantly different from the impacts of high
performance on high satisfaction (adjusted beta in Table 5), thus
confirming Hypothesis 1. In addition, the non-significant levels of
the reference cases (i.e. the cases with both dummies set to zero,
as well as those receiving scores of 5, 6, or 7) seem to corroborate
the disconfirmation of expectations paradigm for customer satisfac-
tion (Oliver, 1980, 1997), since neutral ratings would have no
statistical impact on overall satisfaction.
All this information can be used for a more accurate
consideration on what priorities to use when allocating scarce
resources to optimize customer satisfaction. In fact, to better
understand the role of each specific attribute in our value
proposition, it is important to
 look at the impact of both low and high performance on both
dissatisfaction and satisfaction,
 check current performance as reported by customers, both on
average, and with dissatisfied customers, and
 compare the information in the two points above across all the
relevant attributes.
Accordingly, two different charts can be drawn up (examples
are given in Figs. 2 and 3): one to help foster customer satisfaction
and one to minimize dissatisfaction. These are a variation of

Table 4
D1_satisfaction with the family banker 0.568a
Derived measures of importance according to a traditional regression analysis.
D1_solid company 0.556a
D1_innovative company 0.554a
Value drivers Estimated impact on Current
D1_easiness to contact the company 0.577a
customer satisfaction performance
D1_technical quality of the contents received 0.495a
D1_provision of suitable investments 0.531a
(1) Financial results from subscribed 0.30 7.44
D1_financial results from subscribed products 0.515a
products
D2_satisfaction with the family banker 0.405a
(2) Overall satisfaction with the family 0.19 8.54
D2_innovative company 0.477a
banker
D2_solid company 0.480a
(3) Provision of suitable investments 0.15 7.73
D2_easiness to contact the company 0.354a
(4) Solid company 0.14 8.02
D2_technical quality of the contents received 0.263a
(5) Technical quality of the contents 0.10 8.02
D2_provision of suitable investments 0.513a
sent
D2_financial results from subscribed products 0.556a
(6) Innovative company 0.09 8.01
a
(7) Easiness to contact the company 0.06 8.40
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
Traditional analysis to elicit attributes’ importance.

Parameter Estimated beta Standard error t Value Pr4jtj

Intercept 0.1774 0.1162 1.53 0.1271

Easiness to contact the company 0.0592 0.0122 4.85 o.0001
Provision of suitable investments 0.1492 0.0137 10.91 o.0001
Technical quality of the contents received 0.0961 0.0136 7.07 o.0001
Financial results from subscribed products 0.2957 0.0107 27.59 o.0001
Innovative company 0.0888 0.0163 5.44 o.0001
Solid company 0.1391 0.0162 8.59 o.0001
Overall satisfaction with the family banker 0.1885 0.0112 16.81 o.0001

R2 ¼ 0.58.
Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.57.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280 275

Table 5
Derived measures of attribute importance: the new insights.

Impact of low performances on dissatisfaction Reference cases Impact of high performances on high satisfaction

Adjusted Pr4jtj Intercept Pr4jtj beta Pr4t (one Adjusted Pr4 jtj Intercept Pr4jtj
beta correction tail) beta correction

Intercept 7.9817 o.0001

Easiness to contact the company 0.0382 0.6283 0.2082 0.5548 0.0611 n.s. 0.099** 0.0021 0.4686 0.048
Provision of suitable investments 0.0538 0.4688 0.7383 0.0332 0.00315 n.s. 0.166*** o.0001 1.1491 o.0001
Technical quality of the contents received 0.0946 0.2796 0.7075 0.0847 0.0586 n.s. 0.2111*** o.0001 1.4929 o.0001
Financial results from subscribed 0.2408*** o.0001 1.8663 o.0001 0.0596 0.0017 0.1383*** o.0001 0.798 0.0004
products
Innovative company 0.0351 0.7325 0.7537 0.124 0.0458 n.s. 0.1353** 0.0014 0.8948 0.0041
Solid company 0.4289*** o.0001 2.2971 o.0001 0.0672 n.s. 0.1772*** o.0001 1.0677 0.0007
Overall satisfaction w/ the family banker 0.3623*** o.0001 1.9451 o.0001 0.1044 n.s. 0.3259*** o.0001 1.8992 o.0001

R2 ¼ 0.6829.
Adj. R2 ¼ 0.6808.

0.35 simplification for company management. We propose, instead,

iority a heuristic interpretation of the two graphs, where the
Pr
0.30 gh Satisfaction w/family banker attributes in the upper left corner of our space represent our top
Hi
Impact on Satisfaction

priorities (either to increase customer satisfaction or to

0.25 Financial results from Technical quality of the contents sent reduce dissatisfaction, depending on the graph) and those in the
subscribed products
0.20 bottom-right corner should be the last investment areas to
Solid company consider. It is important to remember that the insights from
0.15 Availability of the graphs will be integrated and interpreted with the
suitable of investments
Innovative company sensitive sight of company management, which will consider,
0.10
Easiness to contact among other things, the marginal costs of the improvements and
ity
ior
the company
0.05 the different lifetime value of different customers (e.g. Baesens
Pr
w et al., 2004).
Lo
0.00 Above all, the new insights confirm the asymmetric impact of
7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 attribute performances on customer satisfaction. Further, the new
Current Performance results help to explain the inaccuracy of previous estimates,
obtained using the traditional method presented in the retail
Fig. 2. An example of impact-performance chart to improve customer satisfaction.
banking literature (Hypothesis 2).
To provide an example of the potential misleading conclusions
of the traditional approach, we start by considering the ‘‘technical
quality of the contents received from the bank’’. With a beta
ity coefficient equal to 0.096, the traditional analysis would classify
2.5 ior
r this value driver as one of the least important in our set (Table 4).
hP
Impact on DISSATISFACTION

Solid company
g
Hi Indeed, by averaging its implicit importance, the exciting nature of
2 this feature would not emerge in traditional analysis. Table 5 and
Satisfaction w/family banker
Financial results from Fig. 4 now tell us a different story. Fig. 4 represents the
1.5 subscribed products relationship between this variable and overall customer satisfac-
tion. The solid line is the new estimate, while the dotted line is the
1 Technical quality of estimate based on the old linear parameter. The lines are drawn
Innovative company the contents sent assuming that the remaining variables perform at their average.
Provision of
ity This implies a baseline level of customer satisfaction equal to 8.
0.5 suitable of investments ior
Easiness to contact Pr The new approach reveals substantial contribution from the
w
the company Lo attribute of ‘‘technical quality of the contents received from this
0 bank’’ in explaining top levels of customer satisfaction. Table 5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
reveals the exciting nature of this element, since the adjusted beta
Current Performance as perceived by coefficient estimating the impact of high performance on high
DISSATISFIED customers satisfaction is almost twice the adjusted beta coefficient capturing
the impact of low performance on dissatisfaction (0.21 vs. 0.09).
Fig. 3. An example of impact-performance chart to reduce customer dissatisfac-
tion. The opposite is true for basic factors, such as ‘‘being a solid
company’’ (0.18 vs. 0.43). Finally, for the so-called performance
attributes, the two coefficients are very similar, as in the case of
diagonal impact-performance models already used in other ‘‘overall satisfaction with the family banker’’ (0.33 and 0.36).
studies (e.g. Hawes and Rao, 1985; Slack, 1994), but now include The technical quality of the contents sent by this bank to its
the three-factor theory intuitions. For impact-performance appli- clients was actually the second most important factor in explain-
cations, diagonal line models were more reliable than quadrant ing high levels of customer satisfaction. This information can
methods (Bacon, 2003). therefore be usefully combined with the current performances of
Purposely, we do not provide any algebraic formula to rank our the attributes. In our case, for example, this value driver showed
priorities with mathematical precision. Those kinds of approaches interesting margins of improvement, suggesting new opportu-
have some theoretical shortcomings and represent a risky over- nities for company management.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
276 A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280
9 on satisfaction with the bank:
Impact* of low performances (1 to 5)
on dissatisfaction with the bank:
-0,71 + 0,09 x
8
Overall Satisfaction with the bank
Current performance,
as perceived by
dissatisfied customers: 6,8
* Impact on average satisfaction
1 5
Customers’evaluation about the technical quality
of the contents received from the bank
Fig. 4. A non-linear relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction.
On the contrary, ‘‘easiness to contact the bank’’ was one
of the top performing dimensions of the organization we studied.
Still, by the same token its estimated contribution to customer
satisfaction was not very high. Given both the marginal contribu-
tion to customer satisfaction and the current performance, such
organization may currently be overinvesting in this dimension.
Yet, before considering a reallocation of resources, it is also
important to take a closer look at the impact on customer
dissatisfaction. In our specific case, this information also con-
firmed the possibility of freeing up resources due to the out-
standing performance
This conclusion would have been different in the case of a basic
attribute, such as being considered a reliable, solid company. The
traditional analysis classified this attribute as being of average
importance. Conversely, while being a solid company will not
delight any customer, it has the potential to have a tremendous
impact on dissatisfaction (Table 5 and Fig. 5). For no reason, then,
would it be appropriate to disinvest in ‘‘basic’’ attributes. In the
study, this attribute actually represented the major dissatisfaction
trigger, with a tremendous risk in terms of negative word-of-
mouth. In these cases, it would be undoubtedly worthy a prompt
recovery of the most critical clients – critical both in terms of
economic value and visibility.
6. Conclusions and implications
Identifying the antecedents of customer satisfaction has
become a major concern for both researchers and marketing
practitioners, especially in retailing and service industries. In
Impact* of high performances (8 to 10)
+0,20 + 0,21 x
Traditional beta: 0,10
Current performance,
as perceived on average: 8,0
8 10
doing so, however, we must keep in mind that the level of attribute
satisfaction can cause a change in attribute importance. A specific
methodology to deal with this issue has been suggested in this
paper and its application has been illustrated through an extensive
study on an Italian retail bank. The asymmetric and non-linear
relationship between attribute performances and customer satis-
faction was confirmed by our findings.
While this approach can be applied across different industries,
it should not be assumed that the numerical results presented in
the sections above apply to contexts with substantially different
underlying characteristics. Nonetheless, the study helps to explain
a number of interesting insights for the retail banking industry.
Specifically,
 reputation is an increasingly critical, basic attribute and this is
probably emphasized by the recent subprime mortgage crisis.
As in the study reported in this paper, being a solid bank will
not delight any customer, but a poor perception of this attribute
would immediately foster high dissatisfaction,
 individual consumers are becoming more and more sophisti-
cated, confirming the social trend of customer evolution and
empowerment. In our case, two important antecedents of
satisfaction were the availability of a wide range of suitable
investments, and the technical quality of the informative
material sent to the clients,
 interpersonal relationships are confirmed to be a tremendous
driver of both customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
By providing social and confidence/trust benefits (Adelman
et al., 1994; Goodwin and Gremler, 1996; Hennig-Thurau
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280 277

Impact* of high performances (8 to 10)

9 Impact* of low performances (1 to 5) on satisfaction:
on dissatisfaction: +0,35 + 0,18x
-2,30 + 0,43x
Traditional beta: 0,14
8

Current performance,
as perceived on average: 8, 2

Current performance,
as perceived by
Overall Satisfaction with the bank

dissatisfied customers : 5,6

* Impact on average satisfaction

1 5 8 10

Customers’ evaluation about the solidity of the bank

Fig. 5. A non-linear relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction.

et al., 2002), this relationship contributes to the creation
of value and, in turn, to customer loyalty (Reynolds and
Beatty, 1999; Butcher et al., 2001). A pertinent suggestion
for retail banking can be adapted from recent studies on
salespersons (Palmatier et al., 2007a, 2007b). The more a
customer perceives that all the employees with whom s/he
deals behave consistently, the more likely s/he will infer
that this behavior is due to underlying causes related to the
bank, such as employee selection or training. So, in this case
too, a well-established reputation and a positive image would
be both the result and a signal of interpersonal consistency,
leading to a much stronger and positive attitude toward the
bank.
7. Limitations and directions for future research
The overall approach that we propose has been illustrated
using a large customer base from the Italian banking context.
Nonetheless, while we are confident that our procedure is widely
applicable across other retail and service businesses, it should not
be assumed that our specific findings apply to contexts with
different underlying characteristics from the one considered here.
Caution should also be used in considering the list of attributes
that we selected for this study, since a quantitative exploratory
procedure was adopted. Although stepwise regression with cross-
validation is the least controversial methodology for variable
selection, we do not claim external validity for this outcome,
assuming a conservative position in the presence of multiple
statistical comparisons. From this point of view, we confirm the
exploratory nature of our research, whose main goal was to
illustrate a different approach for an improved analysis of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction drivers. Additional research might
test our framework both in different cultures and different
businesses. For future studies, we also suggest multi-item
measures of performance: some attributes of a value proposition
are broad in scope and simply cannot be assessed with a single
question. In addition, a composite score resulting from a multi-
item measure tends to be more consistent over time and, in
general, more reliable, because random errors can average out
(Spector, 1992).
From the point of view of the procedure, we showed that no
strong correlations are generated by our methodology. None-
theless, VIF analysis is always warranted, as well as a correlation
test between our dummy variables (D1j and D2j) and the
dependent variable. In the presence of strong correlations, caution
is needed in interpreting overstated t-scores and overall fit of the
regression.
A final remark for any future implementation of this method
relates to the heterogeneity of the sample (Allenby et al., 1998).
This kind of analysis shall always be applied to a relatively
homogenous subset of clients. Accordingly, either a preliminary
cluster analysis or a latent class analysis is strongly suggested (e.g.
Kamakura and Russell, 1989; Mizuno et al., 2008).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

278 A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280

Appendix 1

The different methods to identify the three factors of customer satisfaction are listed below.

Method Authors Results Comments

Kano’s Kano (1984), Berger et al. (1993), Three-factor  Especially used in the QFD literature
questionnaire Matzler et al. (1996), and Yang theory supported  Reliability and validity not thoroughly tested.
(2005)  Weak in practice, since the allocation of attributes to categories is based on a
frequency distribution of the responses
 Time-consuming and costly method

Critical incident Swan and Combs (1976), Two-factor theory  Widely used in service quality research
technique Maddox (1981), Silvestro and supported  External validity questionable, since based on anecdotes
Johnston (1990), Stauss and Three-factor  Complex method: difficulties in processing and analyzing anecdotal materials
Hentschel (1992), Johnston theory supported
(1995), and Backhaus and Bauer
(2000)
Analysis of Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) Three-factor  Validity and reliability questionable (see CIT)
complaints theory supported  Bias entailed in the contents
and
compliments
Importance grid Vavra (1997); Matzler and Three-factor  User-friendly approach
Sauerwein (2002), and Busacca theory supported  Validity questionable
and Padula (2005)  No theory behind the method
 The use of explicitly derived importance is a source of misinterpretation

The penalty- Brandt (1988), Mittal et al. Three-factor  Uses data from ‘‘typical’’ satisfaction surveys, therefore, no additional data
reward- (1998), Anderson and Mittal theory supported collection is required
contrast (2000), Matzler and Sauerwein  User-friendly approach.
analysis (2002), and Matzler et al. (2004,  Typically, small amount of overall satisfaction explained
2006)
The shapely value Conklin et al. (2004) Two-factor theory  Computational difficulties (sampling of attribute combinations is necessary)
supported  Identifies only the most relevant combination of dissatisfies (or key-enhancers)

Appendix 2

List of attributes: the original questions in the survey are listed below:

Attribute/variable label Question in the survey

Financial results from ‘‘On a scale of 1–9 (with 1 meaning completely dissatisfied and 9 meaning very highly satisfied), how satisfied are you with the overall
subscribed products results of the financial products that you subscribed with our bank? You can consider both the current value of your investment and
the monetary pay back that you have received till now.’’
Overall satisfaction with ‘‘Please think of the overall experience with your family banker. On a scale of 1–9 (with 1 meaning completely dissatisfied and 9
the family banker meaning very highly satisfied), overall, how satisfied are you with your family banker?’’
Provision of suitable ‘‘Please think of the range of investments and financial products that our bank currently offers to its customers. How well do you think
investments our offer suits your financial needs? (on a scale of 1–9 (with 1 meaning completely dissatisfied and 9 meaning very highly satisfied).’’
Solid company ‘‘Overall, solvency, liquidity and the quality of assets make a solid bank. In other words, we think of a solid bank as a bank where your
money will always be safe.
On a scale of 1–9, with 1 meaning that you totally disagree and 9 meaning that you fully agree, would you refer to our bank as a solid
company?’’
Technical quality of the ‘‘We send you a monthly newsletter together with your financial statement. On a scale of 1–9, how much do you appreciate the
contents sent technical quality of the contents and the analysis that we send you? 1 means that you do not appreciate them at all and 9 means that
you appreciate them highly.’’
Innovative company ‘‘We think of an innovative bank as a company that keeps offering new services to its customers as well as old services in new,
innovative ways.
On a scale of 1–9, with 1 meaning that you totally disagree and 9 meaning that you fully agree, would you refer to our bank as an
innovative company?’’
Easiness to contact the ‘‘Think of all the possible ways that you can contact our bank when you need to. Based on this information and on your own
company preferences, how easy do you think it is to contact us? Please express your evaluation on a scale of 1–9, with 1 meaning very hard to
contact and 9 meaning extremely easy to contact.’’

References
Adelman, M.B., Ahuvia, A., Goodwin, C., 1994. Beyond smiling – social support and
service quality. In: Rust, R., Oliver, R. (Eds.), Service Quality – New Directions in
Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, pp. 139–171.
Allenby, G.M., Arora, N., Ginter, J.L., 1998. On the heterogeneity of demand. Journal
of Marketing Research 35 (3), 384–389.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share
and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 53–66.
Anderson, E.W., Mittal, V., 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal
of Service Research 3 (2), 107–120.
Anton, J., 1996. Customer Relationship Management: Making Hard Decisions with
Soft Numbers. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bacon, D.R., 2003. A comparison of approaches to importance–performance
analysis. International Journal of Market Research 45 (1), 55–71.
Backhaus, K., Bauerm, M., 2000. The impact of critical incidents on customer
satisfaction in business-to-business relationship. Journal of Business to
Business Marketing 8 (1), 25–44.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280
Baesens, B., Verstraeten, G., Van den Poel, D., Egmont-Petersen, M., Van Kenhove, P.,
Vanthienen, J., 2004. Bayesian network classifiers for identifying the slope of
the customer lifecycle of long-life customers. European Journal of Operational
Research 156 (2), 508–523.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D. et al., 1993. Kano’s methods for understanding
customer defined quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control
(Fall), 3–35.
Brandt, R.D., 1988. How service marketers can identify value-enhancing service
elements. The Journal of Services Marketing 2 (3), 35–41.
Busacca, B., Padula, G., 2005. Understanding the relationship between attribute
performance and overall satisfaction: theory, measurement and implications.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 23 (6), 543–561.
Butcher, K., Sparks, B., O’Callaghan, F., 2001. Evaluative and relational influences on
service loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12 (4),
310–327.
Cadotte, E.R., Turgeon, N., 1988. Key factors in guest satisfaction. The Cornell H.R.A.
Quarterly 28 (4), 45–51.
Conklin, M., Powaga, K., Lipovetsky, S., 2004. Customer satisfaction analysis: identifi-
cation of key drivers. European Journal of Operational Research 154 (3),
819–827.
Cooley, W.W., Lohnes, P.R., 1971. Multivariate Data Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY.
Darlington, R.B., 1990. Regression and Linear Models. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Day, G.S., Fahey, L., 1988. Valuing marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing 52 (3),
45–57.
Deng, W., Kuo, Y., Chen, W., 2008. Revised importance–performance analysis: three
factor theory and benchmarking. The Service Industries Journal 28 (1), 37–51.
Dolinsky, A.L., 1991. Considering the competition in strategy development: an
extension of importance–performance analysis. Journal of Health Care Market-
ing 11 (1), 31–36.
Ehigie, B.O., 2006. Correlates of customer loyalty to their bank: a case study in
Nigeria. International Journal of Bank Marketing 24 (7), 494–508.
Eklof, J.A., Hackl, P., Westlund, A., 1999. On measuring interactions between
customer satisfaction and financial results. Total Quality Management 10 (4
and 5), 514–522.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Jaesung, C., Bryant, B.E., 1996. The
American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of
Marketing 60 (4), 7–18.
Gale, B.T., 1994. Managing Customer Value. The Free Press, New York, NY.
Goodwin, C., Gremler, D.D., 1996. Friendship over the counter: how social aspects of
service encounters influence consumer service loyalty. In: Brown, S.B., Bowen,
D., Swartz, T. (Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, vol. V.
JAI Press, London, pp. 247–282.
Hawes, J.M., Rao, C.P., 1985. Using importance–performance analysis to
develop health care marketing strategies. Journal of Health Care Marketing 5
(4), 19–25.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., 2002. Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship
quality. Journal of Service Research 4 (3), 230–247.
Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., 1998. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of
financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of
Accounting Research 36 (Suppl.), 1–35.
Jamal, A., Naser, K., 2002. Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment
of some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 20 (4), 146–160.
Jamal, A., Naser, K., 2003. Factors influencing customer satisfaction in the retail
banking sector in Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Manage-
ment 13 (2), 29–53.
Johnston, R., 1995. The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers.
International Journal of Service Industry Management 6 (5), 53–71.
Johnston, R., 1997. Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail
banking: importance and effect. International Journal of Bank Marketing 15 (4),
111–116.
Johnson, M.D., Nader, G., Fornell, C., 1996. Expectations, perceived performance, and
customer satisfaction for a complex service: the case of bank loans. Journal of
Economic Psychology 17 (2), 163–182.
Jones, C., 2004. Developing a scorecard for service quality. Management Services 48
(April), 8–13.
Kamakura, W.A., Russell, G.J., 1989. A probabilistic choice model for market
segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research 26
(November), 379–390.
Kano, N., 1984. Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu: The Journal of the
Japanese Society for Quality Control 14 (2), 39–48.
Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C., Winsor, R.D., 2000. Service quality perspectives
and satisfaction in private banking. Journal of Services Marketing 14 (3),
244–271.
Levesque, T., McDougall, G.H., 1996. Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail
banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 14 (7), 12–20.
Lindeman, R.H., Merenda, P.F., Gold, R.Z., 1980. Introduction to Bivariate and
Multivariate Analysis. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Lowenstein, M.W., 1995. Customer Retention: An Integrated Process for Keeping
Your Best Customers. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Maddox, R.N., 1981. Two-factor theory and consumer satisfaction: replication and
extension. Journal of Consumer Research 8 (1), 97–102.
Manrai, L.A., Manrai, A.K., 2007. A field study of customers’ switching behaviour
for bank services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service 14 (7),
208–215.
279
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B., Pichler, J., 2004. The asymmetric
relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer
satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis.
Industrial Marketing Management 33 (4), 271–277.
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H., Sauerwein, B., 1996. How to delight your customer.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 5 (2), 6–18.
Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., 2002. The factor structure of customer satisfaction:
an empirical test of the importance grid and the penalty-reward-
contrast analysis. International Journal of Service Industry Management 13
(4), 314–332.
Matzler, K., Würtele, A., Renzl, B., 2006. Dimensions of price satisfaction: a study in
the retail banking industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing 24 (4),
216–231.
Mittal, V., Ross, W.T., Baldasare, P.M., 1998. The asymmetric impact of negative and
positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase
intentions. Journal of Marketing 62 (1), 33–47.
Mizuno, M., Saji, A., Sumita, U., Suzuki, H., 2008. Optimal threshold analysis of
segmentation methods for identifying target customers. European Journal of
Operational Research 186 (1), 358–379.
Nagar, V., Rajan, M.V., 2005. Measuring customer relationships: the case of the
retail banking industry. Management Science 51 (June), 904–919.
Ndubisi, N.O., 2006. A structural equation modelling of the antecedents of
relationship quality in the Malaysia banking sector. Journal of Financial
Services Marketing 11 (2), 131–141.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Kutner, M.H., 1985. Applied Linear Statistical Models:
Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs. Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences
of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (November),
495–507.
Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective and attribute base of satisfaction response.
Journal of Consumer Research 20 (December), 418–430.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Customer Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oppewal, H., Vriens, M., 2000. Measuring perceived service quality using inte-
grated conjoint experiments. International Journal of Bank Marketing 18 (4),
154–169.
Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., Steenkamp, J.-B.E., 2007a. Customer loyalty to whom?
Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of
Marketing Research 44 (2), 185–199.
Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., Houston, M.B., Evans, K.R., Gopalakrishna, S., 2007b.
Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–salesperson and
customer–firm relationships: differential influence on financial outcomes.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 (3), 210–223.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service
quality and implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49 (Autumn),
41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (1),
12–40.
Reynolds, K.E., Beatty, S.E., 1999. Customer benefits and company consequences of
customer–salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing 75 (1),
11–32.
Silvestro, R., Johnston, R., 1990. The determinants of Service Quality: Hygiene and
Enhancing factors. Quality Services II, Selected Papers, Warwick Business
School, England, pp. 193–210.
Slack, N., 1994. The importance–performance matrix as a determinant of
improvement priority. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 14, 59–75.
Spector, P., 1992. Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A., Fahey, L., 1998. Market-based assets and shareholder
value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing 62 (1), 2–18.
Stauss, B., Hentschel, B., 1992. Attribute-based versus incident-based measurement
of service quality: results of an empirical study in the German car service
industry. In: Kunst, P., Lemmink, J. (Eds.), Quality Management in Services. Van
Gorcum, Assen, pp. 59–78.
Stevens, J., 1986. Applied Multivariate Statistics for Social Sciences. LEA, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Studenmund, A.H., 2001. Using Econometrics, forth ed. Addison Wesley Longman,
Boston, MA.
Swan, J.E., Combs, L.J., 1976. Product performance and consumer satisfaction: a new
concept. Journal of Marketing 40 (April), 25–33.
Taylor, S.A., 1997. Assessing regression-based importance weights for quality
perceptions and satisfaction judgments in the presence of higher order and/or
interaction effects. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 135–159.
Taylor, S.A., Baker, T.L., 1994. An assessment of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase
intentions. Journal of Retailing 70 (2), 163–178.
Varki, S., Colgate, M., 2001. The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of
behavioural intentions. Journal of Service Research 3 (February), 232–240.
Vavra, T.G., 1997. Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: A Guide
to Creating, Conducting, Analyzing And Reporting Customer Satisfaction
Measurement Program, Milwaukee, WI.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1999. Customer response to intangible and tangible
service factors. Psychology and Marketing 16 (1), 51–68.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

280 A. Arbore, B. Busacca / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 271–280

Winstanley, M., 1997. What drives customer satisfaction in commercial banking.
Commercial Lending Review 12 (3), 36–42.
Wittink, D.R., Bayer, L.R., 1994. The measurement imperative. Marketing Research 6
(4), 14–22.
Yang, C., 2005. The refined Kano’s model and its application. Total Quality
Management 16 (10), 1127–1137.
Zeithaml, Z.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.
Zielke, S., 2008. Exploring asymmetric effects in the formation of retail
price satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (5),
335–347.