Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hedonic To LYT Ns
Hedonic To LYT Ns
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1759-0833.htm
JIMA
12,4 Relationship dynamics in
customer loyalty to online
banking services
830 Akram Garepasha, Samad Aali, Ali Reza Bafandeh Zendeh and
Soleyman Iranzadeh
Received 6 September 2019
Revised 17 December 2019 Department of Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
22 March 2020
Accepted 27 March 2020
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of service quality and relationship quality on
customer loyalty in different stages of the relationship life cycle in online banking services.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 651 Iranian online banking customers participated in the
research by completing questionnaires. The research hypotheses were tested using structural modeling
technique.
Findings – The results showed that the relationship quality on customer loyalty in online banking services
is affected by the relationship life cycle. The results also showed that online service quality, in the form of
Utilitarian quality and Hedonic quality, has a positive effect both directly and indirectly on customer loyalty
through online relationship quality.
Research limitations/implications – In this paper, the relationship dynamics was achieved through
adding the relationship life cycle variable to the model. However, the study was a cross-sectional research and
different results might be obtained if data was collected longitudinally.
Practical implications – In an online banking service, the role of relationship quality in the prediction of
customer loyalty is reduced as the relationship ages. Therefore, marketers need to consider other marketing
actions to continue their relationship with the customer in the long run.
Originality/value – This paper examines customer loyalty to online banking services from dynamic
perspective by introducing relationship life cycle as a moderating variable for the first time. Therefore, the
main contribution of this paper is to develop the relationship marketing literature in the field of relationship
dynamics and to challenge the effectiveness of relationship marketing in the long run.
Keywords Relationship life cycle, Online service quality, Online relationship quality, Online loyalty
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The emergence of internet commerce in the 1990s and its ever-increasing spread have been
accompanied with tremendous developments in business environments. This trend has
forced companies to survive in the highly competitive environment before they can make
entry into the electronic market and adapt themselves to the provided conditions (Elliot,
2007).
Also, despite the rapid growth of e-commerce and the need for businesses to enter the e-
market, many customers acknowledge that they are unsatisfied with their online shopping
experience. This requires further research to better understand the factors that affect
customers’ evaluation of their online shopping behavior and thus requires their loyalty (Luo
Journal of Islamic Marketing et al., 2012).
Vol. 12 No. 4, 2021
pp. 830-863
The banking industry is no exception and internet has revolutionized the industry
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1759-0833
throughout the world (Hussien and Aziz, 2013). Internet banking has unique features
DOI 10.1108/JIMA-09-2019-0183 compared to traditional banking. For example, internet banking enables customers to carry
out a wide range of banking activities at any time and at a low cost (Amin, 2016). Although Dynamics in
the internet provides many advantages for users, it is like a double-edged sword as it lacks customer
the human elements of financial institutions.
As in physical environments, social relationships are closer and longer and businesses
loyalty
can guarantee customer loyalty by relying on how to provide services corresponding to their
customers’ characteristics and needs, as well as by promoting the quality of the relationship
between employees and customers. However, in the online environment, the role of human
elements in service delivery is greatly reduced or eliminated and getting customer loyalty is 831
challenged (Brun et al., 2014).
On the other hand, the internet has made it easier to choose better and more options, and
this means reducing the users’ loyalty to a particular financial institution and creating a
great competition and challenge among them (Zhang et al., 2016). Therefore, for financial
institutions such as banks, it is more important to manage and improve their relationships
with customers than to create long-term relationships with them.
Therefore, nowadays getting the loyalty of online customer has become a key element in
business strategy and identifying the factors affecting it is of paramount importance
(Toufaily and Pons, 2017). In online environments, there are various factors affecting
customer loyalty, the most important ones are service quality (Cristobal et al., 2007;
Marimon et al., 2010; Chang and Wang, 2011; Al-Hawari, 2014) and relationship quality
(Ribbink et al., 2004; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014).
Online service quality can be considered as the main source of e-commerce and it can be
defined as the overall assessment and judgment of customers about the superiority and
quality of services offered in the virtual market (Amin, 2016).
Although different experts present different dimensions for the quality of online services,
the two utilitarian and hedonistic dimensions cover all the aspects of the research (Alonso-
Almeida et al., 2014).
Initially, experts in conceptualizing the quality of online services mainly emphasized its
utilitarian dimension such as accountability, security, technological features and usability.
In recent years, however, some authors have argued that hedonic quality is another
dimension of online service quality that affects customer loyalty (Yang et al., 2010; Bernardo
et al., 2012; Llach et al., 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Arcand et al., 2017). Hedonic
dimensions are defined as those that focus on the entertainment aspects of using
information systems and encourage long-term use (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014).
Also, most researchers believe that relationship quality is a predictor variable of
customer loyalty (Fang et al., 2016; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014; Yu and Tung, 2013; Hinnawi,
2011; Naoui and Zaiem, 2010; Adjeia and Clark, 2010; Palmatier et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2006;
Ribbink et al., 2004).
Relationship quality is deemed as a general evaluation of the relationship power and its
responsiveness to needs and expectations of both pairs based on successful encounters and
events (Smith, 1998). Relationship quality has a multidimensional construct composed of
several factors that reflect the general nature of the relationship between companies and
customers. Despite the lack of a consensus on dimensions and elements of quality, there is a
general agreement that satisfaction, trust and commitment are key elements of the
relationship quality (Smith, 1998; Brun et al., 2014; Palmatier et al., 2006; Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2006). Also, according to Brun et al. (2014), commitment, trust and
satisfaction are constituent elements of the relationship quality in online context
In a research conducted in the electronic context, the positive impact of relationship
quality on loyalty has been confirmed (Liang et al., 2008; Chen and Ku, 2013). However,
investigating the relationship between service quality and relationship quality also indicates
JIMA the existence of a positive relationship between these two variables (Ribbink et al., 2004;
12,4 Chang and Wang, 2011; Yaya et al., 2011; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014), which shows the
fundamental role of the variable relationship quality, which has gained less attention in
electronic space than the other variables, i.e. online quality and customer loyalty.
The majority of previous studies have examined the relationship between relationship
quality and loyalty in a static state. However, according to the theory of dynamic
832 relationship marketing, relationships have a lifecycle just like products, and with the
passage of time, the relationship between business and customer changes and enters a new
level of relationship. At each level of the relationship, different relationship constructs are
needed to maintain the relationship with the customer (Zhang et al., 2016). This reveals that
relationships are dynamic, and therefore firms need to make different efforts at each stage of
the relationship life cycle to maintain their relationship and gain more customer value in the
form of loyalty. Thus, academicians and business managers need to conduct more empirical
research to shed further light on various impacts of relationship quality on customer loyalty
during the relationship lifecycle in both online and offline contexts.
Therefore, to better understand whether customer loyalty behavior in electronic space is
affected by the service quality and the relationship quality and whether this behavior
changes in different stages of the customer’s lifecycle, more experimental studies are needed
and the present paper seeks to accomplish this.
This research contributes in several ways to developing relationship marketing literature
with regard to the dynamics of the relationship: first, it suggests that the effect of online
relationship quality dimensions on customer loyalty can vary depending on the different
stages of the relationship lifecycle and that the relationship lifecycle can play a key role by
weakening or strengthening the effect of online relationship quality on customer loyalty.
Second, it provides a practical experience of the proposed framework regarding e-banking
services and shows that the direction and strength of the relationship between the
dimensions of online relationship quality and customer loyalty could change in different
stages of the relationship lifecycle. Third, it emphasizes, through challenging the
effectiveness of relationship marketing in the long run, the importance of applying different
relationship constructs (satisfaction, trust and commitment) to customers in different stages
of the relationship life cycle, as well as the adjustment of the relationship marketing
strategies to the status of the customer-business relationship and shows that relationship
marketing should be dynamic.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Online service quality
The growth of online services has dramatically changed the way customers interact with
organizations. The online service quality is the subject of most research in marketing
because of the relationship between cost, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Al-
Hawari, 2014).
In electronic service environments, website quality as the technological application link
is of great importance to the customers, for it replaces the human interactions. When
technology practically provides services, then it is essential that the definition of service
quality be revised (Arcand et al., 2017).
In the literature, online service quality has been defined extensively by various
researchers (Chang and Wang, 2011; Wu and Ko, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014., Jiang et al., 2015;
Ayo et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2017). In general, electronic service quality can be defined as the
customers’ evaluation and overall judgment concerning the superiority and quality of the
provided services in the virtual market (Amin, 2016).
In the previous studies, the authors offered different scales for measuring online service Dynamics in
quality. Ribbink et al. (2004) presented a five-dimensional scale to measure the online service customer
quality in online shops consisting of ease of use, customization, e-escape, responsiveness
and assurance.
loyalty
Parasuramanet al. (2005) have offered two scales to assess electronic service quality, both
of which adopted from SERVQUAL scale; the first scale is E-S-QUAL, which consists of the
four dimensions of efficiency, fulfillment, system availability and safety. The second scale is
E-ResS-QUAL, which is more suitable for cases when customers confront non-routine 833
situations. This scale consists of three dimensions, responsiveness, compensation and
contact. These two scales have been used practically in different situations (Bernardo et al.,
2012).
Al-Hawari (2014), too, has presented a five-dimensional scale in banking industry, which
is a combination of the three models, i.e. Parasuraman et al. (2005), Ribbink et al. (2004) and
Zeithaml et al. (2002) and consists of efficiency, reliability, responsiveness, privacy and
contact.
These studies have found differences in the electronic-quality scale by demonstrating
that understanding the quality of e-services can vary depending on sector and product
(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014). In other words, based on customer experiences and
evaluations, the scale and dimensions of each research are unique (Ozen, 2015). In recent
years, some researchers have considered the quality of e-services in both utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions, suggesting that these two dimensions encompass different dimensions
of e-service quality (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Bilgihan and Bujisic, 2014; Shin, 2015; Park
et al., 2014).
Accordingly, in this paper, the quality of online services is divided into utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions.
The above-mentioned scales, in measuring electronic service quality, mainly emphasize
the utilitarian dimensions such as responsiveness, safety and technological and usability
characteristics. In recent years, some authors have discussed hedonistic quality as another
dimension of electronic service quality that affects customer loyalty (Bernardo et al., 2012;
Llach et al., 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Arcand et al., 2017). Hedonistic dimensions are
defined as dimensions that focus on the entertainment aspects of using information system
and encourage long-term use (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014). With regard to the fact that
electronic trade is mainly self-service technology, the customers’ contribution is high, and
the role of hedonistic dimensions is on the increase (Lin and Hsieh, 2011). In e-banking, too,
some authors have emphasized the role of the hedonistic dimension of service quality in
accepting the mobile banking platforms, as well as the dimensions of customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty (Herington and Weaven, 2009; Chemingui and Iallouna, 2013; Shaikh
and Karjaluoto, 2015; Arcand et al., 2017). Thus, we believe that the quality of electronic
services in banking sector comprises the two dimensions of hedonistic and utilitarian
qualities.
2.1.1 Utilitarian quality. Bilgihan and Bujisic (2014) assert that utilitarian quality is an
essential feature of online sales. Utilitarian quality means the proper functioning of the
website and is one of the basic needs for any type of website (Barrera et al., 2014). Many
online shopping research studies have focused more on the utilitarian benefits of using the
internet and often assume that online shopping is targeted and most likely, the functional
benefits cause incentives for online purchase (Kim and Forsythe, 2007). Typically, online
customers are more comfortable comparing selective options to competitive prices than
offline customers and a few clicks can result in a competitive offer on the internet (Barrera
and Cepeda-Carrion, 2014). Chitturi et al. (2007, 2008) and Kivetz and Simonson (2002) argue
JIMA that consumers are more interested in the utilitarian dimension than the hedonistic
12,4 dimension.
The relationship between the utilitarian features of the website and trust has been
confirmed by some authors (Etemad-Sajadi and Ghachem, 2015; Kananukul et al., 2015; Shin
et al., 2013; Park et al., 2014). The effect of the utilitarian perceptions of the website on
computational and emotional commitment has been shown in a research conducted by
834 Aurier and N’Goala (2010) and Cristobal et al. (2008), which shows that a utilitarian
perception has a positive impact on commitment. The studies by Polites et al. (2012) and
Barrera and Cepeda-Carrion (2014) suggest that utilitarian quality has a positive effect on
satisfaction. Also, Aurier and N’Goala (2010) show that utilitarian quality has a positive
effect on satisfaction, commitment and trust. Similarly, Chung and Shin (2010), Yaya et al.
(2011), Chang and Wang (2011), Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2013), Al-Hawari (2014) and Ayo
et al. (2016) have shown that service quality affects satisfaction. In the same vein, Wetzels
et al. (1998) showed the effect of utilitarian and technical quality on satisfaction. Toufaily
and Pons (2017), Polites et al. (2012) and Cui et al. (2016) confirm the impact of utilitarian
quality on loyalty. In banking sector, also, Yaya et al. (2011) and Romulo (2007) show that
utilitarian quality has a positive effect on loyalty. A study conducted by Kim et al. (2012)
indicates the effect of utilitarian value and hedonistic value on intention to repurchase.
Sousa and Voss (2012), Alonso-Almeida et al. (2014) and Hao-Erl et al. (2010) have also
shown the effect of service quality that includes both utilitarian and hedonistic dimensions
on loyalty. Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented in this paper:
H14. Impact of trust on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life cycle.
H15. Effect of satisfaction on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life
cycle.
H16. Impact of commitment on loyalty varies in different stages of the relationship life
cycle.
3. Method
3.1 Measurement
A standardized self-administered questionnaire was developed from an extensive literature
review. All the variables used in this research were adopted from the previous studies. A
total of 24 scaled items and one question were used to measure the constructs in this model,
two items of which were deleted at the stage of evaluating the construct measurement
models due to having factor loads below the acceptable level and 22 items remained.
Table 2 displays the measurement items and research constructs along with their
sources. All research constructs except for the relationship life cycle were measured using
Likert seven-point scale (strongly disagree = 1) to (strongly agree = 7).
In this study, the variable of relationship life cycle is measured with nominal scale and a
four-choice question (Jap and Gansen, 2000). Each option represents one of the four stages of
the relationship life cycle (exploration, buildup, maturity and decline), and the respondent by
Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
the research
JIMA selecting any of them indicates at what stage of his relationship life cycle with the bank he/
12,4 she is.
Considering that, in this paper, the relationship between the bank and existing customers
is examined, the awareness stage is eliminated because the bank and customer relationship
is not realized until now, and, inspired by Jap and Ganesan (2000), the stages of exploration,
buildup, retention and decline of the relationship are taken into account as the fourfold
842 stages of the relationship life cycle.
The respondents were supposed to specify the level of their relationship with the bank by
choosing one of the options. In the previous studies, besides the relationship life cycle, other
parameters such as age or the length of the relationship have been used to measure the
relationship stage. However, the literature indicates that using the relationship life cycle to
determine the level or stage of the relationship is more solid than the other methods (Jap and
Ganesan, 2000). The relationship life cycle shows that relationship formation is an
evolutionary process. In contrast, the relationship age approach ignores temporal
heterogeneity by assuming that all the relationships in the life cycle move at equal rate
(Palmatier et al., 2013). Thus, age is not a suitable criterion to measure the relationship
stages. Some relationships may reach the stage of maturity, whereas others might still be in
the stage of development even after the passage of some years (Eggert et al., 2006).
acceptable goodness-of-fit (Hair et al., 1995). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) believe that as
unidimensional measurement models present more accurate tests in measuring the
constructs compared to convergent and divergent validity, they are considered more useful
measurement tools. The unidimensionality assessment of the constructs is carried out before
testing the validity and reliability of each construct (Hair et al., 1995).
All studied constructs were analyzed in a measurement model. In confirmation of the
measurement model, the items with factor loadings less than 0.5 were eliminated and the
open model was defined. However, the first item of commitment construct with factor
loading of 0/44 was not removed because its elimination decreases the fitness of many model
indexes. Therefore, according to Tabachink and Fidel (1996), who consider the factor
loadings greater than 0.34 acceptable (Meyers et al., 2006), we did not remove this item.
Based on the results of the measurement model, one item was eliminated from utilitarian
quality and commitment and two items were eliminated from trust. Table 2 lists the items
and their factor loading in the final measurement models.
The results of factor load and goodness-of-fit indices constructs have been given in Table 2.
To assess the reliability of the research constructs, we made use of three methods,
namely, Cronbach’s alpha, compound reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) argue that the compound reliability should be equal to or higher than
0.6, the AVE should be equal to or higher than 0.5, and the Cronbach’s alpha should be equal
to or higher than 0.7. Accordingly, as is shown in Table 2, the values of CR, AVE and
Cronbach’s alpha are all at the acceptable level. Thus, it can be said that the reliability of the
research constructs is at an acceptable level.
The constructs showed a high degree of convergent validity, as all the AVE values were
found to be well above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Moreover, to test for discriminant
validity, the square root of the AVE was compared to all inter-factor correlations. The
square roots of AVE for different constructs are represented on the diagonal of Table 3.
From the table, it can be inferred that the values of the square root of AVE of all of the
constructs are greater than the inter-construct correlations (Fornell&Larcker, 1981),
verifying the discriminant validity. So, it could be concluded that the measurement model
exhibited good construct validity.
JIMA Factor Cronbach’s
12,4 Constructs and items and their sources loading alpha (a) CR AVE
846
JIMA
estimates
Table 5.
Testing the
standardized
hypotheses using the
Std. Bootstrapping
Hypothesized path Mean S.E estimate Lower bound Upper bound p Supported
H1: Utilitarian quality ! Commitment 0.195 0.057 0.189 0.063 0.259 0.039 Yes
H2: Utilitarian quality ! Satisfaction 0.406 073 0.401 0.289 0.530 0.012 Yes
H3: Utilitarian quality ! Trust 0.378 0.069 0.369 0.254 0.489 0.016 Yes
H4: Utilitarian quality ! Loyalty 0.291 0.067 0.298 0.169 0.401 0.010 Yes
H5: Hedonic quality ! Commitment 0.297 0.071 0.296 0.164 0.407 0.013 Yes
H6: Hedonic quality ! Satisfaction 0.106 0.074 0.110 0.004 0.267 0.085 Yes
H7: Hedonic quality ! Trust 0.358 0.065 0.364 0.259 0.471 0.007 Yes
H8: Hedonic quality ! Loyalty 0.065 0.054 0.068 0.023 0.144 0.178 No
H9: Commitment ! Loyalty 0.325 0.054 0.323 0.242 0.419 0.009 Yes
H10: Satisfaction ! Loyalty 0.155 0.061 0.148 0.055 0.242 0.020 Yes
H11: Trust ! Loyalty 0.230 0.056 0.231 0.142 0.327 0.008 Yes
H12: Trust ! Commitment 0.291 0.067 0.296 0.195 0.426 0.006 Yes
H13: Trust ! Satisfaction 0.295 0.070 0.294 0.182 0.420 0.007 Yes
Dynamics in
customer
loyalty
847
Figure 2.
Measurement model
The results of the structural model indicated that 11 paths were significant at p < 0.05 and 1
path at p < 0.1 in the structural model except H8. The test of the structural model indicated
that utilitarian quality has a positive impact on commitment ( b = 0.189, p < 0.05),
satisfaction ( b = 0.401, p < 0.05), trust ( b = 0.369, p < 0.05) and loyalty ( b = 0.298, p <
0.05). It was also found that hedonic quality has a positive impact on commitment ( b =
0.296, p < 0.05), trust ( b = 0.364, p < 0.05), satisfaction ( b = 0.110 p < 0.1), but it has no
effect on loyalty ( b = 0.068, p = 0.178).
In addition, the results show that online commitment ( b = 0.323, p < 0.05), online
satisfaction ( b = 0.148, p < 0.05) and online trust ( b = 0.231, p < 0.05) have positive effects
on customer loyalty in online banking; also, the customers’ trust in online banking services
has a positive effect on customer commitment ( b = 0.296, p < 0.05) and customer
satisfaction ( b = 0.294, p < 0.05).
JIMA Moreover, based on the results of squared multiple correlations, it can be stated that 0.75
12,4 variance of online loyalty construct is explained by the model. This coefficient (R2) is 0.42 for
online trust, 0.43 for online commitment and 0.48 for online satisfaction.
Table 6.
Comparison of Hypothesis Assumed path Model x2 df D x2 P
differences in x 2
H14 Trust ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – –
values (test of path Equal model 1,375.447 783 7.439 0.059
coefficients H15 Satisfaction ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – –
consistency) at Equal mode 1,369.430 783 1.424 0.700
different stages of the H16 Commitment ! Loyalty Unrestricted model 1,368.006 780 – –
relationship life cycle Equal mode 1,375.398 783 7.392 0.060
Exploration stage Buildup stage Maturity stage Decline stage
Std. Std. Std. Std.
Hypothesis Assumed path estimate SE P estimate SE P estimate SE P estimate SE P
H13 Trust ! Loyalty 0.219 0.18 0.119 0.232 0.106 0.005 0.553 0.089 0.003 0.069 0.171 0.463
H14 Satisfaction ! 0.085 0.129 0.443 0.17 0.106 0.054 0.111 099 0.273 0.100 0.333 0.676
Loyalty
H15 Commitment ! Loyalty 0.539 0.129 0.008 0.284 0.099 0.056 0.189 0.077 0.005 0.084 0.190 0.958
modeling of multi-
customer
Table 7.
Dynamics in
equations in different
group structural
JIMA 5. Discussion and managerial implications
12,4 5.1 Discussion
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the effect of service quality and
relationship quality on customer loyalty in different stages of the relationship life cycle in
online banking services. The results of the research demonstrated that the utilitarian quality
of online banking services has a positive effect on the three dimensions of relationship
850 quality (trust, commitment and satisfaction) and customer loyalty. These results are in line
with those obtained by Shin et al. (2013), Park et al. (2014), Aurier and N’Goala (2010), Polites
et al. (2012), Yaya et al. (2011) and Romulo (2007) in online environment.
Furthermore, the research results show that the hedonic quality has a positive effect on
the relationship quality dimensions (commitment, satisfaction and trust), These results are
in line with those obtained by Hwang and Kim (2007), Sahney et al. (2013), Bilgihan and
Bujisic (2014), Shin (2015), Kassim and Abdullah (2010), Shamdasani et al. (2008) and Bauer
et al. (2006). However, the hedonic quality has not a positive effect on online loyalty, in other
words, it can be deduced that in online banking services, providing hedonistic services and
creating desirable experiences do not directly affect customer loyalty.
Also, the research results show trust has a positive effect on satisfaction and
commitment. These results are in line with those obtained by Arcand et al. (2017), Sanchez-
Franco (2009), Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) and Kassim and Abdullah (2010).
The results are different in different stages of the relationship life cycle. Customers’
commitment to and trust in online banking services affect their loyalty differently in
different stages of the relationship life cycle, but the varying effect of customers’ satisfaction
with online banking services on their loyalty in different stages of relationship life cycle was
not confirmed. The results demonstrated that the impact of online trust on customer loyalty
increases until the maturity stage of the relationship and decreases and reaches its minimum
route in the decline stage. As was discussed in the theoretical framework section, in the early
stages of the relationship, the two parties’ trust in each other has not been fully shaped and
is fragile, so obviously, its effect on customer loyalty is not noteworthy. However, with the
growth of the relationship and the increase in the trust between the two sides, the element of
trust turns into a powerful construct in predicting the customer’s loyalty behavior. This
result is to some extent in line with the results obtained by Hibbard et al. (2001), who believe
that the role of trust in predicting the relationship performance increases at first but
decreases in the third and fourth stages of the relationship, as well as with the results gained
by Zhang et al. (2016), who state that the rate of trust increases along with the customer’s
performance until the third stage of the relationship life cycle and decreases in the fourth
stage.
The results obtained concerning the impact of online commitment on customer loyalty
indicate that as the relationship ages, the effect of online commitment on customer loyalty
decreases. This finding accords with the scanty empirical studies in this field. According to
Hibbard et al. (2001), with the aging of the relationship, the importance of commitment in
predicting customer performance diminishes. Likewise, Moorman et al. (1992) propose that
the cooperation based on relationship grows old in time, and thus, the impartiality existing
in the relationship decreases, the two parties’ expectations and opportunism increase, and
ultimately, the continuity of the relationship is threatened. Cambra-Fierro et al. (2018), too,
by testing the relationship between relationship quality and value co-creation which goes
under change during the relationship life cycle, confirm the claims of Moorman et al. (1992).
On the whole, this result, along with the few previous findings, points out that
commitment, as one of the basic elements of relationship marketing, which plays an
essential part in maintaining the relationship with customers, in the long run, loses its
importance in predicting customer loyalty as time passes (relationship aging) and marketers Dynamics in
cannot gain success in maintaining relationship with customers in the long run merely by customer
creating commitment. Although commitment plays an effective part in the early stages of
the relationship in attracting and retaining customers, with the aging of the relationship, it is
loyalty
considered as one of the minimum requisites for sustaining the relationship, and marketers
should invest on other marketing measures to sustain the relationship with customers. This
finding is deemed to be a challenge for relationship marketing and requires more research to
elucidate the matter.
851
Further reading
Byron, W., Keating, B.W., Alpert, F., Anton Kriz, A. and Quazi, A. (2011), “Exploring the mediating role
of relationship quality in online services”, MPRA Paper, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 33-41, available at:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40506
Eastlick, M., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2006), “Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an
integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 877-886.
Hansen, D.J., Beitelspacher, J.S. and Deitz, D.G. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of consumers’
comparative value assessments across the relationship life cycle”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 473-479, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.006.
Lach, J., Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M. and Bernardo, M. (2013), “Determinants of online booking
loyalties for the purchasing of airline tickets”, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp. 23-31, doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.006.
Roberts, K., Varki, S. and Brodie, R. (2003), “Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer
services: an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, pp. 169-196, doi:
10.1108/03090560310454037.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994), “Developmental processes of cooperative inter-organizational Dynamics in
relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118, doi: 10.5465/
amr.1994.9410122009. customer
Wu, S.L. and Li, P.C. (2011), “The relationships between CRM, RQ, and CLV based on different hotel loyalty
preferences”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 262-271, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.09.011.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com